Lords Sitting of 8 December 1983

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chichester): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

EC Consumer Affairs Council December Meeting
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the first meeting of EEC consumer ministers is to take place on 12th December next and, if so, what items are proposed for the agenda.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, a Consumer Affairs Council is planned for 12th December. Items proposed for the agenda are; a general discussion on consumer protection and information policy consideration of proposals for a rapid exchange of information on dangers arising from the use of consumer products; misleading advertising; doorstep selling; product liability and consumer credit.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that most informative reply, which is much the best I have had for a long time. May I ask him whether he is aware that the consumer organisations hope that rapid progress will be made on the matter of the exchange of information concerning dangerous products? They hope that this will prove non-controversial and, if the Minister could convey that to the Ministers concerned, it would be much appreciated.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we are broadly content with the draft council decision on this matter and hope that the few remaining problems can be speedily resolved.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the Minister tell us who will be attending that conference? Who is the Minister responsible for consumer affairs, and will consideration be given to upgrading the Ministry for consumer affairs in the Government, so that in legislation which is now being proposed by the Government we will ensure adequate consumer protection against private monopolies?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not think, on reflection, that the noble Lord would question the credentials of my honourable friend who will be representing the United Kingdom. My honourable friend Mr. Fletcher, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Corporate and Consumer Affairs, will
1184
indeed be representing this country and the only other Community member state with a consumer affairs Minister at all is France.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the fact that France will be present at this conference will probably cause problems, because their idea of what is consumable and our idea of what is consumable differ very considerably? For example, is he aware that the French eat frogs and we do not?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I hope that progress will be made at this consumer council, because it is, in fact, the first such council ever to have been held. But, as the draft directives which I mentioned in the original reply require unanimous agreement if they are to become directives, I do not think that we are going to get that at the council. But, if I may return to my first remark, I hope that there will be real progress at this important council.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, may I ask the Minister, reverting to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, whether he recalls, or whether he can get it from his brief, that some months ago I asked whether the Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Fletcher—and this is not intended as derogating him—could be upgraded to a Minister of State, in order that consumer affairs might have that importance in the eyes of the world?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Baroness's question is not in my brief, but it is always in my mind. I assure the noble Baroness that this matter has been taken note of by the Government.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that in the final analysis the success of this conference will depend on the ultimate success of a summit meeting of the European Community which is to take place next March? What consultations will there be at consumer level in relation to this, particularly on price levels?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, I do not think I would agree with that. These are matters which have arisen from what are called the two consumer action programmes of the European Community. The first one started in 1975 and the second one was formulated in 1981. These are important nuts and bolts discussions, in addition to the general discussion on consumer protection and information policy. I think that these matters can go ahead and I very much hope that they will. I should like to make it crystal clear that the Government are fully in support of a Consumer Affairs Council of this kind, regardless of what may be happening at the council which will be taking place in March of next year.

Fireworks: Sale Regulations
3.6 p.m.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any intention of tightening up regulations relating to the sale of fireworks in the retail trade to the public.
Lord Belstead: No, my Lords. There is already legislation providing safeguards against the sale of dangerous fireworks, forbidding the sale of fireworks to those under 16, and providing controls over retail outlets. In addition, by voluntary agreement, the supply of fireworks most likely to be dangerous if misused has been phased out; the number of bangers sold has been substantially reduced, as has their explosive content; and the period of general sale around 5th November has been reduced to four weeks.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very informative and helpful reply. Can he tell the House whether this situation is in any way affected by European regulations?
Lord Belstead: No, my Lords; I am not aware that this is so. But if by any chance I am in error in answering my noble friend, I will write to him immediately.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend can give us some idea of the effect of the legislation to which he has referred in reducing the number of injuries incurred, especially by young people?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, during the 1960s there were well over 2,000 injuries. Last year, 1982, which is the latest year for which I have figures, 626 people attended hospital in England, Wales and Scotland, of which 100 were serious cases.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, is the prohibition of the sale of fireworks to children under the age of 16 as ineffective as the prohibition of the sale of cigarettes to children under the age of 16?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if there are those under the age of 16 who buy fireworks, it is not for want of trying to prevent this by the Government and also the voluntary bodies, because not only is this in legislation but every year there has been a safety publicity campaign. One of the objects of the campaign has been to remind young people under 16 that they may not buy fireworks and that they must treat fireworks, when they get into their hands, with care.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, while none of us would want to be spoilsports, and all of us appreciate that round about November-time is a happy time for young people, is it not a fact that the time taken of the very valuable services of the various fire brigades throughout the country is largely employed on the night of 5th November in a way which is not most fruitful, and is in some cases dangerous, when there are other fires for other reasons?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I agree, but let us be quite clear about one thing. It is an offence to let off a firework in the street or in a public place. We are
1186
therefore talking about people who, in many cases, are in contravention of the law. But having said that, I really feel, on behalf of the Government, that the law on this has been tied up about as tightly as it can be. I think that the right way forward, in dealing with something which, after all, is a tradition and gives pleasure to thousands, is to keep on trying by voluntary agreement to get home to people that they must treat fireworks with care.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, when the Chinese invented explosives, for two centuries they confined the use of explosives to fireworks? Would we not be better occupied in trying to do the same?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord may have a point.

EC Education Grants
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what education grants have been awarded by the EEC to the United Kingdom since June 1979.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords. because of the way in which EC education grants are disbursed, the information is most conveniently given for the academic years August 1979 to July 1984.
Grants have been made tinder the education cooperation programme agreed by EC Education Ministers in 1976 to United Kingdom pilot projects designed to assist the development of national policies in the area of the transition from school to adult life. Over £1·2 million has been received since 1979. The sum of £500,000 has been made available for projects in the United Kingdom on the education of the children of migrant workers.
The Community have also given small grants to British universities under a scheme for the development of joint programmes of study between institutions of higher education in different member states designed to assist student mobility. British institutions participate in 70 per cent. of the programmes and have received about £800,000. About £150,000 has been made available to United Kingdom participants in various EC study visit schemes. In addition, the commission at their own discretion have distributed other small scale grants to various bodies and individuals for studies or other purposes.
Although the education service receives few resources directly from the European social fund, there is substantial indirect funding through participation in schemes sponsored by the Manpower Services Commission.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords. I thank the noble Earl very much for his most interesting Answer. It comes as news to quite a number of people. Too few

1187
people realise that the United Kingdom receives grants. I did not realise that they are so varied. I hope that the) will continue.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for not asking a supplementary question.
Baroness David: My Lords, if I may ask the Minister for a little more information, are there any particular regions of the country which have received most of the benefit from the many grants which he mentioned?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I do not, I am afraid, have that information. Either I can write to the noble Baroness or, if she wishes to put down a Question for Written Answer, I shall be happy to reply.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that when funds are received from the EEC in respect of education—as, for example. in the case of migrant workers—an equivalent sum is not deducted from the amounts available through the Department of Education and Science—for example, by a reduction of the money that they would have received under Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I imagine that is the case; but if I am wrong, I shall write to the noble Lord about it.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, can the Minister give an indication of what proportion of the funds which have been distributed have come to the United Kingdom in the way he has just described? Is he further aware that there is a certain amount of concern in this country about the fact that the money which is available for activities of this kind is not shared out in the way that the United Kingdom would like?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the United Kingdom participates fully in the EEC's education co-operation programme and receives its full share of the allocations.

Red Deer Commission: Chairman
3.14 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what qualifications are required for appointment as chairman of the Red Deer Commission.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, no qualifications are prescribed by statute. In practice. the criteria are knowledge and experience relevant to the work of the commission, together with the qualities necessary for the effective and successful discharge of the commission's business.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, that, if I may say so, was a most interesting reply. Is my noble friend
1188
aware that I am given to understand that the chairman-designate of the Red Deer Commission claims to have no special knowledge of red deer? Is my noble friend further aware that the commission claim an equal degree of knowledge of the chairman-designate as he of red deer, that the first they knew about his appointment was when it was announced, and that the chosen person himself only knew about his appointment a week earlier? Would it not be preferable to ensure that people chosen to head these relatively small but nonetheless very important bodies have a respectable amount of experience of the subject matter, and that the boards or commissions concerned have confidence in the experience of their leaders?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend is not suggesting for one moment that the chairman-designate is not of the highest repute and well able to carry out the job which is being entrusted to him as from 1st January. Mr. Mackenzie is a well respected hill sheep breeder. He is thoroughly conversant with the highland hill habitat occupied by deer and, having stalked himself, he will be aware of the need to have regard for the competing interests of farmers, foresters and deer forest owners. I am confident that he will discharge his new duties very well indeed. It may be of moderate advantage that he is in possession of a valid small firearms licence.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, at this juncture may I say to my noble friend that I am not suggesting in any way that the chairman-designate is anything but a person of the highest calibre and integrity. I was merely asking my noble friend about his qualifications and knowledge of red deer.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, only so that we end this Question on a jovial note, may I ask the Minister whether our children and grandchildren might not suggest that one of his qualifications should be to have a red nose?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I find it difficult to respond to the noble Lord. I cannot compete with his wit.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the Minister is aware that red deer do not belong to anybody; they can be shot on the landowner's land if they are roaming on it. It is much better to have a chairman who is at the receiving end of damage rather than a chairman who provides damage.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, since it was created in 1959 the Red Deer Commission has been singularly fortunate in having a very distinguished group of chairmen, who have all fulfilled extended periods of office. I would take this opportunity to pay a particular tribute to the immediate past chairman, who has given nine valuable years of service and who is widely respected. He is also a farmer. When he became chairman he had no specialist knowledge, but he has proved that this is not a prerequisite for carrying out the job with great efficiency.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he remembers that on a previous occasion a

1189
member of your Lordships' House in a debate on red deer showed that he was exceedingly knowledgeable? He never became chairman of the Royal Commission, but perhaps the Minister will remember that he became a predecessor of his as Minister of State at the Scottish Office.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, one never knows what may lie ahead for Mr. Mackenzie.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that in the eleventh century William Rufus, of fame in Great Britain, killed red deer in the New Forest? Perhaps the name Rufus might be added to Lord Mishcon's suggestion of a red rose.

NHS Pharmaceutical Prices and Profits
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Glenarthur will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on National Health Service pharmaceutical prices and profits.

Christmas Recess
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Christmas Recess on Wednesday, 21st December, and return on Monday. 16th January 1984.
The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 21st December.

Televising of House of Lords Proceedings
3.19 p.m.
Lord Soames Lord Soames rose to move to resolve, That this House endorses its decision of 15th June 1966 in favour of the public televising of some of its proceedings for an experimental period and instructs the Sound Broadcasting Committee to consider and report how this decision should be implemented.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It is a simple Motion, inviting the House to endorse its decision of 1966 in favour of the principle of televising some of its proceedings and to remit the whole question once more to the Sound Broadcasting Committee which, after due consideration, would report back to the House.
I should like first to express my gratitude to my noble friend the Leader of the House for providing Government time in which to have this debate. How right he was so to do seems evident from the gratifyingly large number of your Lordships who have put their names down to participate in the debate. The large number makes it incumbent upon myself, as well as others, to be as brief as possible in our remarks.
After the decision of 1966, with its clear majority in favour, and after much to-ing and fro-ing between the Broadcasting Committee and the House, it was decided some three years later to set television on one side for the time being, for reasons which I shall come to later, and to proceed first only with sound broadcasting. Even that was not introduced until 1978.
In the 17 years which have elapsed since that debate, much has happened to warrant giving further attention to this whole matter. First, many technical advances have been made both in cameras and in lighting. In 1966, colour television was in its infancy: now it is recognised to be the most important and influential medium of communication—and certainly not one to be ignored if we wish attention to be paid by the general public to our business in this House.
Some members of the general public may read Hansard, some more read parliamentary reports in the heavier of the daily editions, and probably more listen to the radio reports. But added together, all those cannot amount to but a small proportion of those who would be likely to watch television extracts of debates which they considered to be of interest, either on a national or on a regional basis. Of course, much of the business of this House would not be seen to be of sufficient public interest to be broadcast, and would clearly not be transmitted. But I do not consider it immodest for any Member of this House to refer to this as a debating Chamber of potentially the highest quality, enriched by an important degree of detachment. It is also a Chamber of great talents, with Members of great distinction and high attainment from almost every walk of our national life.
Largely as a result of that fact, some of our debates are of the highest standard. Clearly, that cannot be applied to all of them—not by any means—but a number are of the highest possible standard. I am in no doubt that provided the business of the House that is transmitted is carefully selected and well edited, under strict ground rules designed to facilitate the imparting of information rather than the knocking or mocking, then (putting it at its very lowest) the televising of this Chamber must do more good than harm. If we think it right that a wide audience should have the opportunity to see and hear something of the contribution which this House makes to our national debates, then it is for us to arrange it—for if we do not, no one else will.
I now come to the point that a large proportion of our fellow citizens who think about these matters are well aware of the importance of, and the need for, a second Chamber. There are many who would wish to see this House reformed in some way or another, with the aim of making it more directly responsible to the people. Indeed, a lot of attention has been given to that aspect in recent years by people of great knowledge and experience; but that is as far as it has gone over quite a long period of time. If the past is any guide, it would seem unlikely that reform of this House is on the political horizon—principally because of the evident difficulty of the necessary degree of agreement being reached, either on the best type of reform or on the powers which a reformed House would need to have. That is to say nothing of the pressures which such a decision would have upon available parliamentary time.
Therefore, it would seem that not only is this the best second Chamber that the country has, but it is also the best second Chamber that it is likely to have, for better or for worse, for as far ahead as we can see. That being so, I hope your Lordships will agree that we should set about to try to make the most of ourselves, as it were; that we should go to some trouble to ensure that the work we do is known about by the public, and that it is thought well of.
That obligation, as I see it, has been reinforced by the growth in recent times of an apparently influential body of political opinion which would seek to abolish this House for good and for all without putting anything in its place. The part which that attitude played in the last general election is still fresh in our minds. While we may well hope that in the future wiser counsels will prevail, he would be a bold man who said that such a proposal will not be slipped into another manifesto at some future election, perhaps well ahead.
The main point I wish to put to your Lordships is that this House, whose powers have been cut to the bone; whose reform looks, to say the least, to be unlikely in the near or medium term; and which has recently been threatened with extinction as a second Chamber, needs to look to its laurels—and to its friends. Who are its friends? Although we are not an elected Chamber, and although we are perhaps seen as something of an anachronism in these times, and although we are in the nature of things on average a rather elderly House, I believe there is a strong body of public opinion which sees a second Chamber as a real necessity and which is therefore in principle well disposed towards this House. I believe that has been reinforced since sound broadcasting of this House was introduced. I believe that the public would like to see us at work, warts and all.
So much for the reasons which lead me to wish for facilities to be provided for the televising of this House. But I do not believe it would be realistic to talk in terms of this House being televised without giving consideration to the situation of the House of Commons. Those of your Lordships who have refreshed your memories by reading in Hansard the debates on this subject in 1966, 1967 and 1969 will have noticed that in the last debate, opened by my noble friend Lord Ferrier, some noble Lords, speaking in a personal capacity, said that it could be embarrassing if either House were to be televised or broadcast without the other. They felt, therefore, that on balance we should keep in line with the House of Commons. That was some 15 years ago. I believe noble Lords will agree that during that time the House of Commons has shown but scant inclination to lead on this matter. If past performance is any guide, if this House were to decide again to wait on a decision from another place we might be waiting for an endlessly long time.
As I have said, much that is relevant has changed since that decision to wait on the House of Commons was taken in the 1960s. It would be my hope that your Lordships will agree that the time has now come for this House to make up its own mind on the merits of its own case—faced, as it is, with its own difficulties and dangers—and to proceed accordingly. All that my Motion desires or suggests is that the matter be
1192
remitted to the Broadcasting Committee, which will consider all relevant matters, both of substance and of detail, and will then report back to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House endorses its decision of 15th June 1966 in favour of the public televising of some of its proceedings for an experimental period and instructs the Sound Broadcasting Committee to consider and report how this decision should be implemented.—(Lord Soames.)
3.30 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I rise to intervene at this stage in the debate to put to your Lordships a few points which the House may wish to bear in mind relevant to my noble friend's Motion. Before doing so, I must make it clear that, speaking only for myself, I strongly support my noble friend's Motion and will vote in favour of it. I should say that I have been a strong supporter of televising Parliament, both this House and another place, since it was mooted in 1966, when I was on the losing side by one vote. On that occasion, if I may say so, I voted with the then Government Chief Whip. At that time it was suggested that very seldom could two Chief Whips have voted in the same Lobby in either House of Parliament and lost. We did, by one vote.
Perhaps because I agree with him, I thought that my noble friend made a very strong case, as he always does. I agreed in particular with what he said—perhaps I can speak only from very short experience—about the wealth of knowledge and experience in the House. It is because of that that I believe your Lordships will wish to consider the value of a wider public appreciating the wealth of experience which this House provides.
However, my purpose in speaking at this stage is to put before your Lordships some considerations which affect the running of the House. On behalf of the Government I am obliged to say only one thing. for which I am relieved. I need state only the obvious; namely, that they would wish to study carefully the public expenditure implications of any scheme for the televising of Parliament. On the general principles with which we are concerned today the Government remain neutral—some of them more neutral than others.
The Motion endorses the decision made by this House on 15th June 1966. That decision led to the setting up of a Select Committee, and in February 1968 to a closed circuit experiment. In March 1969 there was a debate on the results of the experiment, but after that no further action was taken. The principal reason appears to have been an unwillingness to introduce public broadcasting before similar arrangements were made in another place. When public sound broadcasting was introduced on a permanent basis in 1978, it began in both Houses at the same time.
If your Lordships agree to the Motion before us today, the result may well be that a television experiment takes place in this House alone. I am bound to tell your Lordships that my colleagues in another place feel that that is bound to lead to some practical and political problems. Undoubtedly, any decision to

1193
televise your Lordships' House would put pressure on another place to follow suit. It is, I believe, important that we should not act in a way which would make it difficult for those in another place to take their own decisions, in their own time. It may be, therefore, that the best way for this House to proceed, if that is your Lordships' wish, would be, as my noble friend's Motion says, by way of experiment for a limited period only. The House would then be able to look carefully at the results of the experiment before deciding whether to go ahead with any more permanent scheme. That would give those in another place a breathing space in which to consider their own plans, and the experiment in this House might well prove helpful to them in deciding how to go forward.
I would remind your Lordships that there was an interval of nearly three years between the experiment in sound broadcasting in another place in 1975 and the introduction of permanent sound broadcasting in both Houses. Nevertheless, the sound broadcasting of Parliament is now firmly established. With television as well, perhaps your Lordships may think, it is best to make haste slowly, though I am bound to agree with my noble friend when he says that up till now we have not been making haste at all, even slowly.
There are, of course, a number of ways in which an experiment in the televising of our proceedings could be arranged. Recent proposals for televising proceedings in another place have, for example, involved the concept of a parliamentary television unit. Among other things, this would obviously raise important questions of editorial control. Another alternative, which your Lordships might well prefer, would be the so-called "drive-in" scheme. Under such a scheme the broadcasters would install their own cameras whenever they wished to record or to broadcast the proceedings. Either scheme would raise important questions of editorial judgment and selection. My own feeling is that the most practical answer, at least for an experimental period, would probably be a "drive-in" basis, but any such decision would in no way limit the options for the longer term, either in this House or in another place.
Another question on which an experiment could provide valuable experience would be the form of programmes which the broadcasting authorities would be able to provide, and whether the format of such programmes was acceptable to your Lordships. Clearly these are all important matters affecting our proceedings, which the Sound Broadcasting Committee will wish to consider, if your Lordships agree to the Motion this afternoon.
Another example of a problem from the Government's point of view would be Ministerial Statements. If a Ministerial Statement were made in another place and repeated in this House, it might be felt to be inappropriate if only the repetition of the Statement could be televised. That particular problem could be overcome very simply by prohibiting the televising of Ministerial Statements originally made in another place. My Lords, if it were thought that I put that in to please my colleagues in another place, that would be correct.
I have mentioned only a few of the problems which will need to he considered. There are several other matters which will need to be resolved; for example,
1194
the physical accommodation of the equipment and of the staff operating that equipment, the restrictions to be placed on the use of extracts from recordings, the copyright in the recordings, whether an archive copy of some or all of the recordings should be retained in Parliament, and the position with regard to parliamentary privilege. All these points will. I am sure, be given careful consideration by the Sound Broadcasting Committee, if my noble friend's Motion is agreed to. I shall, therefore, say no more about them at this stage.
I look forward to hearing what other noble Lords have to say in this debate. With the leave of the House, I shall seek to reply to them at the end of the debate, and at the same time to state some of my personal views on the general principle.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I had not made-up my mind to speak in this debate until I found I was put in the honourable place of third on the list, and I am now committed. My reason for wanting to speak was to explain why, having opposed the proposal in 1969, I have come to the view that the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Soames, should be supported. My reason for doing so I shall seek to explain; and I should perhaps go back into history a little, because I am probably one of the last of the Reithian producers appointed to the BBC. along with other colleagues, some of whom have gone rather further, like the late Guy Burgess.
In those days we were not allowed to broadcast anything that was not scripted. We thought with horror of the possibility of having some popular author like J. B. Priestley being asked to broadcast. There was nearly a revolution. On the whole, politicians were people we preferred not to see, and when we did see them they were very reluctant to take our advice.
I support this Motion, but I must make it clear that I do not do so officially on behalf of the Labour Party. We have a free vote, and colleagues will express their own views. Nor do I support it entirely for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Soames, gave. I do not believe that in the long run it will be possible for your Lordships' House to be broadcast and for the House of Commons not to be broadcast. It really would be such a nonsense and would expose us to a certain amount of laughter, however intelligent we are; though I believe that our debates are rather more orderly than those in another place. However, it would be inconceivable that the first Chamber in our British parliamentary system was not to be broadcast, whereas the House of Lords was.
Nevertheless, your Lordships have had a reputation as sometimes pioneering legislation and other activities which another place has been rather reluctant to tackle because there could be embarrassing party or personal issues which affect a Member of Parliament in his constituency. Noble Lords will remember some of the social legislation which we passed before it was taken up in another place.
It must be said, in fairness, that there are quite serious objections to the broadcasting and televising of Parliament. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, pointing out that we know one another here, that we do not pay attention to anyone outside

1195
when we are debating, and that we are not particularly aware of the Gallery. We have a degree of understanding and good manners, and our performance is judged by what is seen by people in this House, rather than by what people may or may not see outside.
For a Member in another place sitting for a marginal constituency there could be difficulties. I had a majority of only 16, and I must say that had the proceedings been televised, it would have presented severe problems as to whether I ought to spend all my time appearing in the Commons, to be seen hard at work, when in fact it was desirable that I should not spend my time there but should work on countless other matters. I have always regretted the hostile comments of the press concerning certain Members of Parliament who have not spoken in the Chamber but who have done sterling work in committees which was never recognised by the public. It would be difficult, and I can well understand the other place being hesitant.
On the other hand, as the noble Viscount said, there was an occasion when the other place nearly decided on the issue, and there was a very strange result. Your Lordships will remember that the late Dick Crossman, who usually got things right, did not entirely do so in the latter hours of that debate. It was almost by chance that many years ago the Commons did not vote in favour.
My view is that we ought not to wait any longer. Sooner or later broadcasting and television will come, as it has in other parts of the world. I hope that it will lead to a greater understanding by the public of what actually happens in Parliament. I hope, too, that broadcasting will not be confined just to what happens in the Chamber. but will reflect the work of Members of Parliament or Members of the House of Lords in other respects, in particularly in the very important committee work, which is growing all the time. Indeed, it was Mr. Crossman who was one of the pioneers of the development of committee work in the Commons. In many ways the work in the committees is probably more effective than are the battles on the Floor of the House, which maybe entertaining, and which some people regard as of primary importance. They are of primary importance in terms of our personal liberties. We must bear in mind the ability to bring matters to either House, and for people to speak on them Nonetheless, other work is also important. Therefore, I think that it will be necessary to approach this question with great caution to ensure that we achieve a balance—which is exceedingly difficult to achieve—and maintain it.
I am confirmed in my belief that we should go this way in view of the likely development of cable television. Hitherto there has been a shortage of space. Parliament would be competing against more entertaining activities—though there are times when both Houses can be exceptionally entertaining—to a degree that we would sometimes prefer other people not to see. But with the development of cable television and the prospect of more than one wavelength being available, the situation becomes a great deal easier, provided that it is not to consist merely of selected excerpts from Parliament which
1196
may or may not truly reflect the feeling of Parliament.
One must recognise that other Parliaments, such as the Canadian Parliament, are televised. Certainly one cannot turn on television in America without seeing proceedings in Congress in some form. I do not know enough about the manners in Congress, but I am bound to say that on occasions, the Canadian House of Commons resembles the British House of Commons, except that it is rather noisier because the Canadian Members bang their desks. Even that cannot be very edifying for the listeners. However, in the long run it will not be possible for us to deny to the public the right to see their Parliament at work, whether it be the Lords or the Commons. I believe that if the facilities are available, and if it can be properly done, an experiment of the kind proposed is desirable. We do not have the right to deny it.
I believe that initially it should be an experiment but if it is a success. I should be surprised if the Commons did not follow, bearing in mind that they previously so nearly decided to do so. However, I ask your Lordships to realise that it is a difficult decision for Members of the Commons, and that it will be abundantly necessary to get across to the public what the work of Parliament is about. as they still do not know. Therefore, it is not a straightforward issue, but I have no hesitation in saying, now that 14 years have elapsed, that we should support this Motion, and I propose to vote for it.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Soames, for bringing forward his very subtly worded Motion, and for moving it in such persuasive tones. Some noble Lords may have noticed that I had a similar Motion, though less subtly worded, on the Order Paper, but so as to enable the noble Lord, Lord Soames, to move his Motion it was necessary for me to remove mine. When there is a Motion which has behind it the combined weight of the noble Lord. Lord Soames, and the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, obviously it is very wise for me to withdraw my Motion and having heard the noble Lord, Lord Soames, introduce his Motion I am confirmed in that opinion.
I also recognise that this is a very limited proposal. It is not the last word on the matter. Noble Lords who think that we are suddenly opening the floodgates to having the whole place invaded permanently with television cameras should realise that the Motion asks merely for an experiment and suggests only that the Sound Broadcasting Committee should advise on the manner in which the experiment should be conducted. Your Lordships will no doubt have a second, if not a third, bite at the cherry, if any of you find it unpalatable on this occasion.
Having declared something of an interest, perhaps I should also declare something of a responsibility. The noble Viscount referred to the earlier debate, in 1966, in another place, as did the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. As noble Lords have been reminded, the result of that debate was a defeat by one vote. The Motion was in the name of the then Leader of the House, Mr. Richard Crossman. I was in charge of my small party group—it was a small group—and I was consulted at the time by Mr. Jo Grimond, as he then

