Lords Sitting of 19 December 1983

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

Council House Rent Increases
Lord Dean of Beswick: 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 is the increase in percentage terms in council house rents since 1979.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, average council house rents in England and Wales have risen 117 per cent. between 1979–80 and 1983–84.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in cash terms that means a weekly increase of £7.65, to be followed by another 75 pence this year, as dictated by the Secretary of State for the Environment? Is the Minister aware that that is a 10 per cent. increase—
Noble Lords: Reading!
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am not reading. my Lords. Is the Minister aware that that is a 10 per cent. increase in council house rents—an increase which is in fact twice the present rise in the cost of living? I should like to ask the Minister the following question. Bearing in mind that over 50 per cent. of council house tenants have borne the full brunt of this financial attack on their standard of living without any rebate or social security payments from the Government, when will the Secretary of State and the Government cease this attack on council house tenants who do not wish, or in some cases—
Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Dean of Beswick: —cannot afford, to buy their council houses?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, perhaps it is due to the season of the year, but the noble Lord's supplementary question reminded me of the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland. When in power, the party opposite had a policy that rents should keep pace with earnings. That conspicuously failed to materialise. By 1979 it was apparent that drastic action would have to be undertaken. It was taken, and the corrections were made in the three years 1980–81 and 1982–83. That has now worked through the system, and I am glad to say that actual rents for the current financial year show increases of only 3 per cent. over last year.
With regard to the point about the Government compelling local authorities to increase council house rents by 75 pence, or whatever was the figure. the noble Lord will know perfectly well that that is quite
480
untrue. The Government provide guidelines to the local authorities, and it is up to them to do their own thing in the local circumstances that pertain.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister must be aware that the Government guidelines state that the 75 pence must come from either rents or rates. It may well be that in his replies the Minister could be a little more factual.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as I have said, the Government do not compel authorities to raise rents. The increase of 75 pence in the local contribution that authorities are assumed to be able to make towards meeting their housing costs is determined for the purpose of calculating entitlement to housing subsidy in 1984–85. The increase can be met from rents or rates, or from a combination of the two. As I said before, it is up to the local authority in question how it decides to get in the money that is required.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does not the response from the Minister simply confirm that what passes for housing policy from the present Government is a scandal and a disgrace? Instead of creating a special class of citizen, a privileged class—and that is the council tenant who wants to buy his house—how about giving some time to the lot of the council tenant who does not want to buy his house, and to the homeless? Do the Minister and his colleagues intend to eliminate the public sector in housing regardless of the consequences?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, of course we do not—to answer the last part of the noble Lord's supplementary question. So far as the first part of it is concerned, I understand that the Question is to do with council house rents, not the building policy of this, or of any other, Government.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the higher council house rents rise, the more people have to resort to housing benefit? Therefore it is a case of diminishing returns. Is the Minister aware that in some parts of the country as many as 50 per cent. of council house tenants are now on full housing benefit?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is why we are broadly in line with the perceived policy, the announced policy, of the last Labour Government.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, can the Minister then turn his mind to part of my first Question? Can he given an undertaking that the Government will not be imposing annual rent increases of 10 per cent. on council house tenants in the future?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no, of course I cannot do anything of the sort. I do not know what the earnings increase compared with a previous year will be. I do not know what the rate of inflation will be. I do not know what the cost of housing to local authorities will be. What however I can say is that the proposed rise suggested in the Government rent guidelines will compare favourably with the earnings increase.