1197
was, who had just arrived at Heathrow Airport from a visit to Eastern Europe. He asked whether he need attend for the vote. I said that he need not bother and that it would be won very easily. A little later Mr. David Steel asked whether he could absent himself from the vote in order to do a television programme for the BBC. I said that he could, with pleasure. When we lost by one vote I felt in part responsible, so I do hope that I can do something to make amends today.
As I have said, this is a very limited proposal. It seeks merely to undertake an experiment. If noble Lords are inclined, or tempted, to say that we have already had an experiment and to ask why we should need another one, perhaps I may give one or two reasons for it. In my view, the last experiment was an outstanding success. The tapes have been preserved and can be seen by any noble Lords who wish to see them. I thought that the debate which was televised was excellent. It was a debate on sport. Noble Lords whose names were internationally known spoke in that debate. They included Lord Burghley, my noble friend Lord Byers, who had been fleet of foot in representing our nation in the Olympic Games, and Lord Wakefield of Kendal, who for many years dominated the rugby field. We were able to see that, while they were not still fleet of foot, they were extremely fleet of tongue and did very good service. The experiment showed the House to be what it is—a debating chamber of the highest possible quality and one which should be seen more often by others.
Some noble Lords may feel that an experiment is a foot in the door for things to come. So be it. The matter will come back to your Lordships at a later stage if you decide to have the experiment. Noble Lords may also wonder why we should have another experiment. I would say for two reasons. First, the main objections to televising the proceedings in our Chamber in the past always seemed to be precisely the same as those which were advanced against the admission of the press two centuries ago. I think that it was the noble and learned Lord who now sits on the Woolsack who said that televising our debates would reduce the proceedings in the Chamber to the level of a music hall turn. When we had the experiment, all the fears were shown to be ill-founded.
There was one real problem—the obtrusiveness of the mechanics, machinery and personnel necessary for televising. On the occasion of the experiment noble Lords complained about the lighting, the apparatus and other inconveniences. We are now in an entirely different situation. Vast improvements and advances have been made in the technique of television broadcasting. It would now be possible to televise the proceedings of the Chamber without any intrusiveness. There would be no extra lighting or staff needed to move and focus cameras. Remotely operated cameras would be fixed. Frankly, the obtrusiveness of the equipment would be even less than that of the box up there which has been installed for sound broadcasting. I think that after the previous experiment many years ago, an experiment now would show the differences and that such objections are no longer valid.
There is a further reason why we should have another experiment. As the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, and the noble Lord, Lord Soames, have
1198
said, since the last experiment was conducted, the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament are broadcast on sound radio. Both channels now use sound tapes in association with still pictures, cartoons, other visual machinery or other pictures. If we have the sound, why not have the real pictures? On all four television channels about six hours a week are concerned with Parliament. At the end of each debate the main protagonists rush off in taxis either to Broadcasting House or to ITN to give potted versions of the debate. During the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget speech, for years we had a group of people talking about what he was saying. Messengers would come in to say that he had just said this, that or the other. Now at long last we can hear the Budget speech from another place on sound radio. But on television such debates are associated with cartoons and still photographs.
Those are two reasons why we should have a new experiment. First, the rules have changed. The apparatus is now much more simple and less obtrusive than when the previous experiment was conducted. Secondly, we are in a new situation in that we now have sound broadcasting of the proceedings of both Houses. Why not go the whole hog and have our proceedings televised?
It would be wrong for me as a member of the Select Committee to pre-empt the judgment and recommendations of the Select Committee as to the form of an experiment if your Lordships were pleased to pass this Motion. But my personal view is that we should not venture too much and too far into the idea of controls and setting up a House of Lords television unit, perhaps on the assumption that we are better at running television than the professionals. If we trust the broadcasters, we should let them in to do what they do. If we do not trust them, we should not let them in at all. After the experiment, if they televise our proceedings, and if it is done in a way which we do not like, we have the ultimate sanction to say, "That is it. Out you go". But my advice is that if we decide to have television, we should not try to control it too much. Let us have television, warts and all.
I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Soames, for introducing this matter. I very much hope that noble Lords will support this simple proposal.
3.55 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester: My Lords, I wish briefly to give support to the Motion from these Benches. I have been interested in how very often at the social gatherings which follow confirmations and similar occasions I am asked about the proceedings of this House. People are very interested when I try to explain how we are a self-regulating body and the atmosphere of courtesy that prevails. If further proceedings of this House could be televised, I am sure that it would do a great deal to help the understanding of the House in the country at large and to remove prejudice and misunderstanding. It is perhaps worth remembering that some proceedings of the House are already televised on the occasion of the State opening of Parliament. It would be an additional advantage for people to be able to see that we do something else besides this great ceremonial occasion—that we are a working body.

1199
May I add just one or two points from the experience of the General Synod of the Church of England, which has had some of its proceedings televised for several years now? As a result of this, may I say first of all that I have not noticed any tendency on the part of members of the General Synod to play to the cameras? I am rather reluctant to think that Members of this House are any less able to resist temptation.
I was particularly interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said about improvements in techniques. In the General Synod we have found the lights very trying indeed. I am sure that this problem influences the debates both because of the glare that sometimes gets into the eyes of speakers and because of the heat created. We find that it is an enormous relief when the operators decide that a debate has reached a point at which it is no longer of any public interest and switch off the lights. We almost feel then that we can settle down to a proper discussion. Taking account of all that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has said, I hope that the Committee will give serious attention to the problem of the lighting. This would suggest that we should have a fairly limited trial period so that we can find out how far the improvements remove this considerable disadvantage.
I should like to give support to the Motion. In view of the long list of speakers, perhaps I may also apologise in advance if I have to leave before the end of the debate.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, in asking, as I most certainly do, for your Lordships' indulgence this afternoon, I cannot avoid recalling a similarly painful occasion over 32 years ago when I made a maiden speech in another place. It was a singularly anodyne affair, which I can safely say gave no offence to anyone. It was lit up for a brief moment with the gratification which I felt at the presence of the Prime Minister who was still in his place to hear this important utterance. The Prime Minister at the time was the father-in-law of my noble friend Lord Soames. That brief moment of gratification was soon dispelled when he turned, glared and, concluding that he had seen enough and heard enough, departed. The only other thing that I recall about that occasion was the speed with which the apprehension and alarm which I felt gave way subsequently to the peacefulness of anti-climax. That left me with the conviction that a maiden speech is something one is better without and the sooner you get rid of it the better.
This afternoon I find myself in the unhappy position of being, I think, the first speaker who wishes to express some views aginst the Motion so eloquently moved by my noble friend Lord Soames. I hope that I may be forgiven if I speak of Parliament as a whole. I do so for two reasons: first, I do not believe it realistic to suppose that if one House admits the cameras, the other will not do likewise; and, secondly, my own experience necessarily relates to another place.
On a previous occasion I supported the introduction of sound broadcasting. I believe that I was wrong and I should like very briefly to touch upon my reasons. I fear that where the interests of television and Parlia-
1200
ment come into conflict, it is likely that those of Parliament will, in the long run, be eroded. Television is a thrusting and intrusive medium, and I believe that those who handle it have little difficulty in persuading themselves that their interests should always come first on the grounds that they coincide inevitably with the national interest. Secondly, experience of sound broadcasts in another place leads me to believe that they have done little to enhance the reputation of that House.
Thirdly, there being no suggestion of total coverage, I think that partial coverage presents very real difficulties in the areas of selection, editing and comment. These inevitably will be in the hands not of Parliament but of the medium, and I fear that that will be a source of unease and difficulty to Parliament as a whole. Fourthly, I believe that whatever restrictions may be imposed in the long run are unlikely to endure. Suggestions were made recently in another place that the cameras will be fixed to the wall and will thereby be inhibited from focusing upon what is sensitive and therefore interesting. They will not be permitted to pan out on empty Benches; they will not be able to focus upon sleeping Members or take reaction shots. I most strongly believe that so hobbled and emaciated a version would very soon provoke demands for something more complete and more interesting.
My final reason for opposing this Motion is a real doubt as to how well or how far Parliament and television are likely to prove good for each other—and here I particularly wish to avoid the pitfalls of controversy. There is so much which is informal, confusing and, if I may say so, unexciting in our debates. Not all Acts of Parliament are either sensible or even comprehensible. Not all our debates are lucid and scintillating; the subject matter often enough makes that impossible, but I think we are obliged to ask ourselves the question: how much of that constitutes a diet suitable for television? I fear that there would be a tendency to highlight further those ritual occasions such as the annual budget. Recollections of that occasion—and this is certainly no party point—lead me to think of it as a feast of erroneous diagnoses, wrong forecasts and irrelevant remedies.
To sum up, Parliament is a very strange and unique assembly put together in strange ways. It is one very easy to criticise and to lampoon. It offers, however, a buttress to personal liberty, and an alternative to civil commotion. If now, in order to make itself more interesting and more entertaining, it accepts the yoke of television, I believe it will be putting in jeopardy things of greater importance and more real and lasting worth.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Hill of Luton: My Lords, it is the first time in 20 years in this House that I have had the privilege of following and congratulating a maiden speaker, and I am particularly pleased to do so as he is an old friend from another place whose vigour shown over those years still remains alive within him. Indeed, in wishing for many more contributions from him, I hope that I shall be able to agree with some of them as I hear them.
The noble Lord, Lord Soames, put up what I thought was the most convincing and considered

1201
argument for the experiment with a view to the televising of this House. I propose to be very brief and limit myself to three points. First, the principle of the exposure of Parliament to the public was decided many years ago: it was decided, first, in relation to the printing of Hansard; and, secondly, to the admission of the press to the proceedings of Parliament. What is now proposed is that the television medium, which to some measure has displaced the press as a source of news, should now be admitted. After all, whether we like it or not, the most significant, the most widely listened to and observed news is now from television rather than from the press. Facing that fact, it seems to me inevitably to follow in an open democracy already committed to that full exposure that the door should be open to the medium which is the most effective exposure of information in this country.
Secondly, in the consideration that lies ahead, I hope that it will be accepted that it will not be for this House, or for a group of Members of this House, to determine what is broadcast and what is not broadcast. It must, I suggest, be the media, with their commitment to impartiality, who are responsible for the selection and use of the material provided for them by the proceedings of this House. Anything else would be gravely misunderstood. This is not an exercise in public relations for this House. It is making available, through the medium that is the principal source of news, what happens here to the general public.
My third point is just this. While I agree that it would be very timely for this House to be televised when its continuance and its composition are increasingly open to debate, it makes sense that the public should know something about what goes on in this House through the medium of television, but again not as a public relations exercise. That is not to say that we shall use this development in order to expound our virtues and to underline our qualities. It is that by making available information as to what goes on, the public will be better able to judge and better able to vote on issues concerning the composition and the future of this House.
We are deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Soames, for bringing this matter up again and for dealing with it with such vigour and clarity as he has done today.

NHS Pharmaceutical Prices and Profits
4.12 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement being made in another place by my honourable friend the Minister for Health. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the discussion that I and the Secretary of State have been having on behalf of all the United Kingdom Health Ministers with representatives of the pharmaceutical industry on the scope for savings in the NHS drugs bill and other matters of mutual concern.
"Prescription medicines cost the NHS in England about £1,250 million in 1982–83. Drugs account for
1202
about 40 per cent. of the total cost of the family practitioner service and about 10 per cent. of the cost of the NHS as a whole. The pharmaceutical industry's profits from NHS sales are governed by the non-statutory pharmaceutical price regulation scheme which was introduced in its present form in 1978. In the words of the published scheme, it is a key objective that safe and effective medicines should be available on reasonable terms to the NHS, but also that a strong, efficient and profitable pharmaceutical industry should exist in the United Kingdom. The industry's present target profit level was set by the Labour Government in 1978. Like our predecessors, we recognise that there is a major and successful industry providing 67,000 jobs and with a net balance of exports over imports of around £600 million a year.
"However, the present scheme has run unaltered for over five years. A review of the PPRS and its role in relation to the industry and the NHS was announced earlier this year. After extensive discussion with the industry's representatives and having taken account of the tenth report of the Public Accounts Committee published in April, we have decided both to reduce the level of profit from NHS business and the level of sales promotion allowed as an expense under the scheme.
"First, under the scheme, each pharmaceutical company participating in it is assigned a target rate of profit taking account of the circumstances of the individual company, the contribution which it makes or is likely to make to the economy, including foreign earnings, investment, employment or research. We have decided that these targets should be reduced by an average of four percentage points which will represent a saving to the NHS in the United Kingdom of about £40 million a year. We have also decided that the discretion which our department allows in certain cirucmstances when companies exceed their target profit rates should be tightened and related more closely to a company's particular circumstances. Companies will be told what their new targets are very shortly.
"Secondly, the industry will spend about £180 million this year on sales promotion. Some, but not all, of this amount is an allowable expense under the PPRS. Such promotion is funded largely from NHS sales, and we have concluded that the allowable level should be reduced. We propose, first, that companies should be asked to repay to the department a sum equivalent to any sales promotion expenditure which exceeds the level allowed under the scheme; and, second, that the industry limit should be reduced from the present level of 10 per cent. of turnover to 9 per cent. in 1985–86. We estimate that, when fully implemented, these measures should reduce actual expenditure on sales promotion by 25 per cent. but we will review this area again to see if further reduction can be made.
"All measures I have announced will take effect from 1st April next year. In a full year, they will produce savings on the NHS drug bill rising on present estimates from £65 million in 1984–85 to well over £100 million in later years. This compares with the industry's total profit from sales in the

1203
United Kingdom in 1983 of an estimated £200 million. The changes will mean that the price freeze on drugs, introduced in August as part of the £25 million savings agreed then, will continue, with few exceptions, through 1984–85 and beyond. Further-more. the price freeze will be at the level established by the 2½ per cent. cut of August.
"We have also discussed with the industry the problem of parallel importing of drugs. This occurs when an importer takes advantage of exchange rates and low regulated prices of particular drugs in other countries to import or rampart those drugs into this country in competition with the identical or near identical products already marketed here. At present, an exemption order under the Medicines Act is being used by parallel importers, in a way not envisaged when the order was made, to bring into Britain substantial quantities of medicines without a licence.
"Clearly, there are potential health hazards if a drug has not been properly manufactured or stored, or if labels are in a foreign language, or if there is difficulty in tracing a batch of drugs found to be faulty. We are not aware of any actual injury to patients but we propose to guard against that possibility. We are statutorily required to consult on these matters, and we will therefore shortly issue a consultative document on proposals which will ensure that medicines parallel imported for general dispensing must be licensed under the Medicines Act, either in the ordinary way, or. in the case of medicines, also licensed in the European Community, through a modified licence to cover such safety matters as storage, labelling and tracing.
"There remains the question of generic substitution which we have also been considering in the context of the PPRS review, as announced earlier this year. The Greenfield Committee proposed that a pharmacist should substitute an equivalent generic preparation for proprietary medicine unless the prescribing doctor had specifically indicated that this should not be done. The Committee acknowledged that they had not taken account of the wider implications, for example, on the pharmaceutical industry, of their recommendation.
"Consultation on the Greenfield report earlier this year showed professional opinion to be divided on this recommendation, which was only one of 14.It became clear that many general practitioners were concerned that their patients would be supplied with formulations of drugs that their doctors had not prescribed. General practitioners and pharmacists foresaw problems of divided responsibilities for the treatment of patients. The various procedures considered all raised serious practical problems.
"We have therefore decided not to proceed with generic substitution. We do, however, intend to start a new campaign to encourage generic prescribing by doctors. As to the other recommendations of the Greenfield Committee, we have already announced our acceptance of these or referred them to the appropriate educational bodies.
"Finally, there are a number of other matters arising from the review of the PPRS which have still
1204
to be resolved in discussion with the industry. In particular, a study of transfer prices, which are the prices charged by a foreign-based company to its United Kingdom subsidiary, is being conducted by independent consultants, and our Department is undertaking a study of pharmaceutical wholesalers' profit margins.
"In framing these proposals, the Government have sought to achieve a balance between the interests of the NHS as customer and the interests of the industry. We recognise the research achievements of the industry and the contribution it makes to the United Kingdom economy and we want to see it continue to flourish. However, there is an urgent need to contain the drugs bill for the health service, and this we are also determined to achieve. I very much hope that the industry will accept this position as we wish to continue with the price regulation scheme on a non-statutory basis".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, first. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for repeating this Statement, which is long and complicated. I must congratulate the noble Lord on the way in which he has managed to cope with it, because no Member of this House could say that he could not understand what the noble Lord was saying—or, at least, the words that he was using. But the content, of course, is a different matter. Incidentally, I would point out that, through some technical hitch. I did not get the last section of the Statement. But, never mind; we can deal with that later.
The Statement is in many respects welcome, but I must say that it is a somewhat meagre response to excessive profit-taking by the industry in the past. There is in fact to be no refund of past excessive profits. I welcome the decision to cut sales promotion expenses. I think the Government will appreciate that in the future this will have to be very closely watched all the time.
The decision on generic drug substitution is welcome inasmuch as pharmacists will not face substitution on a doctor's prescription, which could have created serious problems and possible harm to patients. That situation was never "on". Generic prescribing by doctors instead of prescribing brand drugs could effect considerable savings. It is appreciated that one cannot legislate on this. The decision must rest with each doctor, who must have complete responsibility. Can we be assured that the Government's new campaign to encourage doctors will be pressed with the greatest vigour and determination?
Finally, in view of the estimated savings of £65 million in 1984–85 and well over £100 million in later years, will the Government consider the reduction of prescription charges—which have risen excessively under Conservative Administrations in spite of election promises—or, indeed, the avoidance of further cuts in the National Health Service?
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, in thanking the

1205
noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for repeating this important Statement. The noble Lord may care to note that our initial response on these Benches would be a cautious welcome to what seems to us, at first hearing at least, to be a very cautious Statement. We take the view that the drug bill is too big and that it should be reduced substantially and speedily. We entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that the Government are right in doing what they can to discourage excessive expenditure on sales promotion. The noble Lord may care to note that the Government have our entire support on that matter.
Further, as regards generic prescribing we think that perhaps at this stage the Government may be right to proceed by way of persuasion. But we take the view that time alone will show whether the Government's persuasion has been sufficiently persuasive. In the meantime, would the noble Lord agree that it cannot be right that a retail chemist should have to continue to keep in stock some 120 entirely differently named iron preparations, or perhaps getting on for 100 very similar but differently named anti-histamine preparations, merely in order to satisfy the conservative idiosyncrasies of elderly doctors who are resistant to change? Therefore, we would urge the Government to persuade as speedily and as forcefully as they can.
I should like to ask the noble Lord about one other matter. In their anxiety to save money on the drugs bill, will the Government note that there is a waste as regards drugs in other ways? For example, the prescription charges, as at present levied, tend to encourage poly-pharmacy—that is, the mixing up of different ingredients in one tablet or one bottle—which is expensive and wasteful? Secondly, the prescription charges tend to encourage mass prescribing or bulk prescribing by doctors, which can also be very wasteful. On these Benches we shall watch very carefully to see the results of the Government's attempts at persuasion.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful for the general welcome which both noble Lords have given to the Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked about the refund of past excessive profits. The PPRS provides for excess profits to be recovered either by rebate or by price reductions. There have been refunds or excessive profits in the past, and, in fact, a cheque for over £1 million was received from one company only yesterday. So I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied on that account.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked about generic prescribing and the need to educate rather than to coerce. I entirely agree with what they say. It is, in fact. largely a matter of re-education for newly-qualified doctors, because newly-qualified doctors leave their medical schools trained to prescribe drugs by their generic names. When they enter general practice, where prescribing by brand names is the more common practice, there is the invevitable tendency to adopt the habit of using the short and easily remembered brand names. We rightly have to convince general practitioners that generic prescribing is effective prescribing, and we must make it as easy as possible for them to do so.
1206
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked about reductions in prescription charges. The noble Lord will know that I am not going to he drawn along that particular track tonight. I am sure that if he has any particular points in mind, he will bring them to my attention and I will happily write to him about them.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, raised a point about other waste within the retail chemist trade or in the pharmaceutical trade, and waste generally. These are matters that are being considered. What the noble Lord said is very valid indeed, and it is something which the Government will keep under review. The Government will note the comments that the noble Lord has made.
Lord Regatta: My Lords, can my noble friend assure us that as a result of these changes there is no likelihood of any diminution in the very important research which is at present being carried out by many of the pharmaceutical companies?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, I can tell my noble friend that of course the research aspect of the pharmaceutical industry is an important one, and that it will not be affected in the way in which my noble friend fears.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the Statement which the noble Minister has made this afternoon must be welcome because it enables us now to examine in some detail some of the matters which were rumoured, and to test which are fiction and which are fact. For example, sometimes there have been grotesque figures and sometimes there have been realistic figures of the enormous profits being made in the pharmaceutical industry. The noble Lord has to bear in mind the recommendations that were made by the highest authority of which we can conceive in this democracy—a Royal Commission—and all the facts that they took on hoard just four years ago, when they made their report. That, too, should be examined.
Will the noble Lord please also bear in mind the situaton as regards ordinary people, and not merely the economics of the pharmaceutical industry? In just over four years the public have had to pay prescription charges increased from 20pto £1.40. Also, they are beginning to understand from the doctors themselves that very often—and this is an important point—doctors get samples of drugs which they are told they can administer, but often they do not have a clue what is in them. Therefore, we have seen an increase in what has been described as "the side effects" of drugs, and when the doctor is told of this he says, "Forget it: do not take any more". That was not much comfort in the thalidomide tragedy. That must never be forgotten in the interests both of the ordinary people and of those who are doing an excellent job in the drug and pharmaceutical industry. They make a massive contribution to good health and the maintenance of good health—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Molloy: But the noble Lord should be aware that we must take these matters into consideration as well as the economics of the situation—
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords. I must point out to the noble Lord that it is quite in order to ask questions of a Minister after he has made a Statement, but it is not in order to turn the matter into a general debate.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords. I am bound to say that I am not quite clear where the questions lay in what the noble Lord has just said. However, he attempted to draw me on the question of prescription charges. I think he ought to bear in mind—and I am sure that other noble Lords will as well—that 75 per cent. of all prescriptions are, in fact, exempted from charges anyway, whatever might have happened to the rise in prescription charges over the years.
The noble Lord must bear in mind that there is a balance to be struck here, which I think was brought out in the Statement: that we have to retain and develop a very soundly-based pharmaceutical industry as well as trying to contain the level of charges to the NHS. I am sure that when the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, reads the Statement again, he will understand the points more fully.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord two specific questions. First, on the proposal that,
"companies should be asked to repay to the department a sum equivalent to any sales promotion expenditure which exceeds the level allowed under the scheme",
can the noble Lord give us an assurance that this money will, in fact, go back into the National Health Service budget?—because, as he well knows, his department also has a great number of other responsibilities into which, on the face of it. it might be siphoned off.
Secondly, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that we cannot legislate on generic prescribing, and I also agree with my noble ally, Lord Winstanley, that it is better to do this by persuasion. However, although generic prescribing was only one of 14 recommendations in the Greenfield Report, it was, in fact, the most important one, and a very simple scheme was advanced in Section 24. I simply want to ask the noble Lord whether he would consider encouraging the introduction of that as a pilot scheme in the area of one or perhaps more family practitioner committees which were prepared to try it out.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, on the second point which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has raised, that is something that I should like to look at rather than respond to immediately. On his first question about repayments for sales promotions, yes, the new proposal is that expenditure over limit would be repaid to the department instead of merely being treated as notional profit for assessing price increases and rebates for excessive profits.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I should like to make two short observations. First, to echo the words of my noble friend Lord Winstanley, the implementation of many of the matters referred to in the Statement will require a cautious approach. My second observation is to declare an interest, in that I had the privilege of being a member of the inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry. chaired so ably by my
1208
noble friend Lord Sainsbury, whom I see in his place at the end of this Bench. Therefore, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, on behalf of the Labour Party. may I presume to say that if his party, when it was in Government, had taken more notice—
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, we are running into great trouble here, As I said earlier to the noble Lord. Lord Molloy, it is quite in order to ask the Minister questions on the Statement that he has made. It is not in order to go into a great debate and start criticising what other noble Lords have said.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, in that case, I do not think that I ought to be drawn on what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, in giving a general and very warm welcome to this Statement, I should like to put two brief questions to my noble friend. First, can my noble friend the Minister say what consultations there have been, or will be, with the ABPI and the other pharmaceutical bodies on the implications of this scheme? Secondly, can he give any estimate as to how many pharmaceutical products are currently imported into this country as opposed to our own home-produced products? Is he aware that, if we can use more home-produced and home-tested products, this Statement would be additionally valuable?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords. I must start by saying that I do not have in front of me the figures in relation to the second part of my noble friend's question, but I shall certainly find out and write to him. As regards consultations with the ABPI, these will continue.

Televising of House of Lords Proceedings
4.35 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, on returning to the television debate after that important Statement, I should like to say that it is, of course, a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, on this subject. I think that the noble Lord may be a little worried because on a previous occasion he was somewhat concerned to find himself in agreement with me. I have to tell him that on this occasion I am in agreement with him, and I think that perhaps both of us had better start worrying.
However, this issue is not one on which we need to divide on party political or even non-party lines. It is an issue as to whether we take the view that we are, as it were, a private organisation whose proceedings must be kept rather to itself and not spread too widely, or, if they are known at all, must be sifted through some other organisation and should not be seen directly by the public. Of course, we have proceeded to the point at which they may be heard.
However, before I go into that, there is a further point on which I find myself in agreement with the

1209
noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, which was when he congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, on his maiden speech. I am very happy to be the first to congratulate the noble Lord from this side of the House. He and I have shared another Chamber over a period of time. I have heard him speak on a number of occasions, always with clarity. I cannot say that I frequently agree with him, and on this occasion it follows that, as I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, I am unable to agree with the content of the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, much as I admired its delivery. Nevertheless, I am sure that your Lordships will look forward to hearing the noble Lord many times in the future.
As we are being broadcast, the question, therefore, is: should we be televised? I am very much a radio man, and here I had better declare an interest because I have written a radio play which has been broadcast and I have written another one which is to he broadcast next year. But this is an area in which radio is pre-eminent. It is possible to argue that in the radio play there is an art form which is distinct from any other art form. I do not think that the television play has established itself to that extent, because the view can be taken that the television play is perhaps a rather inferior form of cinema. One cannot take any such view about the radio play.
However, where television comes into its own is in the documentary area. When one is trying to present an actual event the radio becomes very much second-rate. Someone has to describe it; it has to be sieved through another person. I am bound to say that much of the sieving which is done in the press by the political correspondents does not strike me as being very competent at all. Here we are debating whether or not we are to rely upon sound alone, and one knows what a wrong impression one can get. I take the view that reliance upon sound alone in our two Chambers has not had a good effect. I think that the clarification and the presentation of the events themselves by the addition of vision will, after a period, be beneficial rather than otherwise.
Let us suppose that the scene is outside a factory gate and one is listening to radio. One hears simple uproar; one gets a version of the event through a reporter, and some of the reporters are certainly very brilliant. But, however brilliant they may be, one gets simply their picture; one gets a more complete understanding if one actually sees what is happening outside the factory gate, sees the people taking part, observes the actions and reactions of the crowd and, if they are concerned, of the police. One has a more accurate picture of what is good or bad. The question really is: do we wish to give the public a clear picture of what goes on? I think we do; I think we have to do so. We have a duty to do so. It is appropriate; and I can see nothing wrong in this Chamber taking the lead on this occasion.
There is one other point. I should like to comment on something that the noble Lord, Lord Hill, said on the question of responsibility. It seems to me that he is right when he says that the responsibility for the day-to-day broadcasting should rest in the hands of the media people themselves. Nevertheless, I think that there ought to be a retrospective control; that the Sound Broadcasting Committee should become a total
1210
broadcasting committee and should, perhaps meeting once a month, have the right to survey what has happened during the previous period and then to indicate to the media people where they think they may have gone wrong without any attempt to exercise any day-to-day control.
We should have the responsibility to exercise a retrospective opinion on what has taken place, and to ask the broadcasting and television authorities to take account of what we have said. It is possible that we might come to the point where we should wish to withdraw the facility. After all, what we are proposing at the moment is only an experiment. I take the view that we have to accept the changes which have taken place in the media. It is our job to present ourselves to the public. The noble Lord, Lord Soames, seemed to present his argument almost as putting a case for this House against the other. That is not a view I share at all. But, in spite of that, and for different reasons—some of which I have tried briefly to place before your Lordships—I shall find myself with the noble Lord, Lord Soames, in supporting his Motion tonight.
4.42 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I should like to have said to my noble friend Lord Soames, if he were in his place, that regretfully I shall not be here at the end of the debate. I had not counted on it taking quite as long as it has done. I, too, should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord. Lord Peyton, on his speech, which I thought brought a sense of realism which slightly countered—shall I say?—the easy enthusiasm of some of the earlier speakers.
If we look at ourselves today, we are a public meeting. We look at the Gallery of spectators. In fact, there are not many of them there on the whole. Well, there are a few of them there. We look at Hansard, which is published every day. I wonder how many people in fact ever read Hansard? We have our gatherings reported on the ether, and so far as I know we get about three or four minutes in the morning and about the same amount in the evening. The truth is that we are not very newsworthy. I have great doubts whether indeed the thought that we will present ourselves fully to the public will ever be realised at all.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that the documentary films are by far the finest produced by the television authorities. Some of them are perfectly beautiful. But are we a documentary? Are we really a colourful documentary which would present a colourful picture? I am afraid I doubt it very much. What is more important to me is how it will affect the work of this House. Will it help, for instance, one of the most important of all committees, the European Committee, which the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, leads? It is particularly important in view of some of our discussions yesterday. No other country examines so closely the details and problems of the European Community.
Would it affect our Committee stages, which frankly would be incomprehensible without the papers—and sometimes are incomprehensible with them. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is right: will the television authorities ever want to televise a complete debate? If I may take the noble Lord's speech

1211
yesterday on the Falkland Islands, you could not cut that up very well. It was a complete speech. developed stage by stage. I doubt very much whether that would ever be considered sufficiently newsworthy to do that.
We had this experiment 15 years ago, and I understood very well why we did not continue it. It was quite intolerable. We had cameras in different parts of the Chamber, and the heat from the lighting was intolerable. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said that the progress of science had altered all that. Maybe it has. But that leads me to the proposition that we ought to be clear what exactly we are letting ourselves in for.
The result of the televising 15 years ago was unsatisfactory. The interviewers, two distinguished men of great ability, interviewed the speakers, rather like a benevolent schoolmaster putting on his best pupils at the time of the annual gathering, and they made one sentence, or possibly two if they were lucky. But it did not represent in any way the workings of this House. We are not advertising individuals here. We want, if anything, to show how this House works. I doubt very much whether it ever presents the colour which would be necessary or pleasing to the television authorities. I therefore suggest that before coming to a full decision even for a 6 months' period we should have a full demonstration of what exactly is involved.
There have been several suggestions that there could be ground rules. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said that there ought to be retrospective examination. I do not believe that the television authorities will allow any alteration of their editorship. The only control we will have is when they can do it, and on that I think we should insist. I do not believe that we can exercise any influence in this House on their freedom, which quite reasonably and properly they cherish very greatly. Therefore, we would have to accept fully the way they handle it. I therefore say that we ought first to have a demonstration to see exactly what is involved: and, secondly, we ought to make it clear that we must control when the television photography is to take place.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, in view of the number of noble Lords who wish to speak this afternoon and this evening, I hope that I shall be able to limit myself in inverse ratio to the number of years I have spent on my gubernatorial duties at the BBC and take only a few minutes of your time. I should preface this, however, by saying that for many years I have believed that the two Houses—this Chamber, and this ancient Parliament—are the centre of our democratic life, and that without them our democracy would soon perish. What happens in this Chamber, in the other House, and in the surrounding Committee rooms, is of immense importance, though at times extremely dull. It is not telegenic. Nevertheless, it ought to be available, and I have said this for many years.
It ought to be available just as Hansard is published in which people can read in full the words that we utter in this House: just as we have much shorter extracts on radio. It sometimes seems to me that we have even
1212
horter extracts in the heavy newspapers, which seem to forget that this particular House exists, particularly if you get a country edition published before 9 p.m. Because of all that, and because, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hill, the centre of news nowadays, from where people get their news, is television and to some extent radio, and not the newspapers, in the same way they should get their idea of the proceedings of Parliament from the televising of this House.
There is another reason why this should be so. Many of us are quite accustomed to appearing before television cameras in studios. I am even more accustomed to metaphorically being the other side of the cameras and concerned with the directors, the presenters and the interviewers. All of us, on whichever side of the camera we are, know very well that this is a very false situation. If the programme is subsequently edited, it is particularly a situation in which you feel unsure that what you aim to get across you are getting across, and in which you are never allowed enough time to say what you want to say, and it is a situation in which people are not on their own home ground. In this and in the other place, noble Lords and Members of Parliament are on their own home ground and nobody, except literally their peers, can say them nay. We have existed for 600 years without a chairman, which must be unique for any assembly. To give the opportunity to the public to see how their legislators conduct themselves is something in which we are lagging sorely behind if we do not do it.
There are no substitutes. Nobody would pretend that party politcal broadcasts, getting as they are nearer and nearer to the brief that is prepared by admirable advertising companies, are a substitute for the proceedings of the House and what is said here.
On all counts, I believe that we should do this, but there are some problems. People talk about experiments and demonstrations of what may happen. The problem is that we cannot have an experiment of what the broadcasters would wish to do in the long run. I will explain why. They would wish to have eight unmanned cameras, cameras which would be remotely controlled, so that there would not be men with great big cameras dotted round the House. Those cameras would take at least 12 months to deliver. Therefore the BBC and ITV cannot demonstrate within the next 12 months what such televising of the House would be like. However, they could do something else: they could produce five manned cameras. I am not pretending that that would not be an intrusion on your Lordships' House. Those cameras would require little if any more light than we have at present. I am not quite sure why the General Synod of the Church of England has to have so much extra light thrown on its proceedings. I will neglect to make the obvious jokes about that. The sensitivity of present cameras is such that little or no extra light would be required.
As I have said, if that were to be done on a permanent basis the cameras would be unmanned. They would be nearly as unobtrusive as the microphones now are, so that there would be a fully realistic impression of the debate.

1213
If your Lordships decide that you wish to have an experiment, it would have to he done on a drive-in basis: that is to say, room would have to be found in our congested yards for the necessary vans, not only for the transmitters but for the video cameras and so on. This is not to say that it should not be done, but it would not he fair to your Lordships to talk about this without describing some of the difficulties which would ensue.
What would we expect from this? We could have cable channels which would transmit continuously. The Home Secretary could decide to take the channels from the 405-line television and allocate these. That is very unlikely. but he could decide to do so and put out a continuous programme as is done elsewhere in the world.
The cost would be considerable. The costs of an experiment would be heavy but not undue—about £50,000 a week, including the salaries of those involved. The cost of permanently televising the House would involve equipment costs of about £3 million for the cameras and their installation and another £500,000 for the video recorders and their installation. I would remind your Lordships that the 1968 experiment was funded by the Government, but was jointly provided by the BBC and the ITA. I have no idea whether your Lordships' committee would have it in mind that the same procedure would he adopted, and the arrangements which would be made would not be at all difficult to organise.
I return to the point that unless we can see as well as hear our proceedings, I do not believe that the public will have a fair idea of what parliamentary democracy is all about.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, the noble Lord is talking about the channel lasting all day, as it does in the United Nations in New York, which is much the most satisfactory way of broadcasting an assembly. Is the main objection to that the cost?
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, the cost would be great. I am not sure that the Home Secretary would be willing to give those channels because I imagine that, if the other House was to be televised as well as our own, two channels would be required for this purpose. No doubt the Leader of the House, as a former Home Secretary, will have his own observations to make on this subject. It is perfectly practicable, particularly with the advent of cable. I doubt whether the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, will be able to receive it at his home in Scotland, as I doubt whether cable will ever reach where he lives, but that is neither here nor there. I do not wish to anticipate the Second Reading of a Bill which will be put before us very soon. Nevertheless it is practicable, and that is the issue to be resolved.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, I am glad to be allowed to take part in this debate because on 15th June 1966 I led the opposition to the Motion at that time.
Times change, and I believe that two great changes have taken place since that time. The first is what was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Soames, in the
1214
powerful discourse he gave in supporting the Motion—the technological progress that has been made in presentation and the tremendous growth in the number of viewers compared with 1966.
The second change is one which is likely not to find complete agreement on all sides of your Lordships' House, but it is something which must be said if one feels that way. It is that the estimation of Parliament in the view of the ordinary man in the street and his respect for Parliament have been considerably eroded during the last 15 years. No longer does the ordinary man in the street look to the other place—not this place, for we get far too little publicity as it is—as a body that debates great home and foreign issues dispassionately, reasonably and calmly. It is small wonder that there is that thought in the mind of the man in the street when one considers that statements and views in another place are closely controlled by the lash of the whip. Too often the proceedings descend almost every Question Time into unintelligible uproar which does not gain much respect for the House of Commons from the great listening public. Yet, some 30 or 40 yards down the passage from another place one can find debates conducted in an orderly manner, differences exposed fully but without rancour, and views given, often with authority. One does not find that in another place. If we accept the principle that the electorate has the right to see and hear how they are governed, then I claim that at the present time your Lordships' House can better meet that right than can anywhere else. This is our chance to enable the public to see, and learn, how they are governed.
I sincerely support the noble Lord, Lord Soames, in his view that we should not wait for the House of Commons. I look round here at my old colleagues who were in the House of Commons. The procedures there are very slow, and business is very congested. I hesitate to think how long it would take before the House of Commons would agree, if we do not go forward on our own. We may be an unelected Chamber, but we have become fairly representative of all sections of the public. The present House of Lords structure may be indefensible in theory, but it really works very well in practice; whereas I could cite political views which one can support in theory, but which do not work very well in practice. In the light of the views of a certain political party, our future may be uncertain, but I am reminded of the words of (I think) Mr. Asquith who, in 1911, said:
"The reform of the House of Lords brooks no delay".
There has been a lot of delay since, and I think that there may he a good deal more in the future.
Of course, television has its dangers for both Houses; though I think that the danger is much greater for the other place than it is for here. Let me cite one danger. I have a friend who is a Member of another place. He is not a member of my party, and he holds his seat with a fairly narrow majority. He is very much against television, and I shall tell your Lordships why. He works very hard in another place in the week, and at the weekend he goes up to his constituency and works very hard. He gets into the sleeper and comes down by train on Sunday night. He goes to the House and takes his place on the Bench. There is some debate going on which does not have any particular interest

1215
for him. His eyes close, his head nods, the camera views him. He says, "I would lose my seat". My Lords, that does not apply to your Lordships.
On the other hand, can any noble Lord stand up and say that when in your Lordships' House an able Minister deploys, necessarily at some length, the details of an intricate Bill framed by parliamentary draftsmen in language completely unintelligible to the ordinary person, his eyes have not closed and his head may not have nodded? If any noble Lord will stand up and say that, I shall give way to him in admiration.
That is a danger of presentation—and a very real one—which no doubt will be looked after by the committee, about which the noble Lord reminded us. But that is the detail. The committee can iron out those matters. The big point is that here, in the House of Lords, we have, as a second Chamber, an opportunity to play an enhanced role as one of the Houses of Parliament, to be heard and seen exercising our rights and fulfilling our duties. That is what I want to see, and that is why, personally. I now most earnestly support the Motion moved by my noble friend Lord Soames.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Strauss: My Lords, I am glad to be able to speak in a debate in which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has spoken. I used to know him very well in another place, and I always used to admire his contributions, though I seldom agreed with them. I should like to say, first of all, not only that I welcome the noble Lord, but that I think his speech today was more forceful—which is saying a lot—than they usually were in the other place. Secondly, I should like to say that I agreed wholly with the general line of his argument.
Some noble Lords have expressed gratification that an opportunity may have arisen to reverse the decision made in another place some years ago, when that place turned down the proposal to televise the House of Commons. I found that occasion a very satisfactory one, and I shall tell your Lordships why. I arrived almost too late to vote in the debate. Like others, I had been told that the Motion to televise the House of Commons, proposed by Dick Crossman, was bound to be carried; so I didn't bother much about whether or not I should be there. When I arrived a little late, I had literally to push my way into the Lobby. Therefore when the vote was announced by the Clerk I was extremely gratified to find that the Motion had been defeated by one vote. I was delighted that I had been there, and, quite falsely, gave myself the credit for what I considered to be a very satisfactory vote.
I do not believe that the situation has changed much since then, except, of course, technically. In principle the difficulties are the same, and it seems to me that the arguments against televising Parliament are the same today as they were then. Many times in those days there was put forward the argument that in a democratic society the public is entitled to see and hear what its representatives in both Houses of Parliament are doing and saying. I was never able to agree with that argument. The public is entitled to know what is happening, the public can read what is happening. the public on some occasions may be able to get
1216
into the Galleries here. But to be present and to attend I do not consider to be an entitlement which every member of a democratic society can claim—any more than he can claim an entitlement to attend the Law Courts. The Law Courts must be open to the public, and anybody must be entitled to go and listen to the proceedings there. However, they are fully reported, as are the proceedings of the two Houses of Parliament.
What happens in these Houses is known to all the people who want to know about it. It is reported in all the papers, there are sound broadcasts and televised discussions, and there are party political broadcasts which I believe put people off politics, rather than attract them to them. Therefore people who are interested in politics today know what is happening. They are able to understand, if they care to read about them, what are the background factors that develop before a Bill is presented to, or passed by, this House.
Would the public be better informed, would it understand Parliament better, would it respect Parliament better, if it saw and heard all the activities that went on, either before a Bill came to the House or during the general procedures of the House? Most of the procedures of the House, important as they are, are very boring. Moreover, being largely concerned with legal affairs, they really do not give any excitement to a viewer or enable him to understand better what is happening here. I do not think that the argument of entitlement to come to either House is really important, or the argument that it will be a revelation to the public if it comes here and finds out how we do things.
What is important to the public is what we do, and the public is able to understand, to learn and to read the arguments advanced by Ministers and by the Opposition about those things which are proposed. Then the public, knowing what is happening, what the facts are, what the propositions are which Parliament has decided or is going to decide, can take action by bringing pressure on its Members of Parliament or, if necessary, on Members of the House of Lords, and can vote at the next election in the way it thinks is right. So I believe that the argument about entitlement is a false one.
The question is really: will either House of Parliament be more highly regarded and be more influential in our society if all our proceedings are put on television? I do not believe that it will. I cannot believe that it will, We have had the small experience of Questions in the Commons being broadcast and my friends and acquaintances, as well as myself, deplore the damage that has been done to the parliamentary image by those broadcasts on so many occasions, with the angry roar, the bad manners and so on. I do not think it is desirable. I know that that would not happen in your Lordships' House. We behave in a more gentlemanly way and we do not have these excitements, outbursts of temper and so on, which are bringing Parliament into such ill repute.
But in considering this Motion, I am not really concerned with this House. It has been urged over and over again—and it was urged on television at midday today—that the passage of this Motion today will mean it is more likely that the Commons will have to pass a similar Motion, because it would obviously seem ridiculous to everyone if a situation arose in

1217
which the affairs of the unelected House were televised for everybody to see and hear, and the elected House, which is the important House where major things happen and important Questions are asked, were not televised. Therefore, the argument and the pressure for televising the proceedings in the House of Commons, if we passed this Motion today, would be immense and might be irresistible.
It is for those reasons that I hope that this Motion will not be passed. If it affected only the Lords, I would say, "That is fine. If people really want to see what we are doing here and listen to the very fine speeches which are made, and the arguments which are put forward, they are welcome". But that is not the issue which we are discussing today. We are considering whether the major House in Parliament should be televised, with the effect that that is likely to have on the image of Parliament as a whole.
My view is that the present situation—I am conservative about this, if nothing else—of televising certain aspects of Parliament, such as the ceremonial and other activities which take place, in order to bring politics into people's homes, is wholly desirable. But I am very frightened at the idea that they should he enlarged and become progressively acceptable and demanded by the public. If that happened, the standing of Parliament would not improve; it would go down.
A regrettable fact is that, so far as one can judge by figures, the interest in the Commons has diminished over the past 10 or 15 years. Without exception, the percentage of voters who bother to go to the polls at each election drops. That can only mean that people consider the Commons less important in their lives, or in the life of the country, than they did before, and I cannot believe that televising both Houses would have any salutary effect.
The reason is quite simple. The Commons consists of public representatives who depend on the votes of their constituencies and I believe—however noble they may be, however little they may want to do it—that when Members of the Commons get up to speak they are bound to have in mind the fact that they are speaking not to their colleagues in the House, and trying to persuade them of the correctness of their views, but speaking to the public. The whole atmosphere, tenor and climate of the debate changes—and in my view for the worse.
The situation would be particularly grave during the months before an election when Members get up to speak. I guarantee that there would be far more demand to speak in those pre-election months than normally, because every speaker in the House would hope that at least some of his constituents would be listening to him. So, again, for that reason the tenor, the general feel, the atmosphere of the debate and the great value of the debate in the Commons would suffer.
Therefore, I say—I have frequently been in a small minority and I may be again tonight—that, on balance, in the interests of parliamentary democracy we have gone far enough. It would be unwise to introduce further television into this House, and certainly into the other House, and I will therefore oppose the Motion.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, I start with a declaration of non-interest, in that I am no longer active in television, although I was for many years, including at the time that the original Motion which has been brought before us again by my noble friend Lord Soames today was debated in June 1966. I voted for that Motion 17 years ago and I shall vote for this Motion tonight, if the House divides.
The debate has continued sporadically ever since over a lengthy period of years, but I want to argue that the situation is no longer the same as it was in 1966. The main new factor has been the sound broadcasting of the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament over the last five years, having being introduced in April 1978. Not much has been said in the debate so far this afternoon about the impact of sound broadcasting on Parliament. Some speakers have referred to it in passing. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, more than any other speaker, dwelt on the effect of radio and he described its shortcomings as a result of its one-dimensional quality.
But to me, the real significance of the broadcasting on radio of selected extracts from the proceedings of both Houses is that it has answered some of the questions which underlay the doubts expressed in the debates in the 1960s, several of which have been rehearsed once again today, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Strauss, who has just spoken.
Two of the principal objections that have been consistently put forward are: first, who is to edit, who is to select the contributions that are actually chosen for broadcasting to the public? Secondly, there is the fear that speakers will play up in some way to the microphone or to the camera, thus altering for the worse the deliberative nature of parliamentary debates. The answer provided by radio to the first question is that, as in any other factual broadcast, it is only the broadcasting organisation itself, through its established editorial procedures, which makes the selection. The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, devoted part of his speech to this proposition. The considerations which are brought to bear are those of topicality and relative news value, backed up by the requirements of political balance and the network of understandings which have grown up over many years. These are contained within the general framework of the accountability under which the broadcasting organisations operate. This was always the best solution and greatly to be preferred to the only other alternative put forward: that Parliament should set up for itself some kind of selection or editorial process. That would have been undesirable on grounds of principle.
We are speaking not of good publicity for Parliament—something which, incidentally, every institution craves. We are speaking about access for the instruments of a free press, which is a very different matter. In any event, it would be quite impracticable to suppose that any parliamentary committee could hope to reach agreement on matters so sensitive and delicate which raise personal considerations as well as party advantage. So the problem of selection has now been resolved, not over a short experimental period, but over a period of five years of continuous practice