Bread Flour: Calcium Supplement
2.43 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: 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 are considering removing calcium supplements from white bread; and, if so, why.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the proposed revision of the Bread and Flour Regulations would make the addition of calcium to certain wheat flours no longer mandatory. This proposal follows the recommendations in the report on the nutritional aspects of bread and flour made by a panel of experts under the aegis of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy. They concluded that the reasons which had led to the mandatory addition of calcium to flour during the war years were no longer valid. No decision, however, will be taken until the Government have considered all the representations made on the proposals.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, while I thank the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether there was a bone specialist on the committee and also whether he is aware that there is an epidemic of fractures throughout the country and that many orthopaedic surgeons are most worried about the situation among the elderly?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot tell the noble Baroness whether there was a bone specialist on the panel. So far as an epidemic of fractures is concerned, I do not think that that necessarily has to do with calcium deficiency. The department's medical advisers have assured us that there would not be any measurable effect on anyone, including the elderly, if, in the context of a varied diet, which I think is important, calcium was not added to flour.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when he said that all points of view would he taken into consideration, it was a very welcome statement, indeed? Does he not agree that it is no exaggeration to say that the point raised by the noble Baroness, if not examined with great caution and care, could well be a matter of life or death?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I said when I answered the original Question, all views will be taken into account. I stress what I said in answer to the noble Baroness; that the medical advisers to the department have not come up with any conclusive proof that to remove the calcium would cause any great damage.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the best way of getting calcium into your bones is through milk and that there is plenty of it knocking around at the moment?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, yes, I am only too well aware of that and also that other things, including carrots, are full of calcium.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, how can the Minister accept the advice that he is given against the background that the aetiology of senile osteoporosis is unknown equally with its acceleration under conditions of post-menopausal osteoporosis or post-hysterectal osteoporosis? No such assurance can possibly be given as the causes are unknown.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not think that I can very well follow the noble Earl's question and the scientific jargon that he used. I shall nevertheless study what he has said in Hansard and, if necessary, write to him.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the noble Baroness. Lady Masham, is quite right and that lack of calcium can lead to a greater number of fractures?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, yes. But there are methods of getting calcium into the body other than through eating bread with calcium in it. I hope that this was the point that I managed to make when answering the earlier Question?
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, can I ask the Minister again whether he is aware that many elderly people, especially in cities such as Glasgow and Liverpool, eat a large amount of sandwiches, which are an easy convenience food? Will the Government launch a campaign to encourage elderly people to drink milk, as the noble Lord. Lord John-Mackie, suggested.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, milk is available in any case. The noble Baroness may like to know, although I would not wish to go through the list now, that there are a great many forms of food that contain calcium. Cheese, milk, fat fish and all sorts of other things are apparently full of calcium and in a normal diet meet the basic need for calcium.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether whisky has a calcium content?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am certain that it does!
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord was good enough to inform the House that this matter is now under consideration by his department. In the light of the supplementary questions, which point to considerable concern, can he say how long this process will take and when his department will report on the issue?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lord, I cannot give an absolute date, although I hope that it will be within the next few months, perhaps by the spring. I would not, however, like to be held down by that timetable. The important matter to bear in mind is that the addition of calcium began in 1942 as a wartime measure when it was thought likely that milk and cheese, the main sources of calcium in the diet, were likely to become scarce.

Marriage Registry Requirements: Passports
2.48 p.m.
Lord Brockway: 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 any registrars of marriages have been given instructions that certain persons seeking their services should be asked for their passports, and if so for what purpose.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, where either party to a proposed marriage comes from abroad, and particularly where he or she has a limited knowledge of the English language, all superintendent registrars have been advised by successive Registrars General to inspect a passport or other official travel or identity document in order to verify that the particulars in the notice of marriage have been given correctly. This advice has been given since 1922.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Camden Borough Council made an investigation into this practice and found severe discrimination against blacks and Asians? Is he aware that, in one case, an Asian who had lived here for a long time and who spoke English well was required to produce a passport, while whites from South Africa, Australia and New Zealand are not required to produce their passports, even, in one case, when the three conditions which the Home Office has laid down were not carried out by that person? Is not marriage a very personal matter in which these political issues should not be pressed?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is not a question of pressing political issues as the noble Lord suggests. In the particular case to which the noble Lord refers, the London Borough of Camden has, in fact, apologised because what happened was an error.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I am not sure that I heard the last answer correctly. Have the Government replied to the request of the Camden Borough Council that this practice should be amended?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is not a question of amending the practice. The practice is necessary and has gone on since 1922. I said that in the particular instance in Camden to which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, referred, it was a mistake and it should not, in that particular case, have occurred.
Lord Morris: My Lords, would my noble friend agree with me that marriage is the most idyllic of voyages?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, I suppose it is in those circumstances.