1219
in both Houses of Parliament, whereby extracts selected by the broadcasters have been broadcast by independent radio and on the radio channels of the BBC.
The second question is whether the presence of radio has altered the nature of parliamentary proceedings. It is hard to say whether or not this has happened. As the noble Lord, Lord Strauss, has just stated, some Members of the House of Commons regret the broadcasting of the noisy, rowdy proceedings at Question Time. But the House of Commons has always been a very rowdy, noisy place, and that is reflected by the broadcasts on radio. Nevertheless, at the same time there is value and merit in such broadcasts. There is. moreover, the fact that at the time of the debates on the Falklands Islands crisis most radio stations devoted long periods of time to the continuous broadcasting of the debates on the Floor of the House of Commons. That was a notable public service, which was in the interests of a democratic society.
We have just heard an authoritative speech from the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, who until last year was the chairman of the governors of the BBC. He spoke about some of the cost considerations and described the technological improvements. He referred to the fact that over the last 17 years technology has, naturally, moved on. The level of lighting required is now less than it was; the cameras are less bulky and less obtrusive. These are considerations which we need to bear in mind.
Since I referred earlier to the broadcasting of the debates on the Falklands Islands crisis, I should also like to mention that one of my noble friends on this side of the House, who is a Member of the European Parliament. has reminded me that only last month the debate in the European Parliament on the deployment of cruise and Pershing missiles in Europe was broadcast live on one of the West German networks for a continuous period of three hours, such was the intensity of interest in West Germany in the issue.
The same has been true on occasion regarding the proceedings of the General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations. Almost since their inception their debates have been made available for broadcasting. That is also now the case with debates in the House of Representatives in the United States, and in about 23 other parliamentary assemblies in different parts of the world. In each of them people have grown accustomed to the presence of cameras, as we in this Chamber have grown accustomed to the presence of microphones.
Those of your Lordships who took part in discussions as to whether the annual party conferences should be televised will remember that exactly this argument was raised then. There was doubt about whether or not speakers would play up to the cameras. But if it were now to be suggested, as from time to time it is, that the broadcasters should remove their cameras or reduce their coverage, the protests from the party managers would be absolutely automatic: it would be said that such a thing would be unthinkable and against the interests of the parties.
1220
The reason why it cannot be claimed that the presence of cameras and microphones has altered the nature of party conferences and other parliamentary assemblies is that an immediate, live audience is much more compelling for a speaker than the knowledge that some part of his speech may or may not be broadcast. If it is the broadcaster who makes the selection, the speaker has no control over whether or not his speech is broadcast. That is another reason why it would be folly for any speaker to try and play up in some way to an indirect audience out of sight, rather than addressing the people in front of him. After some years of experience in this field, my own observation is that the most effective speeches in the place where they are delivered are those which are most effective when they are broadcast.
Acceptance of the sound broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings has, in my opinion, removed the last remaining arguments of principle against the televising of Parliament. There is no longer any case to be made out for excluding Parliament from coverage by the most extensive medium of communication known to modern society. Television may or may not be the most powerful medium of mass communication, but nobody can question that it is the most extensive. The programmes on the national networks of the BBC and independent television are available to virtually the whole of the population in this country. In a democratic society, the viewers are the same people as the voters and it can only be to the advantage of those viewers to see how their legislature is performing its duties and to hear the arguments and the counter-arguments rehearsed in debate in Parliament.
To concentrate on our own proceedings, we in this House have nothing to fear from television. We may lack some of the excitement and drama of another place, but we can make up for it by the expert knowledge, independence of mind and seriousness of intent which lies behind the speeches which are made on almost all, if not all, occasions. The fact that Members of your Lordships' House are generally courteous towards each other as well as knowledgeable of their subject is likely to add to the credit and the standing of the House. I share the view of my noble friend Lord Soames who said, in opening the debate, that at a time when the value of a second Chamber is questioned by some it can only be to the advantage of this House that its proceedings should be seen from time to time by the public.
The last remaining question upon which I should like to touch is the crucially important one referred to in his speech by the noble Lord, Lord Strauss,and by the opener of the debate, my noble friend Lord Soames: whether or not this House should move in step with the House of Commons. We do control our own procedure, and we have jealously preserved the right to do so. Sometimes this results in our doing what we believe to be right at the time that we think we should do it. I have in mind the establishment of the European committees in 1973, well in advance of the House of Commons and not altogether with the enthusiastic support of the Government of the day. Who can doubt that the inauguration of those committees was a great step forward and one which added to the stature of this House? Sometimes we

1221
believe it to be right to move in step with the House of Commons, as happened over the introduction of radio broadcasting.
The admission of members of the public and members of the press was of course a matter of contention in Parliament for centuries; but I wonder how many of your Lordships are aware that it was the House of Lords which first made formal provision for access by the press? I have looked up the record—or rather, the excellent research staff in your Lordships' Library have done so for me—and it is interesting to note that the House of Lords was the first to provide specific accommodation for the public—but more specially, for the press. The first Press Gallery was opened in the House of Lords on 15th October 1831. As the third Lord Holland observed in his diaries,
"Reporters, ladies, Foreign Ministers, and people were for the first time admitted to a gallery allotted exclusively for that purpose in the House of Lords".
It was only after the fire of 1834, when the House of Commons was accommodated temporarily in the old House of Lords Chamber, that the precedent set by the House of Lords was adopted. The Press Gallery in the House of Commons was first opened on 9th February 1835—four years later. If history repeats itself—as well it might—it would be for the benefit of Parliament as a whole.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I first sincerely congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, upon entering this House. I have had the great pleasure of debating with him in another place—sometimes agreeing and sometimes disagreeing. I hope that in the not too distant future we shall be able to check up on one another, by watching the way in which we deliver our speeches and listening acutely to what the other has said. through the medium of television.
It seems to me that both Houses are groping very cautiously—with extreme caution at some times—towards taking advantage of something which the majority of people want to see. When it is asked whether the majority of people in this country are interested in politics, the answer must be that it seems they are at the most crucial time—when they are electing a new Government—because we have the highest voting percentage in the world. In the United States they are lucky if 50 per cent. of the electorate vote. We think we are doing pretty badly if we achieve a figure of only 73 or 74 per cent. I trust we shall hear no more about the people of this country being not particularly interested in politics. That is usually the argument of those amazing politicians who would try to take the politics out of politics. The same kind of argument will be made this evening.
Ever since Aneurin Bevan suggested, in his speech on the Humble Address on 3rd November 1959, that we had to consider this matter and move towards it, there have been massive debates both in and outside Parliament. In true British style, we are moving very slowly towards achieving something which we know full well we should have grasped years ago. By our failure to allow the televising of Parliament, we have allowed a much more sinister development to grow; the power of the man or woman who is not interested in entering the thralldom and cut and thrust of politics
1222
but who wants to become a household name on television or radio by interviewing on the subject of politics—but who has never voted for any issue which affects this nation, great or small. That is something we might he able to reduce. It has to go on—of course it has—but if this House can be televised we shall have shown an example to another place. They have debated it often enough, and they have rejected it very narrowly. They are to debate the matter again shortly, and tonight I hope that we shall show them a good example.
At one time, I understand, people were not allowed to listen to the House of Commons or to this Chamber. That situation has gradually changed. They were then not permitted to hear debates, other than by being present in the House, on the radio. That always seemed to me to be a crass absurdity, when they were able to read the sometimes most appallingly biased views of this nation's so-called free press, which on many occasions have caused in me the possibility of wishing to vomit. Actually to listen to what was being said was looked upon as being a gross abuse of Parliamentary practice. The same kind of argument was made when Hansard was first proposed. Every one was shocked. Most people said that it could not happen, but within years it was happening.
I have been looking at what happens in other countries which do not enjoy our great history. I discovered that many countries have already taken good advantage of exposing their democratic Chambers to the general public. It warmed my heart to learn that that was happening in West Germany. I am old enough to remember when it was only through the Pathé News Gazette that we could see the lunatic Hitler at the Nuremberg Rallies: we could see nothing else. We did not even know that the Reichstag existed until it was burnt down. Now, the West Germans have moved ahead of us in allowing their people to see how their respective Chambers operate. I believe that we should do the same—not just because they and the Norwegians have done that, but because we should then be able to show an example of how to do it even better than they can. I do not say that in any arrogant way but, in my view, if we are not always the first innovators, then something we do very well is to improve upon that which has been done before.
I will refer now to a vitally important point that was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton. He quite rightly said that in the case of anything we wished to say—and this could be for an experimental purpose—there should not be too much power vested in a group of Peers in this House. I agree with that point of view. I am also vehemently opposed to vesting enormous power in the hands of one employee of the BBC. We must, in a typically British way, find something between the two. If I may say so, I would only exclude from having anything to do with the views of how to improve the televising of Parliament the Members of both Front Benches and of the Whips' Offices. It is too serious a matter to leave to either Governments or alternative Governments or to their lashers of discipline. I do not think it would be impossible for the Back Benches to elect their own representatives to discuss sensibly and intelligently with the BBC how televising should be done.

1223
Another point I wish to raise was mentioned quite forcefully to me just after this debate started, by a colleague whom I met in the Ave Lobby. He said to me. "Of course, you will be wanting to have the House televised!"—as if that were some terrible offence. I acknowledge that I support the proposal, but I hope that I shall never be brought to order on the grounds of trying to make a speech from the Throne.
When it is argued, as it was in another place, that we cannot allow cameras into the Chamber because a few Members will "hog" them, that implies they will be controlling the broadcast—and I do not believe that will happen. The same argument was made when radio broadcasting was introduced in another place. Unfortunately, there is one serious criticism to be made of the BBC—and this will put me in jeopardy if the cameras ever come in here. But this criticism has to be made. I find it wholly distasteful that, whenever another place or this Chamber is broadcast, it is always Prime Minister's Question Time or a debate when there is quite naturally a great deal of excitement, anger, pathos, call it what you may.
As has already been said, this is nothing new in either of these Chambers to anyone who has read and studied the history of our Parliament. My particular view was, how could a number of the millions of ordinary people one day have the right to come here? We recognised one thing. or our forefathers recognised one thing. namely, that if we were to get ordinary working people in the House of Commons it was fundamental that they would have to be paid a salary. They would not be able to do it otherwise. They could not come from Glasgow, Yorkshire or South Wales for four or five days a week to the House of Commons without being able to maintain their families. That was looked on as something appalling, but it became a reality.
The same applied to many other things: allowing the press in the Chambers, allowing people to come into the Chambers, even, begrudgingly; sound broadcasting, which had to be fought for. We are fighting for this Motion now. I hope we shall win. I hope that Lord Soames's Motion will be passed. I ask the House to realise that it is for an experimental period. We ought to have the courage to expose ourselves at least to an experiment in democracy. I believe we shall be proud of ourselves when we can show to the rest of the world how one Chamber of the world's greatest democracy functions, to the benefit not only of the people of these islands but I believe to that of the peoples of the world as well.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, considering the connection that I had with the original experiment here, the Select Committee and the debate that followed it, I gather that some Peers took the view that I was sure to support today the televising of the House of Lords. This is so, but not altogether so, because my concernover a quarter of a century has been to facilitate and improve the reporting of Parliament's proceedings to the people by the media, whether by the press, sound broadcasting or television. If what we are discussing today is a contribution to that end, then I am in favour of it.
1224
It would be easy to dig over, as it were, the ground which we cultivated 15 or more years ago. However, the results are there for all too see, in Hansard and in the volumes of reports of the Select Committee and the representations made to the Select Committee by various units. As other noble Lords have said, the passing years have brought about significant changes in conditions and in the situation; so we must look to the future, not to the past. There have been technical changes, as the noble Lord, Lord Howard, mentioned, in terms of photography, both lighting and recording. My noble friend Lord Selkirk referred to the heat, and so on, during the experiment that we had. Those days are over.
What is more, there is now a multiplicity of channels, cable television and the like. Nobody has mentioned video. In thumbing over some of the papers of years ago I see that one noble Lord contended that the evening papers in future will be videoed and that the video will be an important article in circulating information about news and Parliament. How is it going to affect Hansard? All these things will come out in the wash. Fleet Street is being dismantled by the trades unions. The tabloids take no regular part in the day-to-day politics.
Although sound radio retains its very important position—in saying that I confirm very much what my noble friend Lord Windlesham said—nevertheless the box is becoming more and more important in our complex civilisation. It is as important as the telephone or the water closet. Indeed, whether we like it or not, what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said on the BBC "Today" programme this morning—namely, that the time is bound to come when Parliament is going to be televised—is right. It is just a question of time, as I think my noble friend Lord Peyton said, and as the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, said. The broadcast is now a definite factor in any system of parliamentary democracy. As Alistair Cooke said not so long ago,
"Television is today the conscience of the civilised world".
One political development in our domestic affairs has been mentioned and the importance of it stressed quite properly. That is the introduction of sound broadcasting of proceedings. This is a step in the direction we all want to go. Sound recordings form part not only of programmes such as "Today" and "Yesterday in Parliament", but they appear in "The Week in Westminster", and over and over again their purpose is served. Of course, as your Lordships are aware, the BBC have a specific obligation to report daily on the radio. However, I wonder whether our Sound Broadcasting Committee, as it is entitled, is, in the terms of this Motion, the best authority to tackle the enhanced remit which the Motion postulates. This point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and by Lord Hill in some measure. Is it the right medium to be our adviser on the subject?
I say this because the BBC, far from enhancing their coverage of Parliament with the passage of time, have done the reverse. They have quite out-manoeuvred us, which they should not have been allowed to do. I refer to their retaining "Today in Parliament" for half-an-hour at 11.30 at night—and in doing so they comply unquestionably with the letter of their obligation—but with 150,000 listeners! However, presumably because

1225
of their quite unnecessary obsession with ratings, they have not only cut "Yesterday in Parliament", which is heard by something like 2 million listeners—cut it down to a quarter of an hour—but broadcast in that programme pre-digested versions by political correspondents at a peak time, 8.35 in the morning. I am not saying that their digestion is not very good. but it is not a report of Parliament, which it should be in my view.
An example of what I mean occurred the other day. The evening programmes carried an excellent report, 15 minutes or more, of an important debate on the National Health Service. Next morning they skipped the debate altogether; it was not even mentioned as having taken place. There is something wrong there. I am not complaining about the share they give to this House; I think that is just about right and we do get a fair crack of the whip. But I contend that as time goes on the television authorities ought to be put under the same sort of obligation which now lies on the BBC for radio. This has been touched on by one or two noble Lords who have spoken without specifically supporting the idea. I am reminded of a remark, which I looked up recently, by my noble friend Lord Birdwood who said in a debate that the newsworthiness and the importance of a debate were not necessarily the same thing. That is a compact way of saying what I think, and which has obliquely been mentioned several times in today's debate.
My noble friend Lord Selkirk, may I respectfully point out, was wrong in saying how hot it was likely to be. That has been corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe. No experiment would he adopted by the House, or its committee, unless it was with the latest possible equipment. By the way, my noble friend Lord Selkirk asked whether anyone read the House of Lords' Hansard. In fact, the sales of the House of Lords' Hansard are more than those for the House of Commons.
Another problem that persists is that of parliamentary privilege. This was touched upon by the noble Lord. Lord Hill of Luton. In one of the submissions of the record the ITA said:
"The Authority considers that if Parliamentary proceedings are to be allowed it would be vital to introduce specific legislation to protect the broadcasters".
That is one of the loose ends still to be tied up. Another matter mentioned by many noble Lords, which I do not propose to refer to, is whether we would be out of step by going ahead of the Commons.
Speaking of the other place, my mind goes back to 1971, or thereabouts, when my noble friend Lord Whitelaw was Leader of the House in another place. It was possible that they had in mind to adopt televising their proceedings but they were inclined to hesitate because of this problem of privilege. I remember suggesting to my noble friend then that it might be a good idea to have a temporary screen in Westminster Hall on which could be shown, on a closed circuit, the proceedings in progress so that some of the patient folk who come to visit the Galleries can follow what is going on before they find their way upstairs.
Lord Soames: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? A great deal of the most interesting matters that he is covering will, we hope, be considered by the
1226
Committee. What we are about today is trying to reach a decision on principle as to whether or not we should go ahead.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, I entirely agree, and I am coming to my final point. Be that as it may, I return to the words with which I began: namely, that my concern over the years has been to improve the reporting of Parliament to the people. This Motion would he a small step in the right direction. That is why I support it. My heart goes out to the folk who stand in the street and sit in rows in St. Stephen's Hall waiting for the chance to get into the Gallery.
It is clear that my noble friend's Motion is no simple thing. If I have spoken too long it is because it is worth going over the difficulties that persist. We must face them. I cannot see that a continuous programme could be broadcast. Who is going to edit it? What about Scotland? There is much we can say. Nevertheless, I support the Motion and I wish God-speed to all who strive to implement it.
5.55 p.m.
The Marquess of Tweeddale: My Lords, I oppose the Motion but most of the points that I intended to make have already been made very well by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, on the one hand, and the noble Lord, Lord Strauss, on the other. Therefore, I shall be brief.
My first point is that if we have cameras here on an experimental basis I think we can certainly count on having them for good. That is as clear as daylight. There is something unstoppable about television in present-day society, whether it is a question of the number of sets or the number of cameras. Secondly, I oppose the Motion because I do not think there is any necessity to have cameras in the Chamber, any more than there is any necessity to have cameras at an orchestral concert. What really matters here is what is said, not what is seen. Although the public have an undoubted right to know what is happening here, they do not necesarily have any right to know which noble Lord is on his seat, who is yawning, or even who may he asleep at any particular time. Moreover, I do not think that cameras in the Chamber are desirable because of the nature of the Chamber and the nature of television.
As has been pointed out, we do not address the nation in this House, nor even someone who may he held to represent thenation—I refer to the Speaker of the House of Commons—but each other. The atmosphere in this Chamber, as visitors often point out, although in its way very imposing, is surprisingly intimate. I am afraid that the atmosphere of what one might call gentlemanly intimacy is not likely to survive the introduction of cameras. The result of bringing cameras into the Chamber would be an enlivening of the proceedings, but I do not think that that would amount to an improvement in the standard or quality of debates.
Indeed, I can think of few things that have been improved by being televised. Television is essentially a very bland medium. It is capable of bemusing the watcher but it has difficulty in really interesting or involving the viewer. For this reason it is more or less inevitable that edited broadcasting of the proceedings

1227
here would be biased heavily in favour of the sensational and the ephemeral rather than towards the substance of what goes on. The television picture of the House at work is likely to be very distorted. I believe that more should be heard of this Chamber on the wireless, but I do not believe that there is any necessity for this Chamber to be seen.
Lord O'Neill of the Maine: My Lords, I have great pleasure in supporting the Motion and I hope it will be passed with a large majority. I recently had the good fortune to attend the Assemblée Nationale in Paris. I was surprised to find that I was sitting next to a television camera. It was completely silent, not a sound came from it. There did not seem to be any extra lighting in the Chamber and there was certainly no extra heat. It is therefore obvious that these things can be arranged. The Prime Minister, M. Mauroy, opened the debate and the camera focused on him as he spoke for nearly one hour.
The next day the debate was on the front page of Le Monde so obviously it was considered to be an important foreign affairs debate, as it was. However, I was surprised and rather shocked by the fact that there were only about 100 deputies in the House out of a total of 485. An important debate like that in either of our Chambers would produce a packed audience. I asked about this and was told that it was perfectly normal. The reason that I mention it is that it shows that cameras do not drive people into the Chamber in the hope of being televised.
Like many other noble Lords, I think that on the whole the BBC does a very good job. However, I wish that it had not shoved "Yesterday in Parliament" into the "Today" show on Radio 4. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. touched on this to some extent. I think that it was much better before the BBC did that. I hope that it will give consideration to returning it to its previous position. I know that that has nothing to do with television but it is an important point.
This week in your Lordships' House we had one of the most important debates in Parliament on the Falklands. What struck me most was the remark that the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, made in introducing the Motion. He indicated that the war in the Falklands was caused in 1967 when officials indicated that we should probably be prepared to cede sovereignty. To my mind, that was the most important part of the debate. The next morning I listened with interest to "Yesterday in Parliament" but there was not one word about it. It is a matter that would have been of great interest to the British public.
I think that television when it is working might avoid things like that, especially if one day we have a television channel devoted to this Chamber. From what the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, has told us, the cameras will not start whirring tomorrow, but I hope that this Motion will he passed so that the arrangements can he put in train.
6.2 p.m.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, I wish to make a very short speech. I am entirely in favour of the words of this Motion. It is an extraordinarily cautious statement. Let us consider the wording. The debate is
1228
about, "televising some" of the proceedings of this House, "for an experimental period". What could be more cautious than those two phrases? I see nothing wrong with the Motion. I am personally not afraid of expressing myself about anything, and nor do I think is any noble Lord—so what are we talking about?
We could easily vote for the Motion without taking any risk whatever or having any need to apologise to anybody. I am in favour of televising this Chamber. If we make mistakes, I think we can improve on what we do. But there is everything to be said for making Parliament and this House as open as possible.
I wish to add one very personal statement. When my husband died, it was Harold Wilson—now the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx—who put me into this House. I am eternally grateful to him for what he has done. I could not enjoy being here more. For anyone interested in politics and who takes them seriously, this is an excellent House. Even though it may not always be perfect, it can be made so. I am all for the televising of our proceedings. There is little else that I can say.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords. Abraham Lincoln once remarked:
"There are few things wholly good or wholly evil. Almost everything of government policy especially is an inseparable compound of the two. So that our best judgment of the preponderance between them is continuously demanded".
I feel that that remark is particularly important in making what judgment we do about the issue which my noble friend Lord Soames has brought before us tonight.
In this nation we have had something like 200 years of constitutional and technological change affecting politics. Just about the time when the suffrage was effectively revised to enable all adults to vote, a series of technological changes began which were probably more important than some of the changes in the suffrage. I refer to the introduction of the microphone at public meetings, the use of radio and television for party political broadcasts and the Gallup polls. I mention all these things because, looking back, it is perfectly obvious that some of them were far more beneficial—and quickly so—than people at the time supposed, while others have turned out to be worse. For example, the introduction of party political broadcasts has, without question, transformed—in my opinion, adversely—the character of elections. The end of the political meeting seems to me to be one of the things we must most lament in the development of politics in the last generation or so.
I think that my mention of these things also reminds us that anyone who should take what my noble friend Lord Soames might think is a negative view of the Motion should not necessarily regard himself, or be regarded, as reactionary, and nor should anyone who takes a positive view necessarily in the light of eternity be expected to be regarded as progressive.
A number of points of view have been put forward as to why we should once more entertain the idea of this innovation: it is desirable that the public should be allowed into our proceedings at one remove, but nevertheless allowed into them. We have had the suggestion that it is beneficial that we, as

1229
parliamentarians—Members of the House of Lords—should in reverse penetrate through the medium of television into the houses of the public at large. We have had the suggestion that the use of television would he good public relations for this House and for Parliament in general. We have had the suggestion made by many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that this is the wave of the future; if we do not vote positively now, we are bound to do so some time in the future. All these points of view need to be considered quite carefully and without rancour or asperity.
The first two points are certainly open to question. The public is perfectly able to understand what we are doing here by means of studying Hansard, looking at newspapers and listening to the radio. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has said that the dimension of observation by sight of what we are doing is even more important. I perfectly accept that that is a view, but as a matter of fact, my belief, as one who lives by his pen—and therefore I should perhaps declare an interest—is that the understanding of what goes on anywhere is better if one reads the written word than sees what has actually happened. The written word demands an effort of intellect and imagination. I suspect that the consequence is that the experience concerned enters into the memory rather more effectively than if one were, by chance, an observer of the occasion.
I come to the question of whether this House or Parliament in general needs public relations. I do not feel that that is the case. On many occasions—and most recently this year—the electorate has voted for a party which has made it perfectly plain that it believes in the future of the House of Lords as it is now.
There is then the suggestion that because other countries have done this we should contemplate doing it ourselves—yet we have many other eccentricities. We have an effective group of working hereditary Peers. Here again we are exceptional, and no one would suggest that we do not make a major contribution. We have the presence in our legislature of Lords Spiritual, and this is an exception. Perhaps, at some time in the past, people thought that might be rather surprising; but with the increasing importance. in my opinion, of religion in world politics we may come to find one day that we are more satisfied than any other nation that we have the presence of Bishops on their Bench.
Thus I am not completely convinced by the arguments that have been put forward; but I might, nevertheless, entertain the idea of an experimental period were it not for two other matters. The first is the question of the selection of material which would be used (and a good deal of attention has been paid to this). I must confess that I agree with my noble friend Lord Peyton (whose maiden speech I much enjoyed and on which I warmly congratulate him) in suggesting that the odds would be that such selection as would be made would be bound by the nature of things, by the nature of the fact that television is concerned to entertain as well as to inform, to get high ratings as well as to educate, and would be bound I think to concentrate on the eccentric, the brusque, the rough and the exceptional.
1230
There is a second point relating to the selection: that was one to which attention has already been paid by my noble friend Lord Selkirk when he spoke of the nature of a speech. A speech should have a shape, an argument, a beginning, an end and middle. I agree with him that it is most unlikely that a speech as a whole would be likely to be broadcast due to the selection process, unless there was the eventuality, which the noble Lord, Lord Howard, thought of as a very unlikely eventuality, of a full channel devoted to our affairs.
The next point is this—and it was touched on very eloquently by the noble Marquess, Lord Tweeddale, when he pointed out that the debates in this House have a peculiar intimacy. I have not been here very long, only two and a half years; a short enough period, nevertheless, not to feel impatient for innovation, but long enough to appreciate the quality of the debates. Our debates often have a very special mixture of the conversational and the rhetorical; the ceremonial and the ordinary, which surely would be altered were there to be a constant programme on television playing on our affairs. It may be that it would not be a substantial change, but it would be a change. How big that change would be and what it would be like would depend on our judgment about what television usually does to politics.
I recognise that television has made many remarkable contributions to entertainment: to our knowledge of sport, of nature and of science. It has enabled us to see films without having to experience the rigours of the cinema queue. But I am doubtful whether television has made the major and positive contribution to politics which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, suggested.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that there are often beautiful programmes on television devoted to politics but I very much doubt whether it can be said as a whole that television has treated politics with the complexity and the depth which is necessary. Indeed—and here again I agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Tweeddale—there has been—not always but often—a tendency to emphasise the superficial and the bland. For all these reasons therefore I have come to believe that the case for alteration has not been made.
The second Lord Falkland (the grandfather I think of the Lord Falkland who gave his name to the islands with which we were so much concerned last year) in a quotation which was a favourite one of the late President Kennedy, said:
"When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change".
I mention President Kennedy to show that it is a quotation not necessarily of the blackest reaction. I hope very much that as many of your Lordships as feel appropriate will vote against this Motion tonight.
6.14 p.m.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, I wholeheartedly support this Motion. As the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has said, it is to television that the majority of people look for news nowadays, and they will do so still more in the future when the advent—which I find so very exciting—of cable television is upon us; so I think it is high time that our proceedings were televised. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if we do not now let

1231
ourselves, or arrange for ourselves, to he televised, in 1984 it will he as if we had refused to admit the press in 1831: so I warmly welcome the prospect. I have long felt that nobody would want to abolish us if they knew what we did, and I sincerely hope the proceedings in another place will also be televised because we have nothing to lose.
Having had my mind set at rest about the obtrusiveness or otherwise of the equipment, my principal concern is about editing. There can be few noble Lords who have not had the experience of making a point and giving an illustration to emphasise it, and then finding the illustration, shorn of the point, picked up and quoted by the media so that it appears at best irrelevant and at worst meaningless, and I am sure we all hope that this will not happen. For this reason alone I certainly agree with the various noble Lords that there should be a monitoring committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has voiced my fears lest noble Lords should start speaking to the television audience instead of to the House. I wonder what has been the experience of the Synod in this matter? Most of the speeches in this debate so far have been commendably brief. Could this be because we all want to get home to our television sets to watch "The Great Palace" which is to be broadcast at 9.30 tonight?
6.18 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I hope that the House in deciding—as I hope it will—to vote against this Motion will do so on the grounds of the argument and will not be swayed in voting for it by the extraordinary argument adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that since it is bound to come anyhow we might as well vote for it now. Being mortal, all of us are destined to die, but moral philosophers have never thought this fact a justification for suicide.
It is a most peculiar Motion because—to some it may seem inappropriate—we have seen its mover, my noble friend Lord Soames, tiptoe—pirouette—round its real content, which is to pave the way for television in another place. I would have thought that those of us who care about parliamentary government and its reputation would have taken on board the undoubted fact that the sound broadcasting of Parliament has done it a great deal of damage. You have only got to go to any political meeting or private gathering and someone will say, "Is that really how the country is governed?"
Some people say this is a distortion that radio has brought because you only get the sound. Those of us who avail ourselves of the privilege of sitting in the Peers Gallery are, in a sense, private television cameras, and what do we see? What we see in Prime Minister's Question Time is no more elevating, no more a tribute to our democratic institutions than what people at home hear on the radio. Indeed, I sometimes wonder whether we may not see one day the statue of Oliver Cromwell come to life like the Commendatore in "Don Giovanni" and march into the House on one of these occasions and repeat his famous words:
"It is not fit that you should sit here any longer … You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing".
1232
I think that the arguments, in Parliament's present frame of mind, at any rate, against televising the other place, are overwhelming. Let us come then to our proper business, which is what we do about ourselves. It is extremely important that the country should know more about the way we operate and the work that we do, much of it, as noble Lords have said, not in the Chamber at all. It is also important that people are in a position to read or in other ways have communicated to them some of the important speeches and arguments that can be put forward in this House at greater leisure and sometimes to greater effect than in another place.
I believe, however, that it is important to look at this from the point of view of the consumer. It is said that we need television because our proceedings get so little reported in the newspapers. Why is this so? One reason is that so many of our proceedings of the greatest importance and interest take place fairly late in the afternoon or in the evening. Is it not better, rather than that the Broadcasting Committee should look at television, that the Procedure Committee should look at our procedures to see whether it would not be possible to postpone to the evening the largely formal business that often takes up the first hour or two of our affairs and bring forward to earlier in the afternoon the important debates to which we would like attention to be paid? In other words, I feel that this television idea is a distraction from our proper business of making clear what is, and should be, the contribution of this House to the government of the country.
The second point that I would like to make is one that I think has been touched upon and sometimes dwelt upon by a number of noble Lords. It is that there is inevitably in what is being proposed—the Motion refers to some proceedings and not to all proceedings—an element of editorial discretion. I fear that not everyone was in accord with the noble Lord, Lord Hill (I am sorry that he is not still in his place) when he said that there was general confidence in the political impartiality of the IBA and the BBC. That general confidence may exist in them as institutions. It is not necessarily a general confidence in those who actually operate on the ground. The various remarks that have been made, not for the first time, about the treatment of our proceedings on radio in "Yesterday in Parliament" bears this out.
Therefore, I think that it is extremely hard to see how the editing is to be done in a way that meets the expectations of those who favour this experiment. It is my view that there is one very successful, and only one very successful, contribution of television to politics in this country. That is the televising of party conferences. I think that one does learn a lot. This year I stayed at home and watched all four party conferences for long periods. The reason is that you get a picture of a meeting. an assembly of speakers, largely uninterrupted by commentary, largely unselected, and sometimes incapable of being selected in advance.
If it was a complete picture of the proceedings of this House that was intended, I admit that my misgivings would, to some extent, be allayed. If, when we get this extraordinary extravagance that we are apparently going in for—cable television—some entrepreneur was prepared to buy our proceedings in toto and use one of his channels in toto to make them available, and if the

1233
sum paid was enough for us to add to our amenities in certain respects, I would again be prepared favourably to consider it. It would then be likely, as mentioned, I think, by a previous speaker, that some other entrepreneur would sell another cable to the other place. That would create a problem that has come up in relation to cable television generally. What do you allow the children to see? Would parents have a sort of dual key in order to cut out Question Time?
These are possibilities. However, we are told that, on expense grounds and on technical grounds, they are possibilities very far ahead. If that is the case, and if what we are really being asked to do is to submit ourselves to editing, to the choice of some, no doubt, industrious and intelligent young men and women as to what the public should know of what we do and say, I think that the price would be high. I join with my noble friend Lord Thomas of Swynnerton and the noble Marquess, Lord Tweeddale, in saying that it would affect our proceedings, not, I think, in the rather obvious way—I do not think there would be many camera-hoggers among us—hut simply because much of what we do and much of our ritual, our repetition of the words "my noble friend" and so forth, which are part and parcel of the way we conduct our affairs, would he unintelligible or seem faintly odd to people not here.
Although I do not think that we would suffer the discredit that the other place has suffered through radio broadcasting, we would, I think, be obliged, in some respects, to change our ways. Since our ways have been developed for the public service to get through a programme of legislation and to discuss matters of policy and which, therefore, must be considered for the time being right, I would not like to see them sacrificed on the altar of new technology.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I should like first to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, on his maiden speech. All of us must try to keep our speeches short, as my noble friend who has just sat down did. I should like to take up one small point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howard. He gave some rather horrifying and costly details of the ambitious schemes that I presume the BBC might wish to install. It should be said that it would be a job for the committee to consider alternative schemes and possibly to ask for alternative tenders. There may be other bodies, such as Channel 4, which might be able to fulfil the task much less expensively. I do not wish the figures mentioned by the noble Lord to be carved in tablets of stone and possibly accepted as being the best quote.
I am afraid that, on this occasion, I do not agree with my noble friend, Lord Beloff. It is one of the few occasions when I have not agreed with him. I believe that radio broadcasting has done this House immeasurable good. It may have reduced respect for the other place to some extent. I have the feeling that if a person shouting like a baboon in another place is seen on television, his constituents will pretty quickly write to him to say, "We did not send you there to behave like a baboon. We sent you there to be a civilised person contributing to the debate in a civilised way". That would be a self-regulatory way of
1234
raising the standard of behaviour in another place. I have perhaps more confidence than my noble friend in the judgment of constituents.
I am lucky enough to have been connected with television almost since its invention. It was 50 years ago that I joined EMI on a graduate apprenticeship and found myself designing the first television sets put on the market in 1936. Later, I joined the BBC Television outside broadcasts department, which was great fun. It was suggested—I believe rightly—that it should possibly he the OBs, on a drive-in basis, which should undertake the experiment here. They are very different people but just as enthusiastic, I am sure, as when I started many years ago. That experience is my excuse for taking part in the debate.
I wish to underline that Britain started the first public television service in the world. We have had our debates. We have havered. We have wavered. What is sad is that we still have not—I hope that tonight we shall—made up our minds to go ahead. We have always in this House taken a more forward-looking view. It would be nice to have the House of Commons with us, as my noble friend who opened this debate with such a masterly speech, remarked, but I do not think that we should any longer wait on them. We should go ahead with the experiment and see how it goes. No doubt the other place would study the results as well and we should both gain from the experience.
Democracy as a whole is under attack, as we have seen from what happened yesterday as regards the Brent Council, as reported in our papers today. Parliamentary democracy is also under attack. There are those who take a cynical view, but ill-informed mockery does not do us any good. Let us give the nation a chance to see what goes on in this House and (if they will come with us) what goes on in another place.
Television is the most dominant medium for information, instruction and entertainment. It is far more dominant than our newspapers today, and I cannot help feeling that it is wholly wrong that Parliament should be the one place—with the possible exception of the law courts—which is not televised and where democracy is not shown to be working. People do not understand what this House contributes to the parliamentary scene.
While we have been arguing, discussing, debating and sometimes winning or losing by a single vote, the rest of the world has gone quietly ahead. Why cannot we trust our people like the rest of the democratic world? Even those who are not for democracy, like the USSR, televise their parliament. The Commonwealth has been a little slow. Perhaps it has inherited that slowness from us. Australia, which pioneered the sound broadcasting of its Parliament in the 1930s—50 years ago—has not accepted television. Canada has had an edited edition since 1977, which it does very successfully, and I believe that it is reasonably popular and well conducted. New Zealand has no television. As someone said earlier, the United States Congress is very thoroughly televised.
In fact, I think that at the last official count there were 24 countries which televise their Parliaments; the Inter-Parliamentary Union said in 1978 that there were 22 such countries. Let us consider Western Europe. France has live and edited television on a very

1235
regular basis. West Germany has had recorded television for 30 years, and live television for 20 years. Italy has live and recorded television for five or 10 minutes at a time, every day. The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Switzerland and Sweden all have it, and yet we are told that we cannot have it or should not have it. I cannot help feeling that it is wrong for us to stand back any longer and I hope very much that, if a vote takes place later, the Motion which my noble friend has put down will be widely supported.
As I said earlier, editing plays an important part. Many of the countries that I have quoted have edited versions of their Parliaments. Who does the editing? I am sure that we can trust the broadcasting authorities to have general supervision and to set a high standard. A parliamentary committee will be needed, which should perhaps sketch and mark out the court in which the game is to be played and lay down certain basic rules, as my noble friend suggested in his opening speech. It must also be borne in mind that the IBA supervises programmes and tries to ensure that they honour the balance which each programme company tries to keep. However, the BBC is judge and jury in its own case and I think that it carries out the task rather less well than the IBA. So perhaps there is a lesson to be learnt; perhaps there ought to be more careful supervision of the BBC's balance of programmes, particularly in their current affairs programme.
I still think that we shall perhaps need a parliamentary committee of some sort just to act as a supervisory body. Someone has to adjust the rules. Someone has to ensure that everything is going all right, while leaving the editorial content and the choice of what is televised to the individual companies. If televising were to take place in both Houses, I hope that a joint committee would be set up, or perhaps separate committees with a common secretariat, because I feel that the more connections we have with another place the better for both of us. But, if not, then perhaps we should set up our own committee to watch over this experiment and, if it becomes permanent, to supervise the rules and the balance of the programmes.
I sincerely hope that the Commons will join in. I have no doubt that, if they do so, 85 per cent. of parliamentary televising will still be about the Commons, but we should get 15 per cent. and that would be very worth while, because people would begin to understand what we do, what we stand for, and the way in which we conduct our business. As I said earlier, Britain was the first nation to start a public service. Is it to be the last of the advanced nations to start the televising of its Parliament? I hope not, and I hope that tonight's vote will ensure that we go ahead with this experiment. I am confident that it will lead to the general televising of Parliament.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I am sorry that I missed the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. As a journalist, I have heard him on many occasions, and he has often given me anguished delight—delight at his style of utterance, and anguish at the arguments that he has advanced. Thank God that today we are not debating a party subject and I am able to agree with almost every word that the noble Lord. Lord Orr-Ewing, has spoken!
1236
In the light of what this House has become, with its enormous development of informed talent, and in the light of the role that television now plays in the life of the nation. I have come to the conclusion that we have no moral right to keep cameras out of this Chamber. Now we have an opportunity of letting everyone into our public gallery, just as everyone can see a cup final or a coronation. Our deliberations, too, are a national event. We do not own this Chamber; we are the custodians of its fabric and its traditions, but we do not own it. It is the people out there who pay the expenses and the salaries, and who pay for the maintenance of this Chamber. Of course, when we are televised the audience for our deliberations will be limited, but that is unimportant. What matters is that the nation has the chance of watching us, or watching something else. What matters is that the nation has the right of choice.
I was rather astonished to hear my noble friend Lord Strauss say that people can find out from the newspapers what is going on in this Chamber. I was equally appalled to hear the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, say that people could read Hansard, or the newspapers, or listen to the radio. Let us take the example of a young housewife whose family newspaper is the Daily Mirror, or the Sun. She will find very little about Parliament in those papers. When is she to listen—8.40 in the morning when she is getting the children off to school, or 11.30 in the evening, at the end of a busy day?
Newspapers no longer give a high priority to parliamentary debates. The Times has maintained the traditional page; the Daily Telegraph, which reports with enormous skill, nevertheless has cut down the amount that it gives to Parliament; my own paper, the Guardian, almost neglects the reporting of Parliament and always seems to feel that, if it reports our debates, it might offend its radical readers who long for the day of our abolition. Yesterday we had in our Chamber a notable and very remarkable debate, which was informative, frightening and inspiring. This is the one assembly where the Church and Chapel, the law, and the politicians, can engage in a moral argument. The Times gave the debate justice. The Daily Telegraph did very clever, newsworthy coverage. I say that because if there is anything that is news, it is the juxtaposition of three things: the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, the police, and young blacks, and so the Telegraph concentrated entirely on Lord Scarman's speech and on nobody else's. As far as I could see, the Guardian a paper which is very concerned with race relations—and which had a good piece about it elsewhere—did not give anything to the debate.
To newspapers words are no longer of news value if they are just words. What matters is the political struggle, the contest for power, and recording of decisions which are about power. Since this House has very little power, it is not very newsworthy.
In the papers yesterday the most newsworthy event in regard to this House was that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was on crutches. The only way in which members of the public could follow the proceedings of our House in any detail would be by subscribing to Hansard, which is for a very small—and affluent—minority.

1237
There are many forms which reports of this House might take, from "Tonight in Parliament" to a kind of documentary based on a major debate, such as we had yesterday; or, given new technical developments, there could some day be a continuous and complete reporting of both Houses of Parliament.
I hope that tonight this House will accede to the proposition. I hope that, after consultations with another place and with the broadcasting authorities, the broadcasting committee will recommend some experiments which will lead to permanent arrangements. I do not think that we ought to be engaged in a race with the other House to be first before the cameras. I hope that we can reach an accord with them. On the other hand, if they are totally opposed to televising the proceedings, and are opposed to it for all time, I do not see why they should exercise a kind of psychic moral veto over this House on the question of television.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that he did not mention the possibility of video cassettes of debates.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I think that against the video nasties we would be one of the video niceties. If there is a permanent record of what goes on in this Chamber, I think that it should be quite possible for someone to make a kind of feature film out of various debates in this House.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, as the noble Marquess, Lord Tweeddale, said, the arguments have been pretty well put by now. However, I think that one ought to examine the arguments that have been put to see how they fit in with one's instinct on this matter. The one part of the debate—and I think that I have heard it all—that disturbs me a little is the suggestion made from one or two quarters that one can separate the two Houses; that it may be difficult in another place but we would come out of it all right.
We are talking about the effect that the televising of the proceedings will have on Parliament. We cannot separate the Houses. We are part of Parliament. Without this House, it is not Parliament as Parliament has been built up; and without the other place, it is not Parliament. Therefore, we cannot argue in isolation as to whether it would have a good or bad effect on this particular Chamber.
The other point that disturbs me a little—and I think that my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing emphasised it—is what is said in the Motion—that we are only asking for an "experimental period". We have had our experiment. I remember vividly the previous debates which eventually resulted in sound broadcasting being accepted. The whole argument then was that we will not have television at this stage but we will have an experimental period of sound broadcasting. So the experiment has been in existence for some time.
I wonder how many of my noble friends think that Parliament as a whole has been enhanced as a consequence of the experiment of sound broadcasting? I should have thought that the effect it has had on the status of Members of Parliament and on the status of
1238
edicts that we send out from this House, with all the power of the legislature behind it, has been that, as a consequence, Parliament has been weakened. I believe that we ought to approach the thinking on this subject, particularly now that it is at the formal Motion stage, by asking ourselves how it will affect our parliamentary system as a whole. Although we talk about nuclear bombs, unemployment and social needs, what we really should he concerned about at the minute is whether the parliamentary system itself will survive, with all the freedoms that we hold so dear. Therefore, while there is that possible doubt, we must not allow anything to happen that would weaken the parliamentary system.
Again, my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing listed a number of countries that allow television broadcasting of their Parliament's proceedings. He suggested that because they allow it, we automatically ought to follow, otherwise we are being old hat and are falling behind. He said that we invented television, but do not use it in our Parliament, whereas other countries do so. Six of the countries on the list he quoted have one-chamber Governments. Will we follow that lead? That would mean that the abolition of the House of Lords would fit into their pattern. Six of the countries he quoted are republics. Does that mean that our monarchy system, which has proved itself so pliable and so sensible, is to be altered? I do not think the fact that other countries televise their parliamentary proceedings has anything to do with what we ought to do. Their parliaments are quite different from ours. In our Parliament we have the ultimate and the full power. My noble friend referred to presidents and special presidential powers; but to some extent they weaken the ultimate powers of their parliaments. So our Parliament is much more important to us because of that ultimate power than the parliaments of any other countries.
I ask myself: if we allow the television cameras in, will it do good or will it do harm? I do not think that it will do any good, because all of the good that has been quoted that could come from it—for instance, letting people know what is happening and giving them a clear understanding of what goes on in Parliament—is already being undertaken. I do not add to the criticisms that both Houses of Parliament receive from the press. I do not criticise the help that Parliament receives from radio broadcasts. We cannot rule out the fact that at the minute television plays a great part in explaining to the people what goes on. Quite a lot of television coverage reflects what goes on in this place. The only difference that the cameras would make is that people would see the lips moving when the arguments were being adduced. That is the only difference. The actual arguments would be the same, unless they were altered because of the siren-like appeal that the cameras have by causing people not to be normal any more. I defy any noble Lord to think that he can be as objective and as free when he knows that he is having his photograph taken as when he is not. It makes a difference to the general psyche and to the general way in which to present the argument. I believe that to allow the cameras into this House and the other place at this time would interfere with the general value of the contributions that would be made.

1239
I also believe that it would weaken the respect that the people of this country have for their Parliament. That is very important. Invariably Parliament brings restriction and pain to people. Nothing very pleasant usually flows out of Parliament. It restricts someone from doing something or causes extra pain because of imposing extra taxes. If you ask people to expect restrictions and pain, they must have a great deal of respect for those who impose it and from whom they are prepared to accept it.
I have been interested in Parliament and politics for many years. My claim to having a view at all is the fact that I became a parliamentary candidate in 1938 and a Member of Parliament in 1950. My first official contact with politics dates back to 1934. With 50 years of reasonable contact behind me and having fought 15 elections—12 of them parliamentary—I have pretty good contact with the people which enables me to have an instinct as to how they might react.
We have had the radio reports direct from Parliament, with all the bear garden approach that seems to come over the air. As regards our supposed benefiting because we have come over rather better, it is not that we have made any great positive contribution, it merely means that perhaps we have been a little better, or less worse, than the other place. King Midas was asked to adjudicate between two flautists for a great prize. It was said that he heard the first, and gave the prize to the other one without listening to him. That is the only advantage that we have had. It is a relative one.
In my experience over recent years, I have seen the status of Members of Parliament go down. When I first became a candidate in 1938, my recollection of the status of Members of Parliament in terms of people being prepared to accept the edicts which came from them is that it was higher than it is today. I believe that that loss of respect, that lowering of status, which is vital if we are to have ordered government, is mainly due to the extra projection which has not concentrated upon the words. It is our words, what we say, the words that we produce in legislation that are important, not how we look.
I cannot make myself believe that either in your Lordships' House or in another place our pictures will enhance our status. It is the words we speak and the legislation we produce which will do that, and because I think our status would he injured I hope that we shall not give instructions to the committee to make any preparations for any further experiments in that direction.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, surely the importance of this Motion transcends personal preferences, or twinges of political camera-phobia, to which some of your Lordships have adverted. It reaches out into the realms of the public domain. For your Lordships' House is a vital component part of' the machinery of overt constitutional government. Yet beyond those Brass Gates, few know of our doings. Our order of debate, our conduct of business, are wrapped in the mists of the miasma of ignorance.
It is not to the point to criticise the extant system of newspaper reporting, radio programmes, or television
1240
coverage. Why? It is because those instruments of dissemination, even if improved, even if perfected. could never afford a substitute for the proposal of this Motion—live TV of some of our proceedings. For, if seeing is believing, what is not seen live on TV is not so easily believed today. Why should there be any loss of respect? This is a concept that is wholly not understood.
How else shall these mists of ignorance be dispelled? How else may we refute the case which questions the value of this very institution? If we do not take the initiative, who else shall take it for us? The situation in your Lordships' House is not the same as that in another place. Arguments about the want of wisdom of television in another place are surely hardly to the point.
In the other place, the media coverage is adequate—some complain that it is more than adequate. Elected representatives keep in touch with constituents, and so far as I am aware no Member of the other place has as yet suggested the abolition of the other place. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Strauss, my noble friend Lord Beloff, and other noble Lords who think likewise, surely what action is taken in another place is a matter for the other place. We control our procedures. We do not have to move in step. We have often led the way in the past, and if it seems sensible for us to do so on this occasion, why should we not do so again?
Implementation of the principle of this Motion envisages not only the difficult questions of selection and balance but those of who is to decide such questions. My noble friend Lord Windlesham assumes that such questions shall lie within the exclusive province of the TV companies. "For", he says, "we could not make such decisions for ourselves". Perhaps—and I defer to his experience—broadly speaking, that might be right, but in practice would not your Lordships prefer the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing that a joint committee should be set up so that this shall not lie within the exclusive province of the TV companies, but within their province while we shall have some say? In my respectful submission, the concept of my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing is commendable.
These means of implementation—call it anything you like—are really not before us today. When brought before your Lordships' House by the Sound Broadcasting Committee they will not doubt warrant careful scrutiny. Perhaps before the report is laid it is premature to raise objections in advance. As yet, is it not fair to suggest that the objections so far raised are illusory rather than real?
To conclude, it is surely wide of the mark to consider whether, the parliamentary system will survive. It could not crumble at the touch of a camera. It is surely wide of the mark to suggest that the Motion serves as a distractionfrom our proper business. That could be put right irrespective of a camera if it is wrong, and I am in no position to suggest that it is. There is no question of entitlement. It is a question of advantage. Should we not support a Motion which envisages review at the end of an experimental period? Should we not seize the advantage, for a great principle of importance is at stake within the public domain. An innovative step, a timely reform, is proposed. This

1241
surely warrants massive support in any Division tonight.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether he agrees that surely we should not be so cautious? We should not be so afraid? We have nothing to be afraid of when we speak in this Chamber, and in what we have to speak about. The more we stand up for ourselves the better it is, and the better it will be. I do not understand people who are afraid of being televised at this time. It is bound to come. We may as well be ready for it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell—and I am extremely indebted to her—echoes with far greater eloquence than I could ever hope to muster, my innermost thoughts.
7 p.m.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, as I rise to speak in this debate this evening I feel it is one of the issues of the greatest importance to your Lordships' House. It seems to me that the issue lies in how the BBC propose to display and keep safe with the public the reputation we at present enjoy. That is one of the most important issues which face us.
I listened with interest to what my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing said about our inability to do what other Parliaments in other parts of the world do; that is, televise their proceedings. I listened to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, who said that we had no right to keep television cameras out of the House. That is not the predominant issue in the debate. I shall say some harsh words about the BBC and this proposal that we should be televised and also some words in praise of the corporation. I propose to deal with the words of praise first.
For their televised broadcasts of Parliament the BBC deserve the highest praise. They are past masters in the picture they display of our great inheritance, accompanied by the people who give an account of what they are seeing. This evening many will say that when they have seen broadcasts of this House, "It was wonderful. I had never thought it would be like that". These are expressions I have heard about the programmes that the BBC are televising at present. The BBC are particularly adept at portraying national events. The wedding of the Prince and Princess of Wales was an example of televised broadcasts in which they excel. Other examples are the overseas broadcasts which are absolutely first class and listened to by millions of people.
I remember many years ago being 12,000 miles away from this country out in the jungle when King George V came to Westminster Hall to receive the loyal greetings of both Houses of Parliament. At that time we were listening to the cheering crowds which met him and the Queen and the speech he made at the end of it. I was standing next to a young Malay who said to me, "Having heard the King speak has made me want to do something better with my own life". Such incidents reinforce my argument about the great contribution the BBC has made to our national life and inheritance.
I have heard some arguments in the debate that because of the technological advance television broadcasting can be better, but it is 15 years since we
1242
had the last debate on this subject. Great advances have been made and they justify our having television in your Lordships' House. The arguments continue: we cannot stand still. We must agree to experiments in the televising of our debates. I regret that in that connection I cannot agree.
What is to be decided tonight, which has been touched on by other speakers, is what the public shall see. The BBC have great power: they are a law unto themselves in many things which they do, and nobody can deny that. They can cut parts of the tape to be televised and can re-edit. How will the selection be made of that part of our proceedings to be televised? Is all this to be left in the hands of the cameraman operating his camera or will an officer of the BBC be behind him to give him advice? None of these decisions is in the hands of your Lordships. If the power were in your hands the stock answer from the BBC, if there were interference with anything that they wanted to televise, would be that your Lordships were imposing a censorship.
Above all, I should like to know from those noble Lords who advocate the televising of proceedings—apart from the civilised way in which we deal with each other and our proceedings—what precautions they suggest should be taken to ensure that the difficulties which I have suggested might arise are dealt with? I maintain that the BBC's complaints commission set up as a forum where issues may be taken is a farce as it works at present. Have we advanced in our principles during the last few years? When these have been attacked, as they have so often on BBC broadcasts and television. have those principles not been very difficult to return to, and have those people who have attacked those principles in our public life been able to suggest any replacement? I suggest that they have not been able to do so.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, I rise to make a factual correction. What was described as the BBC's complaints commission is a programme complaints commission appointed by Government and nothing whatsoever to do with the BBC, except in so far as the BBC has to answer it and to publish the results of the adjudications.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord if I have given the wrong picture of that. but if a person had a complaint he would complain to the BBC. The complaint would go to the BBC, who would answer the complaint. That would return to the complainant and another complaint would follow. That is a very laborious way of dealing with the issue and was never satisfactory in its outcome.
I have nothing further to say on this subject. This is a vital issue in the debate. I have great praise for some of the things which the BBC do. If they are allowed to proceed as they do at present without any safeguards in the way that television broadcasts are transmitted to the public, there is a great danger that we might rue the day and regret the decision to give them this power.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, I have listened carefully to almost every speech since we started at about quarter past three. Having listened to those speeches I have read and re-read the Motion. Many noble Lords

1243
seem to have assumed that the Motion is seeking an experiment in televising the proceedings in this House. It is not doing anything of the sort. It reminds us that we have had the experiment and is instructing us to get on with the job as we had the experiment some 16 years ago.
The experiment was in my time—just. I remember it taking place as many other noble Lords must. I should like to make it absolutely clear that if we are considering yet another experiment, with outside broadcast units being wheeled in for that specific purpose on that occasion, a number of noble Lords will feel that it was not worthwhile. We should take into account what the House has already decided that there should be televising of this House, but the method should be watched over for an experimental period.
In doing that, I personally would be saddened if we were to go it alone without the House of Commons, but that may be necessary if they do not go along with us at the same time. I say "saddened" because many of us in this Chamber have been in another place and we understand that on occasions it is noisy. This has been referred to on some occasions as oral violence but, if one looks and thinks back a little and looks at some of the prints of a hundred years ago, there, too, one sees the Members of the House of Commons with fists raised and mouths wide open. the only difference being that they wore top hats in those days. I do not like it; I did not like it when I was part of it. But it is part of our Parliament. That is why I feel that, although it may have some bad effect, it is better to cover the whole Parliament than this Chamber only. But, if we cannot have that, I am quite prepared to go along with covering only this Chamber.
The Motion before us requires that we should refer the whole question to the Sound Broadcasting Committee. My noble friend and ally in front of me will, I hope, not think that I am disagreeing with him when I say that I doubt if that is the right body. The Sound Broadcasting Committee has a great deal of experience in the sound broadcasting of both Houses. I think it would be much better for a new—a Select Committee if you wish—joint committee of both Houses to be set up to look at the whole question. I suggest that the Government might be prepared to do that quickly and look at both Houses at the same time, because, from my understanding of the position, the House of Commons are now nearly in the position of deciding that they, too, should like televising of their own House.
There will be technical problems for the committee to look at, whether it be the Sound Broadcasting Committee or whether it be a new Select Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, mentioned to us the problem of manned cameras. If we were finally being televised outside any experimental period, we should not have manned cameras, we would have unmanned cameras with a console outside the Chamber somewhere controlling their movement. This is the sort of thing that is done. It is extremely expensive and would take some time to fit. One cannot buy that sort of camera off the shelf. Another problem that the committee will have to look at is the question of time. I know that some Members have suggested that almost
1244
the whole of our proceedings should be covered. That is really nonsense. One would not get an audience for a full coverage of Parliament, so it must be the interesting parts of our procedure which are covered—for example, Question Time.
There would be difficulties about Question Time, but it would have great appeal. Perhaps it would have to have sub-titles running underneath explaining what the Question is about: because the words that we utter when we ask a Question convey nothing. Or perhaps there could be a commentator explaining exactly what happens. I feel also that the committee might have a look at the whole question of editorship. It is not going to be an easy one. I have been chairman of the IBA and I know some of the problems. But, in view of what was said in the last speech—and the noble Lord, Lord Howard, joined in and mentioned it—if any Member who had been televised felt that he has been badly quoted, wrongly quoted, or that there was an infringement of the Act, he should have available to him the full services of the Inquiry Committee, which is doing an excellent job. It is called the Commission of Inquiry; it belongs neither to the BBC nor the IBA, and it is chaired by that distinguished Member of this House, the noble Baroness, Lady Pike. Anyone who felt that he had been personally misquoted would first of all complain to the broadcasting authorities themselves, but there would be redress.
These problems would have to be looked at and the final thing that would have to be looked at would be the question of cost. It would be costly. I am quite sure that neither the BBC nor the IBA nor cable television, when it comes, could possibly afford to cover the whole cost of it. The Government will have to face up to the fact that there will necessarily be some cost. On the other hand, with video taping, there would be some income to the broadcasting authorities arising, provided that that was in the agreement.
I do not intend to go any further except to say that my colleagues on this side of the alliance, although it is a free vote and they will vote as they wish, would, I think, generally prefer to see this House televised; but that, if the other House came along with us, it would be a better proposition. Perhaps I may say that I agree with the noble Lord. Lord Soames, that nothing should be hidden. It should be, to quote Cromwell, as he did, "Warts and all".
7.15 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Soames, for enabling us this evening again to discuss the question of televising the House. I must say that I agree with many previous speakers that, though we are not a democratically elected body, and we are the secondary body of the Legislature, the public have a right to know what we are doing. For very many years Hansard has provided that record and, for the public in an era of increasingly better ways of communication, more than that is now required.
As we have been reminded, since 1978 our proceedings have been sound recorded, and edited extracts from those recordings have been broadcast. I may say that I welcomed that decision of the House at that time, as I had already for five years seen the effect of the broadcasting of Question Time at the Greater

1245
London Council. That was certainly beneficial there, as it enabled people to realise what a great city authority was doing for our metropolis.
I could not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Soames, when he said that the question of this House being abolished was one of the major issues at the last general election. I do not see the question of the televising of this House as an issue related to the question of House of Lords reform. The question before us tonight is the question of public access. As I have said, that access was initially granted by admitting the public to the Galleries, then through Hansard, and then through radio. Now it is proposed to grant access through television.
Logically, it should be a complete record on cable. Indeed, the cable channel operators will have 32 channels to play with. Four of the channels are already spoken for, and so they will have 28 to fill up. I should have thought that it would not be difficult for them to find a channel or two to devote exclusively to the televising of Parliament. I understand, following a discussion this morning with some people involved with cable, that one of the problems that cable operators will find will be to produce sufficient British products to achieve a suitable balance in their total network; and it is felt that to be able continuously to televise via cable both Houses of Parliament would enable their British quota to be considerably enhanced.
In this regard I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that he need have no fear of children being forced to watch Question Time in the Houses of Parliament, since I am also told that it is quite possible for people subscribing to a cable system to say that they do not wish to receive a particular channel. Therefore, they can say that they do not wish to receive the parliamentary channel.
As I see it, the major problem that faces us with the televising of Parliament is whether we should provide under our own control a television recording of what happens in the Chamber, with the media able to use from it such extracts as they wish, adding their own commentary; or whether the media should have total control with guidelines. What has concerned some Peers is that, in their recordings, the television cameras might pick up not only individual speakers, but also the personal foibles of Peers in the line of the camera. Indeed, from viewing the experimental film made in 1968, it is clear that this is a real problem and that the camera should concentrate specifically either on individual speakers or on long shots of the House as a whole.
This brings me on to the whole problem of who edits and how the editing is to be carried out. Undoubtedly, if complete programmes were made in this House, there would be a danger of censorship and also a danger that the programmes would be very boring. On the whole, I think that the present arrangements for the broadcasting of Parliament have worked well; but they have caused problems and have given rise to frequent complaints. My position as Opposition Chief Whip means that those complaints about broadcasts come to me fairly frequently. They are usually of the nature that the proceedings in this House have been neglected in one or other of the programmes.
1246
This problem was highlighted last Thursday, a week ago today, when we had a debate on the NGA dispute. I gather that the debate was reported very fairly in "Today in Parliament" last Thursday evening, but the following morning there was a very distorted report which gave the impression that this House was truculent and unruly. This was achieved by running various episodes next to each other and it did not give a true impression at all. Indeed, I would go further and say that a consequential statement arising from that was not reported at all. Having said that, I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, that eventually it is the media who will have to decide what is and what is not to be broadcast.
We have had some debate this evening on the technical aspects of broadcasting and we have all been grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, for his expertise in this area, and for informing us of the problems of an experiment. I was equally grateful to learn—as indeed one already knew—that some of the problems of the past, such as hot lights and obtrusive cameras, can now be overcome.
The right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Chichester, was concerned with the problem of Peers playing to the camera. I do not think that this is a great problem, though I suppose that somebody investigating the average length of sittings of this House, and finding that over the past 15 years it has increased considerably, might say that that was a result of the proceedings of the House being broadcast. But others might think that there were other reasons for that.
This problem was also raised in a robust maiden speech, on which I must congratulate him, by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, who doubted whether Parliament and television were good for each other. All I can say is that I am no longer conscious—and I do not think other noble Lords are conscious—of the Sound Broadcasting Box situated above the Clock in the House. Furthermore, I do not think we are any longer conscious of those in the Public Gallery—although I may add that if my wife is in the Public Gallery I am concious of the fact.
When the noble Viscount replies, I hope that he will be able to confirm that if this Motion is passed tonight it will in no way bind this House to proceed with the televising of the proceedings, with or without an experiment, before the other place comes to a decision to proceed with a proposal or with an experiment. I do not think that we should be in the position of bouncing the other place into a decision to televise by taking an irrevocable decision ourselves tonight.
As I see it, the Sound Broadcasting Committee could come up with proposals for an experiment and could also indicate when, and in what circumstances, that experiment should take place. They could suggest a similar experiment in another place—which would indeed be presumptuous of the committee—or a period of time before any long-term decision is taken, to enable attempts to be made to get an agreement with another place. This is a question of moving step in step with another place and it is a matter that has been raised by a number of speakers. Some noble Lords have suggested that it should be ignored, but it is something of which we much must take account.

1247
I tend—rather unusually—to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who said that we are talking about the televising of Parliament as a whole. But I must also agree with my noble friend Lord Shackleton, who put it in a rather different way when he said that it is not possible for this House to be televised in the long-term, without the other place being televised as well. I fancy that those two noble Lords might find themselves on different sides in the Division Lobbies this evening.
We must remember that, however much we are devoted to our work here, we are a revising Chamber and we are not the primary Chamber of Parliament. I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to clarify this point. Indeed, just before I rose to speak the noble Lord. Lord Aylestone, gave a rather different interpretation from what my interpretation had been of the Motion before us this evening. Therefore, it is important that we should get clarification. Finally, my noble friends will be voting one way or the other on this issue, according to how their minds have been swayed in the debate this evening, or how they might be swayed by the final words of the noble Viscount.
7.28 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I think it will be agreed that we have had a very remarkable debate. We have had very nearly 30 speakers. In fact, unless I spoil it by going on for too long now, we shall have had 30 speakers in about 4¼ hours. I think that your Lordships will agree that this has been a very remarkable example, and it is one that might he followed on some other occasions, though to say that might be tempting fate too far.
Perhaps I may start by congratulating my very old and noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil on his maiden speech. He and I were colleagues in another place for a very long time, so it is a great pleasure for me to be able to congratulate him here tonight. He knows that I do not agree at all with anything that he said in his maiden speech. But, equally, I have to admit that he put forward all the arguments which I have to answer to my own satisfaction in coming to my own view. That, after all, is the importance of the debate, and I very much congratulate him on putting his views so clearly.
I think that I should just answer the point made by several noble Lords, which was underlined just now by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, about how we proceed and how our relations will look with another place. I hope I made it clear in my first intervention that I foresaw difficulties, both practical and political, in one House proceeding ahead of the other. That was deliberately done and, after the debate, I still feel that that problem remains. After all, many of those who have spoken have experience in both Houses. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, a predecessor of mine in this office, probably faced the same problem with his colleagues when the question was raised previously. We are both anxious on this score.
The noble lord, Lord Aylestone, said that he would be prepared to go it alone. Nevertheless, he would, he said, dislike having to go it alone, and it would be much better if it were possible for both Houses to act
1248
together. I learned much from his considerable experience when I became Opposition Chief Whip in another place. He had previously been Chief Whip for many years and was Leader of the House when I was Opposition Chief Whip. I agree profoundly with the noble Lord about that. The answer I must give to all noble Lords who have raised the point is that, as I understand it, if this Motion is passed by your Lordships' House tonight, the question will be remitted to the Sound Broadcasting Committee to devise a basis on which they should come back to this House, and to your Lordships, as to how we should proceed with the experiment. The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, described it as a cautious Motion. The noble Baroness is correct: it is cautious. When we reach that stage we shall be in a position to consider how and in what way we should proceed.
It is also true that the period of time during which the matter would be discussed by the Sound Broadcasting Committee would enable another place to take their discussions further. It would be possible for more discussions to take place with my colleagues in the Government. We should then be better equipped to see what might be the attitude of another place. I said at the beginning of our debate that I believed it would be unfortunate if another place thought we were determined at all costs to go ahead without giving them time to consider it and if another place felt that in some way we were seeking to "bounce" them. Unlike my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls and other speakers, I want the whole of the proceedings of Parliament to be televised. I want the proceedings in the House of Commons to be televised. I have always wanted their proceedings to be televised and I shall give some of the reasons why I believe that they should be televised. If I did not, I am not sure that I should want one House to go it alone, but in the circumstances I have to say that I do want those proceedings to be televised.
On that basis, perhaps I may mention some of the points which noble Lords have made. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, spoke of the last experiment when the sports debate was televised. Yesterday afternoon I watched a recording of that debate. I agree with the noble Lord: I thought that it was very good. The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, with his many years of experience, said that television was the best exposer of information. I am sure he is right. The noble Lord also said that we must not engage in a public relations exercise. He is right about that, too. The noble Lord said, too, that it made it slightly easier to deal with the considerable problems of editing, a problem which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, and others have mentioned. Those problems are perhaps more difficult than he imagines, and will cause us difficulty both in the Sound Broadcasting Committee and afterwards.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, said that the public had a right to be given a clear picture of what is going on. I have considerable sympathy for his point of view. My noble friend Lord Selkirk raised some powerful arguments against the televising of proceedings. As one who has great respect for my noble friend and his knowledge of this House and of public life, again I have to answer to my own satisfaction some of the powerful points which he

1249
made. The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, gave us the benefit of his very considerable technical knowledge after his long time as a governor and chairman of the BBC. He gave us a clear picture of some of the problems which we shall have to face in the Sound Broadcasting Committee and some of the problems which, if televising is to go forward, I shall, if I can, have to square at some stage with my colleagues and with the Treasury. However, we shall have to see how we get on.
The noble Lord, Lord Strauss, made a very powerful speech, as he did in the past. During our long careers in the other place I sometimes agreed with him. I do not agree with him tonight but I have great respect for the views he has put forward. My noble friend Lord Windlesham, who has considerable knowledge of these matters, pointed out that in the past the House of Lords had led the way. It led the way over the press gallery between 1831 and 1835. It is possible for us to lead, and I say to my noble friend and to your Lordships generally that, if we decide to pass this Motion, we may well be leading again. It is the speed at which we are able to lead which is important. We have to get another place to decide that they believe it will be worth while. But in itself it would be an act of leadership and, some would think, an act of leadership which is somewhat overdue.
The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, said that he was in favour of the televising of our proceedings but he said that he disliked television performers. I understand his point of view. Sometimes I dislike them, too. My noble friend Lord O'Neill of the Maine spoke of his experience of the French experiment and said that the cameras do not necessarily act as a magnet. He is probably correct. My noble friend Lord Thomas of Swynnerton made a very powerful speech against the Motion. I disagree with one point that he made. As a great exponent of the written word he is right in saying that it is extremely powerful, but it is only powerful for those who are prepared to read it, and even the writings of the noble Lord may not reach quite so wide an audience as either he or many of us should like. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, pointed out very clearly that a great many people do not read the written word and, if they do read the written word in the press, have considerable difficulty in divining much of what is going on in Parliament. What I might describe as our popular newspapers use their space for other matters which they believe are of greater interest to members of the public—and perhaps they are.
It is equally true that some of the popular newspapers rely on reports from very amusing sketch writers about what goes on in Parliament. It could be said that I am one of those who has suffered considerably from sketch writers over the years. I should not be fair to myself if I said that I thought they were always fair. Sometimes they are fair, but sometimes they have a touch of prejudice about them so far as certain individuals are concerned.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is in favour of the experiment. However, she is worried about selective quotation. So am I. We all suffer from that. The monitoring committee which she mentioned might be the answer. I was surprised by what my noble friend Lord Beloff, for whom I have great respect, said. He said that he was against the televising of the
1250
proceedings in another place. I understand his view, but I question whether sound radio is necessarily the best example of what might happen if the proceedings were televised. The situation might be very different. I believe that television rather than sound radio would be much better for another place. I shall come back to that point in a moment.
My noble friend praised the party conferences. The televising of party conferences is one of the reasons why I have become increasingly certain that the televising of Parliamentary proceedings would be a good idea. I was surprised that my noble friend took the opposite view while supporting the televising of Party conferences. My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, who has considerable knowledge of television over a very long period of time, said that he felt that television was likely to improve behaviour in another place. I do not believe he would suggest that it needs to he improved here. I, too, believe that it would. My view is founded on my belief, after the considerable period of time during which I sought to represent a constituency in another place, that my constituents would not have enjoyed seeing me partaking in some of the activities which sometimes happen there. However, my old constituents, country people in the North of England, might take a different view. Nevertheless, I suspect that constituents would still have the last word on the matter and I do not believe that they would like much of the behaviour that they would see.
My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls does not want the proceedings to be televised and he made his position very clear. Far be it from me to argue with him. He has had considerably more experience of fighting elections and winning them by narrow margins than anyone in this country.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: And losing them by narrow margins.
Viscount Whitelaw: But he won more than he lost, my Lords. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway believes it to be the machinery of overt constitutional government and feels that we should go forward with the experiment. My noble friend Lord Gridley is against it. He has reservations about televising proceedings, which perhaps can be answered so far as the activities of the BBC are concerned. However, he has some doubts because of the experience of sound broadcasting. I hope that I have referred, albeit briefly, to most of the many points which your Lordships have raised. Perhaps I may pick up one or two others as I come to give my final views on my own personal position.
The basic reason for my support for the televising of Parliament is a simple one. Television occupies a central role in our national life. If anyone doubts that, let them consider the increase in, and support for, all those sports and other activities of our national life which are televised. They become far more the centre of life than they were before. We also have to remember the many people who become household names through appearances on television programmes. That again shows that television is at the centre of our national life.

1251
If television's central role is accepted, then, in my reasoning, it follows that the nation's Parliament—the centre of our democracy, and admired throughout the world despite all its imperfections—will, in the end, either be televised and retain its central role or become increasingly irrelevant and disregarded, if it continues with its refusal to let the cameras in. I can respect the feelings of the noble Marquess, Lord Tweeddale, and others, but I do not agree with them.
I shall give one other example. It has never escaped my notice that Members of both Houses are far from shy about appearing on television to advance their views. Indeed, we often see, and will continue to see, the absurd situation when Members of both Houses take part in a debate inside Parliament and then rush out immediately afterwards to go over the same ground in a television studio—or even, until the new studios came along, on the green in Parliament Square. I cannot believe that that is a sound way of proceeding.
But as a supporter, I have also had to answer to my own satisfaction the strongly-held objections of those who fear that the cameras will destroy parliamentary debates as we know them. There is, first, the powerful argument that television does not offer just a window through which proceedings are viewed. Rather, by judicious use of the cameras, it can provide its own scene. My answer is, first, that some ground rules would have to be agreed with the producer. I understand the difficulty of doing so, but I understand that ground rules are agreed for many other television occasions—I know they are, and I believe that they should be. Secondly, I do not accept, as I have said, that the introduction of television has in any way damaged party conferences and political meetings at general elections: quite the reverse; it has improved them.
Then there are those who fear that the introduction of television cameras will distort our proceedings in either House of Parliament or even force changes against our will because they would be ridiculed as stuffy and archaic. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Strauss, had that feeling in his mind. I recognise the risk, but I do not believe that the viewing public will be scornful. My confidence was reinforced last Sunday when I watched the noble Viscount. Lord Tonypandy, explaining on television the procedures in another place with, if I may say so, great appeal, great dignity, and a considerable sense of humour—which I believe would have appealed to a great many people in the country, and would have done much to translate our proceedings to the general public.
Lastly, I cannot accept the fear of those who believe that instances of unseemly or unruly behaviour by a few will do serious harm to the reputation of Parliament. My experience of 28 years in another place, where such problems arise, is that people who are anxious on those grounds severely underestimate the corporate will of Parliament. It is true that some Members who start by refusing to accept traditional standards—perhaps in any House of Parliament—take longer to tame than others. But on the whole, they are tamed in the end.
For those reasons, I do not believe that television will undermine our parliamentary proceedings. Quite
1252
to the contrary, I personally am convinced that in the years to come the institution of Parliament will gain in understanding and esteem throughout the nation. That is why I am so grateful to my noble friend Lord Soames for introducing this Motion, and why I shall enthusiastically support it in the voting Lobby afterwards.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Soames: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to those of your Lordships who have taken part in this debate, which I believe has been thought to be interesting on all sides of the House. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend the Lord President of the Council and the Leader of the House for the great support he gave to the concept of televising the proceedings of the House. I know it is something he has believed in for a long period of his political life. Indeed, for quite a while he and I have thought as one on this question.
Of the difficulties expressed by noble Lords, I will refer to only one or two. One of them concerned the House of Commons. Here I will refer to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, if I may: that he did not want another experiment for we had already had an experiment. In fact, the experiment of some 15 years ago was an experiment involving closed-circuit television. It was going to lead on to a general experiment but, for reasons that we touched on earlier, it did not develop into that.
If your Lordships' House passes this Motion, it will go to the committee, who will come back after some months of deliberation and report to this House upon the detail and the substance of how this matter should be handled. Many ideas have been fed to them from today's debate about the kind of matters on which this House will be looking to hear from them when they do report.
I should like to think that the committee will report positively and that, after a period of time preparing for it to happen, there will be the period of experimentation which is asked for in the Motion. During that period of experimentation, and in the time before that, I hope that there will be every opportunity for discussion along the usual channels between the two Houses, and for the other place to give what consideration they feel like giving to the matter. It is to be hoped that we might end up with both Houses being televised. I do not know. What I do know is that there will be plenty of time to consider the matter. It will not be the first time that the lead has been given by this House to Parliament as a whole.
If the House approves the Motion, which I earnestly hope it will, a great responsibility will rest on the committee to answer all the questions raised in this debate, and many others besides. We must all wish the committee well. Also, I should not wish to sit down without saying how much I enjoyed the speech of my noble and very great friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. He and I entered the House of Commons at about the same time some 30 years ago or more. I have listened to many of his speeches: they have all been as vigorous as the speech we have heard today—but I have never heard one with which I have disagreed more fundamentally. But he has shown in the way he put his points that we have a very good extra contributor to our debates in this House. My Lords, I beg to move.
7.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 24.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ardwick, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Aylestone, L.

Lawrence, L.

Baker, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Long, V.

Banks, L.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bessborough, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Birk, B.

Marley, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Mishcon, L.

Caithness, E.

Morris, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cathcart, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Collison, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Craigavon, V.

Onslow, E.

David, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denham, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Diamond, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elles, B.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Reay, L.

Erroll, E.

Reigate, L.

Ferrier, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Feversham, L.

Sandys, L.

Fitt, L.

Savile, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Shackleton, L. [Teller.]

Glanusk, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Soames, L. [Teller.]

Hanson, L.

Spens, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Swann, L.

Holderness, L.

Swinton, E.

Howard of Henderskelfe, L.

Trumpington, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Underhill, L.

James of Rusholme, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Kennet. L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Beloff, L. [Teller.]

McCluskey, L.

Bishopston, L.

Monson, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Burton, L.

Orkney, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Stallard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gridley, L.

Strauss, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L. [Teller.]

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Henley, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

Gas and Electricity Prices
7.58 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will re-examine their decision to increase prices of gas and electricity.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords. I want to speak first of all about the insensitivity of the Government. Apart from actual finance and actual hardship, to which I will come later. I believe that this lack of
1254
sensitivity is the most serious aspect of what we are discussing tonight.
I am wondering if it is impossible to make a breakthrough here, or can we convey to the Government, through the Minister who is to reply to this debate, just some of the feelings of the general public. It seems to me, leaving aside the rights and the wrongs of this matter, that the policy-makers are completely out of touch. Does the Minister not see that it is really very difficult for the ordinary domestic consumer to comprehend, let alone understand? In July we were told that British Gas had doubled its profits to £665 million, and while more and more consumers are finding it difficult to pay their bills, apparently the series of price rises had been so profitable to British Gas that in addition to the £665 million profit the board had paid a levy of £470 million to the Government. Indeed, in The Times of 27th July an article by its financial correspondent, Jonathan Davis, stated that the profits of the Gas Board,
"were greater than those of ICI, Beecham, and Marks & Spencer combined".
That, of course, was excellent. But what about the ordinary domestic consumer? Surely such results merit some reduction in price?
The Government just did not seem to understand that the many people having difficulty in paying their bills, and only managing to do so by effort and sacrifice elsewhere, were going to look askance at a profit that had doubled and to which they, the consumers, had all had to contribute. On top of that, the very possibility that prices should rise was adding insult to injury. It was just not good enough. I want to ask: do those who foot the bills have to pay more, however big the profits? While we domestic consumers may not be financial experts, it seemed to us that such an attitude was the economics of the madhouse.
We were supported in this view by a leader in the Guardian on 14th November. I wonder whether the Minister has read it. I wonder whether it is in his brief and whether he will be dealing with this nonsensical Government attitude tonight. The leader was headed:
"A tax by any other name".
I quote from the first paragraph:
"The Government says it is ruthlessly committed to curbing inflation, yet here it is about to impose unwanted price rises on nationalised industries which are already making profits large enough to bring into question their obligation to break even 'taking one year with another. 'The price rises are to be some 4 per cent. for gas and 3 per cent. for electricity coming shortly after the sharpest real increase in the price of these utilities for several decades. The Government's reasoning is apparently that the extra profits will help to curb its borrowing, which needs to be restrained if inflation is to be brought down. In short, the Government is proposing to bring prices down by putting them up. This is unlikely to be the most direct way of achieving its objective."
A further comment in that leader was to the effect that there is no rhyme or reason in this policy.
It has always been my understanding—and perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that we had a principle in this country that nationalised industry prices should not be regarded by the Treasury as just another tax. On this very point, I was glad to note that the National Gas Consumers' Council expressed "deep concern" that domestic and industrial gas prices were being forced up by the

1255
Treasury above the immediate needs of the industry itself. The Chairman of the Council, Miss Sheila Black, said:
"We are completely opposed to the use of British Gas as a milch cow."
I have noted the letter sent to Miss Sheila Black by the Secretary of State and included by him in the Commons Hansard for 28th November. But this does not deal with the point I have just made. What it does say very clearly—and more than once—is:
"The Government has no powers to impose price increases on the industry." [Official Report, Commons, 28/11/83; col. 425.]
We all know that, in reality, that that is complete nonsense. As the Economist remarked on 19th November under the heading:
"Market prices, or Ministers' ones?"
—it was asking that question—
"To help in holding down next year's public spending, the nationalised British Gas Corporation and the nationalised electricity supply industry are being set tighter financial targets so that they can produce a higher profit to be handed over to the Treasury."
Mr. Michael Barnes, chairman of the Electricity Consumers' Council, said that electricity prices should be held at their present levels until at least the beginning of 1985. He was commenting on the announcement that the electricity industry had made an operating profit of £868 million in 1982–83.
He continued:
"These profit figures are substantial and clearly show that the electricity industry has over-shot its financial target significantly. We are therefore calling on the industry to extend the existing price standstill beyond next April and at least till January 1985."
In The Times of yesterday I read:
"The Cabinet, before the autumn statement of Mr. Nigel Lawson, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, decided to increase the sum the Treasury will require from the industry by £322 million".
An increase for the Treasury of £322 million after an operating profit of £868 million last year! I hope that goes home to the British public. It is absolute financial nonsense so far as the consumers are concerned.
Are we supposed to he grateful that, following this operating profit of £868 million, the Electricity Council proposes,
"only a small increase midway through the next financial year"?
It appears that the comment in the Economist which I quoted was indeed correct.
What about industry itself? The CBI promptly condemned the rises as "bad news" and the Director General of the Associated British Chambers of Commerce, Mr. Tony New come, said:
"We are appalled by the Chancellor's decision to rake in more money for the Treasury from higher charges."
Furthermore, Mr. New come wrote to the Secretary of State to say that his members had reacted "sharply and angrily" to the proposal.
On the other side of the coin the Minister may call in aid the report commissioned from the accountants, Deloitte Haskins & Sells, on the efficiency of British Gas. Most of us will have noted their recommendations at that time, particularly the one saying that gas prices should be higher. I would only comment that obviously accountants are not in touch with public opinion or, to be fair, the brief probably did not require that they should be. I draw comfort from two points here. First, even the experts cannot agree on
1256
what the proper price for gas should be. Secondly, Mr. David Howell, the former Secretary of State for Energy who was responsible for the three-year crash programme of price rises, now says that enough is enough and that prices should be frozen. I gain some comfort from that.
I draw even more comfort from the report made by accountants Coopers and Lybrand. reported in the Financial Times of 1st December. I wonder what comment the Minister has to offer on the first three paragraphs by Mr. Ian Hargreaves in that paper, which are as follows:
"Electricity prices could be cut by as much as 7 per cent. and then be held stable for a period without damage to the supply industry, according to an independent report circulating in Whitehall.
"The report, by accountants Coopers and Lybrand. argues that the present formula used by the industry in setting electricity prices takes insufficient account of the gap in power station building caused by over-capacity.
"But the report says that if allowance is made for the gap in power station building, it would trim the industry's annual requirement by between £500 million and £700 million—a saving which could be passed on as lower prices."
As I expect the Minister knows, this report was commissioned by Mr. Nigel Lawson when he was Secretary of State for Energy.
It would be interesting to know the opinion of Mr. Walker, who is the present Secretary of State. on the article in The Times on 23rd August by Alex Henney, which was headed, "Give the watchdogs more bite". Without going into detail on the question of consumer councils in nationalised industry—a subject that the Government have every intention of avoiding for as long as possible—I would point out that the subject matter of the article was the American-style regulation on monopoly services. I wish to quote only two sentences:
"In New York last year, the regulatory commission ordered the private gas and electric utilities to return 104 million dollars excess profits to customers. Monopoly services in Britain are publicly owned and rarely give anything back."
The author of the article, Mr. Alex Henney, is chairman of the London Electricity Consultative Council and a board member of the London Electricity Board. Indeed, he wrote to The Times on 1st August in support of my original letter of 29th July.
Obviously a considerable amount of correspondence ensued. Some of it has been published, but most of it is in our respective files. There is not the time—and indeed the House would not wish it—to have a detailed discussion on these letters, but there is one that I wish to mention. It came from a correspondent describing himself as,
"a pensioner terrified of a cold winter".
He took the months June 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983 as examples of the charge per therm and the quarterly standing charge levied on him each year. The price per therm started at 17·06p. It then went up to 21·29p, then to 27·20p, and in the last year. 1983, it was 33·50p. The quarterly standing charge started at £1·62, the next year it was £4·50, the following year, £7. and in 1983, £8·60. There is no need for your Lordships to remember those figures, but over three years the price per therm for this pensioner went up by 16.44p, or 96.4 per cent., and the quarterly standing charge by £6·98, or 431 per cent.
I included those figures in my letter to The Times. The newspaper was good enough to say that it hoped to use them, but it asked whether I was sure they were right, as they seemed so extraordinary. We got in touch with the writer and discovered that they were correct. I venture to hope that some of your Lordships might be sufficiently interested—or horrified—to turn up The Times for Saturday, 22nd October, where these facts are set out in a letter that I wrote, challenging the managing director, finance, British Gas Corporation, on his denial that he followed a high selling price policy. I hope very much that the Minister will he able to answer some of these points and will not just read the brief that he came into the Chamber with. His brief will not cover all these points.
In conclusion, I revert to my opening remarks. There is a blockage somewhere in the mind of the Government which prevents them from realising or understanding what ordinary people feel. They have no conception of what it is like for somebody who is struggling to pay these bills who knows that the winter is coming, who needs the heat and just does not know how he will be able to afford it. What is suggested by the Government is a fuel tax imposed on industries not needing the money, making huge profits, and inflicting unnecessary financial hardship on the general public, many of whom are, indeed, terrified not only of a cold winter, but of price rises that they cannot afford; and so they do without.
We have many financial experts in this House. Not one to whom I have spoken believes that these price rises are justified, or are even a wise policy. I should he glad if the Minister can answer this question, as it puzzles me. Does he consider that present consumers should foot the bill for generations to come? If he does, for how many generations should that apply? I should be glad if the Minister would answer that. I have never heard the Government state their position.
Finally, whatever his reply tonight, I must ask the Under-Secretary to draw the attention of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, to this debate, not of course in the latter's capacity as Leader of this House, but as the overlord or chairman, of the special ministerial committee which is deciding great financial issues for this country. Those of us who know the noble Viscount arc quite sure that he will regard unjust financial hardship for ordinary members of the community as for him a problem every bit as serious as what might be termed more important matters. We hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to look at what we have said on behalf of the many poeple who are deeply worried about what they see as an unfair imposition in the form of a fuel tax, and who have come to us for help.
8.16 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I rise from these Benches, having for a great many years been a keen supporter of the Consumer Council and consumer policy generally. We could not have heard a better or more complete analysis of the situation in regard to the gas industry than we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry. In my opinion she is one of the greatest exponents of the feelings and views of consumers in any House of
1258
Parliament anywhere. I follow her with great humility, but I entirely support her on all this.
Being a great supporter of this Government, I do not like to make critical statements, but I do so tonight, as I am speaking for the consumer. Strangely enough, in my house I use gas for almost everything. I have gas heaters, cookers, and almost everything else. The only things which I have that are electric are the lights. I am a heavy user of gas and a strong supporter of gas consumers and of the industry.
I do not understand why, when we have a successful and well run industry which is supplying what people want and is making big profits, the price must go up. The noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, has put the point clearly. If a private, ordinary business, such as Marks and Spencer, or ICI, made those great profits. it would distribute them in dividends to those who had invested their money. It would not put up the price: it would distribute the profits. Admittedly, industries such as gas and electricity are slightly different, but the principle is surely the same. When a successful industry makes high profits, that is the moment to pass something on to the consumer. In this case a lower price should be passed on. That would not injure the industry in any way. It would probably mean that more people used and paid for gas, and consumption was increased, which in itself would be useful for the gas industry.
There is something strange in the theory which appears to be put forward by the Treasury, or whoever, that when something is very successful, a tax is instantly imposed. so that it becomes less successful. It is wrong to use the gas industry and its profits to impose a fuel tax. A fuel tax is not something that should be paid by the ordinary people consuming the fuel. That is something altogether different. If this kind of policy were adopted by the Government or by industry it would kill the enterprise of businesses; businesses which, on the whole, we all want to help, since without encouraging business, without increasing opportunities for employment, we are only injuring our country in a way in which I personally, and I am sure everybody else, will very much oppose.
If this is a way of increasing taxation, then I think it is very' unwise indeed. We do not want to increase taxation; if we possibly can, we want to lower taxation. That would help to restrict inflation. One suddenly finds oneself with the position which has been described most eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, and in the letters which she has referred to. I have read a certain number of them, but not the ones which appered only yesterday or the day before, and they do indeed accurately describe the very bad principle involved in this particular matter.
Increases in gas or electricity prices hit every single person, and some can afford to pay them more than others. They hit harder than anybody else old people and the people who have small incomes; although these are the people we do not want to hit. These are the people we want to try to help if we possibly can. I hope the Government will look at this again; not increase this taxation, not increase the price of gas, but enable us to be fairer and have a fairer distribution to consumers in a way which would he wise, sensible and fair. I think this particular form of taxation is most unfair and most unwise.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I apologise to the House for being late to listen to everything that has already been said in this debate. I know your Lordships understand that I have participated in Questions on this particular subject matter of increases in the price of gas and electricity. In the very short contribution I wish to make I want to ask the Government whether they will bear in mind—and the probability is that the point has already been made—that these increases in charges have not in any way been requested by the administrators in charge of these publicly owned industries. We realise that the party opposite is almost pathologically opposed to anything that is publicly owned, except the police, the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, and to anything else which contributes fundamentally, as these great industries have, to the economy of Great Britain.
Many of us are still young enough to remember the experience of something like 290 privately-owned electricity organisations which could not get electricity to British farmers; when the gas organisations could in no way get gas to the outskirts of our great cities. But it took the same endeavour which constructed our mighty defence organisations to see to it that British hillside farmers could get electricity and that outlying districts could he supplied with gas.
Now we have the discovery of North Sea gas. The point is that ordinary people contributed to these great ventures. North Sea gas has become almost a shareholder, as I understand it, in North Sea oil. I could readily understand it if a Government made requests of the chairmen and the boards of direction of these great industries about massive expense such as occurs in, say, the coal industry. In the capitalist system expense means money, not human beings: not shot firers, not coal miners, not those who are damaged for life, not those who are slain outright. One realises that before the war we were slaying coal miners at the rate of 400 a year. What would be said if we were killing doctors and school teachers at the rate of 400 a year?
We have seen this magnificent endeavour. I had thought that the whole principle of the public ownership of these great industries was finished and done with. We acknowledge that they are there to help people. Then suddenly we are faced with this distressing and disturbing news. It would be really distressing and disturbing if we had to face the fact that they were in financial difficulty. The argument of the Government would have been that everybody had got to contribute to help the gas industry and the electricity industries to get on their feet. If that were so, one could to a degree understand it; but that is not the case. Not so very long ago justified criticism was being made because the profits of the gas board were so enormous, particularly from their entrepreneurial endeavours in regard to North Sea oil.
The last time that gas prices were increased it was also ludicrous, and it was a very unhappy situation because it coincided with the Government making tax reliefs for the very wealthy while pushing up gas and electricity charges for the rest of the community.
The gravamen of my submission tonight is this. I do not want to hear arguments that the old and infirm
1260
who need to be kept warm can get supplementary benefits; I think that is an appalling argument to put to the old-age pensioners of this country who have made their contribution in their youth, in their middle age and in their latter years. It is not only an indignity, but they feel it an embarrassment that in Great Britain in 1983 they have to subject themselves to some form of supplementary benefit to keep warm in winter.
I listened some time ago to a speech which struck very hard within me. It ws a speech of one of the most experienced Britons (in a variety of ways) in this land today: I refer to the noble Lord. Lord Hill of Luton. I do not suppose for one moment that he is personally particularly worried about increases in charges for electricity and gas. The thing that makes me so proud to be in this place is to know that we can still produce people like the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, who probably personally is not too much affected but who at least can come here and make the point that for tens of thousands of old people this is going to be a difficulty: and it is on that particular aspect that I await the reply of the Minister.
This is not a crowded Chamber; this is not a burning issue like the televising of Parliament. But I can tell the Minister this. There are tens of thousands of old people from John o' Groats to Lands' End who will hope that there will be some tiny semblance of compassion in the attitude of the Government today with regard to these proposals. It may not be too late for them to be abandoned. There is no reason whatever for the increases: the industries do not want them: the old-age pensioners do not want them. I have no evidence, but I should like to say in conclusion that I believe, after examining the situation, that the mass of ordinary people of these islands do not want them to be inflicted on the old of our country. It does not matter what excuses are given with regard to supplementary benefit. There is no need to subject so many of our fellow Britons to this form of indignity. The Government should drop the proposals.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Hill of Luton: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Baroness. Lady Burton of Coventry, not for the first time, for raising a very important issue affecting ordinary people. I want to base what I say on a physiological fact. It is that the regulatory system of some people, usually young or old, is very much less capable of resisting coldness than that of normally healthy people of middle years. The result of that failure to react as the remainder of healthy people do may well be hypothermia—a relatively new word that has been used in the medical press to describe this condition only over the last 15 or 20 years. The sufferers from hypothermia are likely to be those on low incomes and living alone.
Of every 100 cases of hypothermia reported 85 are old people. These are the people who may suffer—I am choosing my words carefully—from hypothermia, which can be a most dangerous or a fatal condition, when their expenditure on fuel has to increase as are sult of higher prices. It may be argued that they could economise in other fields. But we are speaking of people on low incomes who have no other fields that are ripe for economy. The reduction therefore is likely to be a reduction in expenditure on fuel. Expressed another way, any rise in fuel costs for these elderly

1261
people—often elderly and sick—without a compensatory increase in their incomes adds to the danger of hypothermia.
This leads me to put a question to the Minister who is to reply. In the light of the physiological facts, do the Government intend to increase social security payments to compensate for increases in fuel costs which lessen the capacity of the poor and elderly to buy fuel? This consideration applies whether the increase is in gas or electricity prices or both. I simply do not know whether the rumour in the press about the abolition of the proposed higher charges for electricity for the time being is true. Whether the increase is for one sort of fuel or the other, there is a danger to the health of people who have to make economies in their expenditure on the fuel.
The first question is this. Do the Government intend to introduce a compensatory increase in social security rates to meet this increase in fuel costs for the poor and elderly? If not, what other remedies do they propose to avoid the risk of hypothermia in some old people? This is the crucial question. It is no good saying in reply, "Ah, but in the past month or so social security payments have risen in accordance with the cost of living or pensions have increased in accordance with the cost of living". Those payments have increased because of the cost of living. There is no compensation for the inevitable increased expenditure on fuel by these people.
The second question is of a more general character. If the Government need additional income, why not use the fairer method of taxation in relation to people's incomes instead of adding to the pains and strains of old people? My third point relates to a Question that I put down to which an Answer was recently given. It concerned the case of an old lady of 85, nearly blind, who had suffered a £1·90 decrease in her income as a result—to many of us, the unexpected result—of the regulation passed in Parliament a year ago. I am glad to say that there was a satisfactory outcome in that case. The local authority reached the conclusion that the old lady needed more heating than the general level of heating it provided for its tenants and certified that fact to the DHSS. Immediately the drop in pension was restored and back money was paid. I therefore wish to ask the Minister this: will the appropriate Minister advise local authorities, wherever they have a case of someone whose heating needs are exceptional and above those that are normally necessary, to notify the DHSS local office so that the problem can be solved? Should not that procedure be generally known and generally recommended in order to avoid decreases of income for a particular group of people with requirements for heating over and above the average requirement? I should be grateful if the Minister can say whether that can be done as a partial, but not a complete, solution to the problem.
The Government must realise that, if there is insufficient fuel, the danger to old people is real. There must be compensatory payments to such people. I am not referring to increases in relation to the cost of living that have been given for everyone in this category and outside. I therefore say to the Minister that increased fuel costs—again, I choose my words carefully—for elderly and poor people without steps being taken to
1262
protect them from the danger of hypothermia following upon insufficient fuel, is just not good enough in a civilised country.
8.39 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, for drawing our attention to some of the problems relating to fuel in this country today. The noble Baroness, as we know, is an absolute expert in your Lordships' House on consumer affairs. The hard-hitting speech to which we have listened this evening was one that we are used to hearing. The noble Baroness never minces her words; she is always on target. I personally always enjoy what she says, although I do not always agree with it.
The noble Baroness has given figures this evening for the increases in both industries. I have tried to find out what the increases are likely to be, but I was told that they had not yet been settled. Therefore, I do not quite know who is holding out on me, or who is giving the noble Baroness information that perhaps has not yet been agreed.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I quoted from one of the newspapers; I do not know whether it was the Guardian or perhaps the Financial Times.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, the few remarks that I wish to make this evening—and they will be few—are made in my capacity, some years ago, as the first chairman of the Gas Consumers' Council. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I cannot allude to the Electricity Council although I was aware, in those years, of what it was doing. However, I obviously had more knowledge of what the Gas Consumers' Council, and British Gas in particular, were thinking.
I should like at the beginning of my brief remarks to pay a tribute to British Gas. I had five particularly helpful years knowing what it was doing and I came away realising that it was one of the most efficient industries in this country. It was a cost-effective and also a very caring industry. There has not been an increase in gas prices since 1982 and gas is still the cheapest fuel. Indeed, it is one of the cheapest fuels in Europe. The increase in charges—whatever the cost must be—must obviously be borne by the consumer. Even the ever-increasing wages bill has to be met and the new gas supplies which have to be found also have to paid for. I submit that a gradual increase is very much better for the consumer than the artificial holding down of prices which, during the previous Government, led to the British Gas Corporation making a loss on sales of gas to the home.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, who has much expertise in this matter, many of us are worried about the possible deaths due to hypothermia which are causing concern in the country at the moment. But it has not been brought to your Lordships' notice that in October 1982 the Secretary of State announced that the gas and electricity industries had agreed to commission independent reviews of their standing charges. One of the results of the findings is that British Gas has decided to introduce a standing charge rebate

1263
scheme for tariff customers who use small quantities of gas. The concessions on standing charges will, it is estimated, benefit about I million customers and will cost British Gas about £2 million in a full year. For the credit customers and the pre-payment meter customers, where the standing charge is greater than the charge for therms supplied, there will be a rebate to bring the standing charge down. I submit that that in itself should go a long way to allay the fears of elderly people who live alone and who use very litttle gas.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I acknowledge that the noble Baroness does her homework very thoroughly indeed. But is she aware that, notwithstanding the very telling argument that she has just put forward, last year British Gas made a profit of £660 million, so the £2 million it is going to give away is absolutely trivial?
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, the noble Lord is entitled to his opinion.
As we all know, the social services are empowered to help in cases of need. They were able to do so when I was chairman of the Gas Consumers' Council. Indeed, I should like to take a little bit of' credit, because I was instrumental in getting that through. However, I should like to know from my noble friend the Minister whether the electricity industry is making the same provisions. As I have said, British Gas is a very caring industry and the consumers' council, as I am sure the noble Baroness would agree, is an excellent watchdog. It monitors the industry to ensure that it is as efficient as possible.
From what I have said this evening I hope that the Minister will he able to allay some of the fears of the older people in our society for whom everyone in this House, on all sides, cares very deeply. Again, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing this subject.
8.46 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I must apologise to the House for the fact that my name is not on the list of speakers, but I withdrew it when it seemed likely that the previous debate would end so late that I would be unable to he present. However, I under-estimated the restraint which noble Lords are capable of exercising on occasion. I should like to join in thanking my noble friend Lady Burton for raising this important Question this evening, and I should like also to support her plea that gas and electricity prices should not rise—a plea I think supported by most of the other speakers who have joined in the debate.
At the time that the autumn Statement was made it was understood that the Government were suggesting that there should be an increase in gas prices of 5 per cent. and in electricity prices of 3 per cent. Of course ultimately the industries decide their own prices, but the influence which the Government are able to exercise on the industries through the financial targets which they set, and the performance aims which they set out, usually tends to be paramount.
However, according to the press, it would appear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Energy have had some measure of disagreement, which may have altered the situation. It
1264
is now suggested in some reports that there will be no increases at least for nine months in electricity prices, and we read that the gas industry has attained financial targets over a four-year period. That represents a settled financial regime which may not affect the prices that the Government are suggesting they should charge, but it is in itself an advance, since they have not had such a regime since last April. I am sure that we shall look to the reply by the noble Earl for further clarification on these particular matters.
In considering whether prices should rise, we have to bear in mind a number of matters. First, we have to bear in mind how prices have already risen in recent years. If we take the period from January 1974 to April 1983, we find that prices generally—all prices—have risen by 233 per cent.; earnings have risen by 246 per cent.; gas prices by 274 per cent.; and electricity prices by 392 per cent. So over that period of some nine years both gas and electricity prices have risen faster than earnings and the general level of prices.
If we take a shorter period of time—the period during which the present Government have been responsible for our affairs—from May 1979 to September 1983, we find that the retail price index has risen by 57 per cent.; electricity prices by 83 per cent.; and gas prices by 122 per cent. That period of course includes the period to which reference has already been made when the Government requested that for three years prices should be increased at 10 per cent. above the rate of inflation.
Having considered how prices have risen, and having discovered that they have risen quite considerably and faster than the general level of prices whether we take nine years or three years as the period of time by which we are judging, we then have to consider what the profits have been, and these have already been mentioned: some £330 million last year for electricity and some £660 million for gas, after a levy of £530 million had been imposed by the Government, which makes the total of £1,190 million.
Then, as several noble Lords have pointed out, we have to consider the effect on the poorest, because fuel is a very important item in the budget of the lowest income groups. Low income pensioners and lone parents spend roughly twice as much of their income on fuel as people on average incomes. The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, has referred with authority to the problem of hypothermia, and experts tell us that before next spring arrives we can reliably expect cold homes to have caused the death of 44,000 people over the age of 50 and 500 babies under a year old.
Disconnections are still running at 120,000 a year; 214,000 households have deductions from their supplementary benefit for fuel arrears; and a further 500,000 gas customers and about 600,000 electricity customers are paying off arrears through other arrangements. The Government are spending some £350 million on heating additions, but only about 65 per cent. of supplementary benefit claimants get these additions, and those not on supplementary benefit and only marginally above the supplementary benefit level do not qualify for the heating addition. Altogether fuel poverty is a serious-problem.
Then we have to consider the effect on industry. I must confess that I find it difficult to get accurate

1265
comparisons, but at least some countries have cheaper fuel than we do in this country, and there is a danger that an increase in United Kingdom prices will put United Kingdom industrialists at a disadvantage—that a gap that was perceived earlier on will open up again. We are a large producer of energy and it would seem absurd that industrialists in other countries should have an advantage over our own in this particular field.
Against these arguments, it is argued that we must increase the price in order to promote conservation, although experience would seem to suggest that price is not a good weapon for this purpose. Then there is the problem referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, about the increasing extraction costs and whether prices should rise in order to take account of them. I think that profits of the size that we have been considering are sufficient to absorb—at any rate for the time being as far as one can see—any extra costs which undoubtedly will occur on those grounds.
An argument which is made by the Government is that the return on capital as it is at the moment is not satisfactory. In the gas industry there were profits of £660 million after a levy of £530 million. Yet Mr. Walker, the Secretary of State for Energy, speaks of a profit of £188 million on a capital of £12 billion. That capital of £12 billion was described in the Economist as "complicatedly calculated capital", and we have to bear in mind the effects of current cost accounting and the historic method when we are looking at that figure of £12 billion. If one takes £188 million on £12 billion the return is 1·6 per cent. which perhaps does not sound very great, but that £188 million is after the deduction of £295 million for the sale of assets which were forced on the industry by the Government. It is also after the payment of some £208 million in tax, which the Government get anyway.
The return, before allowing for the sale of assets, before allowing for this tax of £208 million and before allowing for the gas levy of £530 million was 57 per cent., and that seems satisfactory to me. I should have thought that consumers are paying enough to provide a reasonable return and are making a substantial contribution in tax at the same time.
My noble friend Lady Burton referred to the report commissioned from the accountants, Coopers and Lybrand, by Mr. Lawson when he was Secretary of State for Energy, and the fact that that report suggested that electricity prices should be cut—not raised—by 7 per cent. For all these reasons—for the sake of the poorest, for the sake of British industry and for the sake of the general body of consumers—in view of the profits earned and the taxation paid, I urge the Government not to seek higher gas and electricity prices.
8.56 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I too am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, for raising this subject tonight, which is of great concern to domestic, industrial and commercial consumers of gas and electricity alike. I think it is unfortunate that the preceding candyfloss debate which has just ended has overshadowed this debate, which deals with the very real and acute problems that so many people have as a result of high
1266
heating costs. It really matters not one jot whether or not the proceedings of this House are televised. On the other hand, inadequate heating can be a matter of life or death for some.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, said, the Government have shown awful insensitivity in this matter; the public have the spectacle of the gas and electricity industries making large profits and at the same time forcing further increases in prices down the throats of the consumers. I have to agree—and I am sure that the House will agree—that the Government's handling of the fuel industries and, indeed, of the prices charged for electricity and gas has been appalling. The bitter quarrel between the Energy Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been an unedifying spectacle, to say the least. I think that perhaps we are bound to have a sneaking sympathy for the Energy Secretary, Mr. Walker, who returned from his recent visit to China only to find that, while his back was turned, the gas and electricity industries had been ripped off by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his own particular ends.
The decision of the Government to force increases in gas and electricity prices has been universally condemned not only in this House tonight but in another place, by the consumer organisations and also by industry. I am sure that noble Lords will have heard what Sir Terence Beckett said on the "World At One"—and if they did not hear him on the "World At One", they will have read what he said in the newspapers—about the increases in energy prices. What he had to say was that the increases in fuel charges would be extremely bad for industry and, indeed, may very well send some industries to the wall just at a time when, far from wanting to destroy our industrial potential, we should he building it up.
Undoubtedly, the price increases which are completely unnecessary in terms of the financial viability of the gas and electricity industries, as we have heard from many noble Lords tonight, will cause particular hardship to the old, the poor and the deprived. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hill, with his expertise in this subject, made it clear that the physiological characteristics of the very old and the very young made them subject to hypothermia, and that these people were in real danger. I believe that the Government should listen to that expert warning, and indeed answer the very real and pertinent questions which the noble Lord put to the Government tonight. What in fact are the Government going to do, particularly if it is a hard winter, to save these people from hypothermia as a result of already high and rising fuel prices?
I am sure that noble Lords who are here will have seen the press release which was issued—in fact it is a report called Cold Homes—so I shall not read it in its entirety, but I should like to quote some of the things that it says. First:
"Before next spring arrives we can reliably expect cold homes to have caused the deaths of 44,000 people over 50 and 500 babies under a year old. If it is a hard winter more will die".
It goes on to say:
"This is real poverty in 'civilised' Britain in 1983. Those men, women and babies who arc physically vulnerable by their age or disability will die simply because their leaking homes cannot be heated by their low incomes at today's energy prices".

1267
We have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Banks. that disconnections are running at a very high level, and, in terms of long-term disconnections, 21,000—one-fifth of all electricity cut-offs—are without supply for a month or more. Many of those disconnections involve families with young children. What is more, in their outgoings those people—and they are usually old people and young people who are forced to remain at home and do not enjoy freewarmth at work—spend a percentage of their total expenditure on fuel costs which is twice the average and nearly three times the proportion spent by the richest. But, despite the high proportion of their expenditure, they still only purchase 57 per cent. of the fuel bought by the richest. That of course is a very good reason again why the strictures and the demands of the noble Lord, Lord Hill, should be treated seriously by the Government tonight.
These increases in prices are undoubtedly a furthermean tax on the poor in order that the Chancellor shall be able to store up future tax cuts in favour of the already rich or the well-off. Furthermore, as we have already noted, the unfavourable position of old people and others on supplementary benefit has been further compounded by the muddle and administrative chaos over combined housing benefit and the new regulations, which have reduced overall supplementary benefit for some claimants by up to £2 a week. That again was a point noted last Thursday at Question Time by the noble Lord, Lord Hill.
It is also a fact that many people who would qualify for additional heating allowance do not claim it because they cannot find their way around the complicated regulations. The Department of Health and Social Security ought to do more to identify those who need additional heating, and I hope that the Minister will be able to announce tonight that that is precisely what is going to happen.
I want to come now to the treatment of the gas and electricity industries by the present Government. They have in fact since 1979 used these industries as milch cows. In fact, my noble friend Lord Molloy mentioned that the Government do not like the nationalised industries, although in fact they will use them for their benefit. But of course the Government cannot lose on this. On the one hand they criticise the nationalised industries when they make losses, and when they make profits they use them for taxation so that the Government are always on a good wicket in this respect.
Now the electricity industry, in which I at one time worked, in particular has had to bear the consequences of twists in Government policy over a long period of time. For example, the switch from coal to oil-fired power stations now involves the industry in carrying loan charges on hundreds of millions of pounds of capital lying idle due to the mothballing of oil-fired stations following the oil price crisis. There has been also over-concern for security of supply, coupled with the present Government's economic policy, which has severely reduced industrial production, led to a severe drop in demand for electricity and saddled the electricity supply industry with 60 per cent. more capacity than it actually needs to run the system and produce reasonable security of supply to consumers.
1268
To foist a negative EFL—because an external financing limit is what it amounts to—of £740 million on the electricity industry, which has been so buffeted by events and Government interference, is quite intolerable, particularly when that negative EFL is going to force up prices, although one has to say that, according to the latest press reports, the electricity supply industry has decided to defy the Government and to hold prices for 9 months. Good for them! The Government. I guess, will not dare to introduce the legislation which would be necessary if they wished to force the electricity supply industry to comply with their policy of increased fuel prices.
However, that negative EFL of £740 million will injure the capacity of the electricity supply industry to hold prices for an even longer period, which is really necessary not only to assist domestic and industrial consumers but also to get the industry itself hack on its feet. We have already heard about the report of Coopers and Lybrand, which suggests that because the electricity industry has such a large amount of surplus capacity which will carry on for the next decade, prices, far from being increased, should he reduced by as much as 7 per cent. That would not only help consumers, that would help the electricity supply industry to make use of that 30 per cent. of spare capacity that it has at the present time, and that would be good for us all.
I should also point out that it is not only the Electricity Council which is against the increases in prices. As my noble friend pointed out, the industries themselves do not want these increases—neither the gas nor the electricity industry. But it is not only the Electricity Council that does not want the increases; the trade unions in the industry are also against the increases, and have written to the Secretary of State and the Electricity Council urging that the increases should not be applied.
In the gas industry there has been an even greater blatant raiding by the Government of the coffers of that industry at the expense of the gas consumer. Indeed, the extent of the raids is almost unbelievable. We have heard about those raids from the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry. We have heard about them from the noble Lord, Lord Banks. We have had criticism from the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, and from the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, about the use of these industries as a means of taxation. Indeed, the extent of the raids is almost unbelievable.
That Her Majesty's Government have been able to get away with their depredations for so long is due to the complexity of the industry's finances and the public's inability to probe the accounts thoroughly. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, has obviously been able to probe, because he gave us some very interesting figures tonight. But in stark terms the Government have enforced the transfer of over £1,000 million from the Gas Corporation to the Exchequer since 1980. In 1982–83 alone, according to the Gas Corporation, the amount transferred was £600 million and that is equal to the total annual revenue from capital gains tax. The Government are getting as much from the gas consumer in one year as they are from people who can well afford to pay tax in respect of capital gains that are made—that is after the £5,300 a year exemption.

1269
Transfers of this order—we must not forget this—will continue in the future because the gas levy will continue unless the Government removes it. Let us make no mistake about it. This is a straight tax on gas consumers and it amounts to 4 pence per therm on gas prices, which is roughly a 12 per cent. tax on every therm sold. That is the extent.
In a letter to Miss Sheila Black, the chairman of the National Gas Consumers' Council, the Secretary of State seeks to justify the gas levy in the following terms—and I shall quote from Hansard. This letter has already been mentioned once this evening. It states:
"The position is simply that the BGC will continue to purchase some gas from early North Sea discoveries, which are exempt for Petroleum Revenue Tax (PRT), at well below its current market value. If the Government had taken no action the Corporation would, as a result, have made large excess profits. The Government therefore decided to introduce a levy to transfer the windfall from British Gas to the nation as a whole, in much the same way as PRT does for oil and newer gas supplies". [Official Report, Commons 28/11/83; col. 425.]
That sounds reasonable until we consider the figures. Let us examine the attempted justification of the gas levy as being in lieu of PRT. The gas levy netted by the Government is as follows: £129 million in 1981–82; £394million in 1982–83; and £600 million in 1983–84, making a grand total to date of £1,123 million.
Estimates in the annual public expenditure White Paper of cost to the Government of exemption of taxes from North Sea gas fields under pre-1975 contracts showed that the Gas Corporation would have been paid, in 1979, £15 million petroleum revenue tax; in 1980–81, £10 million in petroleum revenue tax; and, in 1981–82, £50 million in petroleum tax and£50 million in special petroleum duty. So the total for the three years would have been £125 million. Therefore British Gas has paid over £1,000 million more in tax than if it had paid petroleum revenue tax and special petroleum duty. It is ironical, and quite inequitable, that British Gas should be taxed to the hilt at the same time as the present Government are relieving the oil companies of royalties which will cost the Government thousands of millions of pounds in lost revenue in future years.
But that is not the end of the sad story of raids on the Gas Corporation's assets. As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, pointed out, from a reading of the accounts for 1982–83, it would seem that the Government intend that proceeds from the enforced sale of British Gas assets of off-shore and in-shore oil will be transferred to the Exchequer, instead of remaining with the Gas Corporation for the benefit of the gas consumers. But for the provisions of this transfer of funds to the Government, British Gas would have earned, it is true, a rate of 5·7 per cent.—well above the Government target. It seems that we have a case of privatisation without compensation. It seems to be not nationalisation without compensation, but privatisation without compensation. But for these impositions by the Government, the Gas Corporation could cut the cost of gas by 10 per cent. and still be able to earn a reasonable return on net assets employed. That is the extent of what the Government are doing to the industry.
1270
A great deal more could be said if the time were available, and I should in particular have liked to deal with the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, about long-run, marginal-cost pricing. However, I would merely remind her that the Commons Select Committee on Energy considered this matter in its second report on industrial energy pricing policy. I had the honour to be a member of the committee when it considered the matter. Its conclusion was:
"For all these reasons, we are not convinced that Long Run Marginal Cost Pricing, as advocated by the Government, is either efficient or sustainable as a method of pricing energy".
So in fact the committee came out against that principle because it believed that it was wrong that the consumer of today should pay for the consumer of the future. Instead, the committee favoured some system of average cost pricing. So the Commons Select Committee on Energy is on the side of the noble Baroness.
As I have said, a great deal more could be said, but there is not the time this evening. However, sufficient has been said by the speakers in this debate—and all speeches tonight have been excellent, to the point, and very knowledgable—to show that Government policy on gas and electricity prices is, to say the least, misguided and injurious, in particular to the poor and to industry.
The only fuel policy that the Government have is to jack-up fuel prices beyond the maximum which the market can bear and, by so doing, encourage both higher wage demands and inflation. They should abandon this policy and, instead, adopt an integrated rational fuel policy combined with conservation measures. They should make a start by abandoning these most recent impositions, and that would lead to a freeze on gas and electricity prices for at least a year, if not longer. As we have already said, if the Government really wanted to do so, they could cut the prices of these fuels, with great benefit to the consumer and to the country as a whole.
9.19 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, I should like to join in the general warmth of welcome to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, for raising this matter tonight. Having listened to the various speeches I think that it is very timely that the Government should put on record how they stand at the moment. I should like to say a little more about the timing, but unfortunately it is a little early on actually to know how to refer to some of the points made by the noble Baroness.
I find myself in some difficulty with the noble Baroness because she quotes from newspapers. For very many years of my life, I have never believed a word that I have read in the papers and, having listened to some of the comments tonight, I am still in that particular frame of mind. The noble Baroness—and, I think, speakers from other parts of the House—referred, for instance, to the Coopers and Lybrand report. That was an internal document in the department, commissioned, as was rightly said, in 1982. As far as I know, it has not as yet been published. It has some commercial confidentiality within it, and it is therefore unlikely that we shall be able to publish it. Therefore, the leaks that one reads

1271
about it, I am afraid, have to be taken with a pinch of salt: they are not accurate.
The noble Baroness referred at one stage to Mr. Alex Henney, who is indeed well-known to me. He is, for instance, a member of the London Electricity Board and, through his own council, can always make his views known through Mr. Barnes, to whom the noble Baroness also referred, who is the chairman of the Electricity Consultative Council.
I indeed recognise that concern has arisen over the possibility of increases in gas and electricity prices, and I hope now to be able to assist. Last month, the Government announced the external financing limits for the gas and electricity industries for next year, and many commentators have interpreted this as a decision on gas and electricity prices. In fact, this is not the case: prices are determined by the industries concerned, and the Government have neither the power nor the wish to impose price changes on the industries. I understand that the industries have taken no final decisions on prices for next year. But I cansay that present indications are that, if any increases are announced by the industries in the normal way after consultation with their consumer councils, they should be below the rate of inflation.
In the case of gas prices, it is important to understand the reasons why the corporation have indicated that a modest increase is necessary. The corporation has a creditable record in reducing controllable onshore costs—it has already been referred to—such as, pipelines, vehicles, labour, equipment and so on. These actually fell by 5 per cent. in real terms in 1982–83, as compared with 1980–81. Since many of these costs are included in the standing charge, I hope that these savings will feed through to the benefit of consumers by allowing the corporation to hold these charges for the present. But other costs—and this is the point—particularly the cost of new gas supplies, are rising. For example, it is often forgotten that nearly a quarter of our gas supplies have to be imported at prices which are four to five times the price of the original Southern Basin supplies.
The corporation must take account of these trends in setting prices. If it did not, we should soon be hack to the situation under the last Labour Government, where artificial holding down of prices led to the BGC making losses on sales of gas to the home. That would be bad for the corporation, bad for the taxpayer and, in the long run. bad for consumers—
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Earl allow me to intervene?
The Earl of Avon: No, my Lords, I will not for the moment. The noble Lord was not present during the opening speeches and I think he can, at least, sit down and listen to my arguments. If I may repeat what I said, that would be bad for the corporation, bad for the taxpayer and, in the long run, bad for consumers, who would be receiving unrealistic signals about the true cost of consumption.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for giving way, and I thank him very much
1272
indeed. I do not know who wrote the speech that he is reading—which civil servant it was. I have heard some appalling bloomers in civil servant-written speeches spouted from Dispatch Boxes. But does the noble Earl realise that it is a fact that over the past two years electricity prices have increased by 43 per cent. above the inflation level and gas prices have increased by nearly 90 per cent. above inflation? Those are the facts. He cannot say now whether I am right or wrong, but I am willing for that to go on the record and he can contradict me at any future time and say that I am wrong.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I shall contradict the noble Lord right now. He is wrong. They have not. Neither of those two prices has increased by the amount which the noble Lord said. If he will let me develop my argument, I shall come on to how much they have gone up, and if he listens he will know.
That then is the corporation's case. I understand that the National Gas Consumers' Council—which is a farsighted and responsible organisation—accepts that a modest increase in gas prices is justified. Certainly, no one could argue with the view that a steady and consistent approach to pricing is much to he preferred to holding down prices artificially, which is inevitably followed by large catching-up increases of the type which have been necessary in recent years. Prices to the domestic consumer have not risen—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Earl give way?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords. I shall not get very far at this rate.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: No, my Lords, that is quite true. The noble Earl has just said that it was wrong to hold down prices artificially, but was it not equally wrong to increase prices artificially in 1980, 1981 and 1982 by means of the gas levy?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the noble Lord has made two different points. We increased prices by 10 per cent. over each of the three years. That was not the gas levy. The three prices rises of 10 per cent. were too ffset the holding back of prices by the previous Labour Government. It is a different point. Then there is the gas levy on top. I shall be turning to many of these points. Then noble Lords can come back to me on them, if they wish to do so.
Prices to the domestic consumer have not risen since October 1982. There has therefore been a standstill of over 14 months for the ordinary consumer. Industrial contract prices have been frozen since April 1982 and renewal terms have risen by only about 3½ to 4per cent. since the end of 1980. Earlier today I was informed that the corporation expect to be able to extend this price freeze until April 1984. I am sure that noble Lords and industry will welcome this news (the noble Lord, Lord Banks, referred to industry) which means that industrial contract prices will have been frozen for two years at a time when prices abroad have been rising steadily. This can only be good for our industrial competitiveness and hence for jobs.

1273
In the case of electricity, the freeze on prices this year means that electricity prices in real terms are about 5 per cent. lower than they were last year. The prospects for prices next year are also good. The Electricity Council, as I indicated earlier, have not yet made any announcement. I understand that at present they are considering how to meet the external financing limit announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I believe that this is all good news. I hope that it will help to dispel the gloom and dismay with which some noble Lords seem to face this prospect. There is a tendency—
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, the noble Earl the Minister has been interrupted many times but he has just said something which I cannot follow. I understood him to say that prices had fallen in real terms and were less than they were last year. Does the noble Earl pay gas and electricity bills? Do they ever come his way? Mine have not gone down.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the mathematics of the noble Baronessare so difficult that it is hard for me to know where to start. There was no change in the price of electricity over the last 12 months. Would the noble Baroness agree with me about that?
Baroness Burton of Coventry: No, my Lords. My bills are higher.
The Earl of Avon: I hope the noble Baroness will send me her bills because these are the facts. If the noble Baroness will do so, I shall have a look at them. On average, over the last 12 months electricity prices have remained constant, which means that, as there was a rate of inflation during that time, the price of electricity has gone down in real terms.
There is a tendency among members of the Opposition to grudge any success achieved by the Government's economic policies and to question whether it is real. Electricity prices have proved that these policies are working. Real prices are steady because costs are coming down; inflation is down; and interest rates are down; coal prices to the generating hoard have come down. I believe that this is good news and I hope that it is good news to which we shall become accustomed.
The other half of this success story belongs to the electricity industry itself, and I pay tribute to it. We have been accused of knocking the nationalised industries. I do not do so. I believe that this industry is doing a good job. It has been successful in containing its costs. This year it has been enabled both to reduce its prices in real terms and to over-achieve the profit target agreed with the Government over the past three years. The industry is meeting its performance aim. It is able to reduce its controllable cost. It is doing so by improving thermal efficiency at power stations, by improving the efficiency of the transmission and distribution system and by reducing manpower and raising productivity.
Efficiency is a long haul and the industry has further to go, but I believe that the management deserve credit for the success they have achieved and for the efforts they are making. I hope noble Lords will join me in giving credit to them for this achievement.
1274
Some noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Banks, have expressed concern about the cost of electricity to manufacturing industry. All the evidence that we have—it has been compiled and agreed by the Electricity Council with the CBI—is that industrial prices in this country are no higher than average prices on the Continent. This average is, of course, made up of some prices that are higher than ours and of some that are lower. In France, for example, all prices are lower than ours and those of other countries in Europe, largely because of their successful and growing nuclear power programmes.
On the subject of standing charges, the general outlook for fuel prices is better than it has been for years. Despite this, I know there is concern expressed over the standing charges included in gas and electricity bills. Those charges reflect the fixed costs of providing a supply—for example, meter reading and billing. The Government have considered suggestions that standing charges should be abolished but have concluded, as did the Labour Government in 1976, that this would not be a satisfactory way of helping those in need.
However, the Government have not been inactive on standing charges. First, at our request the industries commissioned studies by independent consultants. Their reports have been published: they support the principle and broad lever of these charges, and they identify certain areas where still further savings may be possible through increased efficiency.
The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, and other noble Lords, spoke about help for the needy. The Government have also taken practical action to ensure that the less well-off can afford the fuel they need. Keeping prices artificially low is not, we believe, the way to do that. What needs to be done, and what the Government are actually doing, is to direct help specifically to those who would otherwise he unable to pay for the energy that they need and so would suffer hardship.
Supplementary benefit rates are intended to meet the cost of the normal amount of fuel needed by the average person on benefit, and the rates of benefit are increased annually in line with increases in the retail prices index over the year to the previous May. Obviously, there is an element of choice in the amount of fuel people use, so that some will spend more than others. But extra benefit is given to those who need to spend more on fuel because they are sick, disabled or frail and so need extra warmth, or because their homes are hard to heat.
In all, the Government expect to spend well over £350 million this year on such heating additions. That is no mean feat, and the Government's record is one of which we are proud. The rates of heating addition are presently at the highest level ever. On 21st November they were increased in line with the increase in fuel prices of 8·6 per cent. in the year to last May. Since November 1978, the basic rate of heating addition has increased by 140 per cent.—from 85 pence to £2·05 per week. 'That increase—I am pleased to be able to tell the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton—is well ahead of the increase in fuel prices over the same period. The heating allowance for those in greatest need is adjusted each year to reflect changes in fuel prices as well as other changes.
Lord Hill of Luton: My Lords, will the noble Earl, Lord Avon, allow me to intervene because I wish to get this point quite clear? Am I to understand from what he has said that no increases in the prices of fuel are contemplated in the foreseeable future?
The Earl of Avon: No, my Lords—I am afraid that is not the point. What I said earlier was, that the prices of the fuels are a matter for the two industries to settle for themselves.
I was going on to speak about the particular comment which the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, made about the case history of which he was kind enough to give me notice. I should like to tell him that the local office are taking steps to establish whether others have been affected; and arrears will he paid as appropriate. I thank the noble Lord very much for bringing that matter to our attention. We are taking steps to deal with it.
I should like to comment also on the remark that was made about the additional number of deaths numbering, I believe. 44,000 and given in a report recently. I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Banks, who mentioned that matter. That number relates of course to all causes of death—the main ones being heart disease, respiratory diseases and cancer. The figure for hypothermia—to which the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, also referred—is somewhere between 600 and 700 deaths per year.
More than 2½ million households now benefit from heating additions compared with 1½ million in 1978; 90 per cent. of supplementary pensioners get heating additions at a total cost of over £200 million this year. The Conservative Government introduced automatic heating additions for householders on supplementary benefit who are over 70 years of age or who have a dependant over 70 or under 5 years old. That means that more people than ever before get heating additions in their supplementary benefit, and that the additions. too, are worth more than ever before.
Finally, as a long stop for those on supplementary benefit who get into debt with their fuel board, DHSS and the boards have worked out a scheme, known as the "fuel direct scheme", which means they can avoid having their supply disconnected. An amount is deducted from their weekly benefit to pay for fuel they use and a further small sum is deducted and paid to the fuel board to reduce their debt. Over 180,000 people have taken advantage of this scheme and are presently on "fuel direct".
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, referred to diconnections. The industries operate a code of practice designed to safeguard those who suffer real hardship from disconnections. For example, the code provides that pensioners shall not be disconnected during the winter months. In fact, disconnections have been falling: between 1980 and 1982 the annual rate of gas disconnections fell by over 30 per cent., and electricity disconnections in England and Wales fell by nearly a quarter.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, mentioned the gas levy. The levy is imposed only on old contracts which are exempt from PRT. It is levied on British Gas rather than the oil producers because it is British Gas to
1276
whom the windfall profits resulting from the relatively low cost of the gas compared to its high market value would otherwise accrue. Thus, although the detail of the levy may be unique, the principle is exactly the same as for other North Sea taxations.
The noble Lord also mentioned the remarks in Hansard. If I may continue reading what I have here, it goes on:
"The introduction of the levy had no effect on prices since the Government reduced BGC's financial target specifically to take account of its introduction".
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, also mentioned the effects of asset disposals on BGC's finances. There is no reason for BGC to receive any part of the disposal proceeds. These will pass directly to the Exchequer and will therefore benefit taxpayers as a whole. BGC's financing limits take account of the needs of resources in its continuing operations and there is no reason to suppose that the disposals will cause an increase in gas prices. Gas prices will only be affected if BGC would otherwise have used profits to finance its gas operations, and such cross-subsidisation would have been quite wrong from both an economic and a commercial point of view.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burton. in her opening remarks asked about the future generating costs. The Government believe that prices should reflect the cost today of providing a supply on a continuing basis. To do otherwise would be to charge future generations for the cost today of supplying present consumers. I am sorry I have not been able to cover all the points made by the noble Lords and particularly Lady Burton. She asked me a specific point on figures which I could not take down, but I will look at it and let her have the answer.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down if he cannot give the answer tonight, which I do not expect, will he write to me—can he confirm or deny that these increases in gas and electricity were decided on 10th November at a full meeting of the Cabinet?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I imagine the noble Lord means "gas and electricity prices". The answer is, no, they were not.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before ten o'clock.