Disabilities: Classification
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: 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 progress has been made with the manual classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps published for trial purposes in accordance with a resolution of the 29th World Health Assembly in 1976.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the definitive version of the classification was published by the World Health Organisation in Geneva in 1980 under the title "International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps". Since then it has been translated into several languages and experiments in its application are being carried out in a number of countries. It was also the basic definition used in the World Programme of Action for Disabled People produced by the United Nations at the end of the International Year of Disabled People, and in the Council of Europe's own document on Information systems on Impaired, Disabled and Handicapped People, published in 1982.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that informative Answer. However, can he say whether the Government will follow this form of categorisation in calculating benefits, services and care that in future provision shall be based upon the extent of disability rather than the cause?
Lord Glenarthur: No, my Lords, I cannot give my noble friend that assurance. As my noble friend knows, the problem of classification is somewhat complicated. I could read out a full definition but it might be too lengthy. However, I can give my noble friend a copy of it. Perhaps I can illustrate the situation by an example. If someone is short-sighted he has an impairment; if his sight can be completely corrected by glasses, then that is all he has—an impairment. If his sight cannot be completely corrected then he also has a disability. If, despite that, the disability does not affect his life-style, then he is only disabled and not handicapped. If, however, he requires good sight to obtain the job that he would like, then he is also handicapped. I hope that example shows that it is not easy to make the classification for which the noble Baroness asks.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, perhaps I might pursue the matter further with the Minister. Indeed, I did appreciate the points that he made in answer to my supplementary question. But what I really wish to know is whether the Government plan to take up these methods of categorisation in listing the different forms of benefit, services and care for the different forms of disability. impairment, handicap or whatever. In that way we shall be able to get to the important point of treating the extent of disability rather than the cause.
Lord Glenarthur: No, my Lords, I cannot say that we can adopt that particular definition. As I have said, it is difficult to employ the classification to define a disabled population, particularly for the purposes of legislation. To say whether or not someone should have a particular disablement benefit will depend so much upon the individual, his circumstances and if he is able and willing to make use of aids, et cetera, that

485
relate to whether or not a particular definition is suitable to him or to anybody else.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, are these resolutions mandatory in any way? Are they binding?
Lord Glenarthur: No, my Lords, they are not binding resolutions.

Bomb Explosion at Harrods
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Elton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the bomb explosion at Harrods.

Registered Homes Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to residential care homes and nursing homes and registered homes tribunals, with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time and to be printed.

Cable and Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Elton, I beg to move that the Cable and Broadcasting Bill, placed before your Lordships on 30th November, be read a second time.
In the last two years your Lordships have debated the implications of technical developments in the means of distributing television and radio services on several occasions. These developments are capable of transforming the choice available to us from the television screen and transforming also the use to which we can put it. The two main developments, both of which are dealt with in the Bill before the House, are in the field of satellites and cable. Between them they provide the potential for many more television and audio services than we have now. Cable offers a large increase in such services; satellite offers a much wider coverage. Both offer new opportunities to British industry in developing the technology and exploiting it not only in this country but overseas. These are developments that we cannot ignore. It is up to us to provide the framework within which they can offer the widest opportunities and the greatest benefits to those prepared to apply them.
This Bill is the result of an intensive debate that has been undertaken in a comparatively short period but with great deliberation. A year ago we debated the conclusions of the inquiry chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, who I am glad to see in his place today and whose contribution to the debate I
486
look forward to hearing. In April the Government's policy on cable was published in a White Paper. Your Lordships discussed it in some length and detail in a debate opened by my noble friend the Leader of the House in July. Your Lordships are therefore familiar with our overall approach.
What I now bring before the House is an expression of that approach in the form of legislation, and I can remind your Lordships of it very briefly indeed. I believe that the development of new cable systems could pave the way for the growth of a whole range of new services of enormous potential for our economic, industrial and social life. It is not for the Government to prescribe just how this will happen. We have no intention of committing large amounts of taxpayers' money to the creation of a vast national grid. Our task is to create the right conditions so that private investment can be committed in the light of market research and consumer demand. Television services are central to the future of cable, not because they will always be most important but because they alone are capable of generating the finance which will justify the initial installation costs.
The areas covered by the Bill do not, in fact, coincide exactly with those covered by the White Paper. Two of the matters it touches on were not in the White Paper; and there are also two matters that the White Paper did cover but which the Bill does not. The first non-White Paper matter is the granting to the Independent Broadcasting Authority of powers to issue contracts for the provision of direct broadcasting by satellite services, or DBS. This follows the announcement by my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary on 16th September, and is to be achieved by the amendments to the Broadcasting Act 1981 contained in Part II and Schedule 3 to the Bill.
The second area covered by the Bill that goes beyond the area covered by the White Paper concerns copyright. Part I of the Bill contains a number of changes in the law of copyright intended to reflect the development of cable into a medium in its own right.
Your Lordships will recall that the White Paper dealt with both cable systems and cable services. It went into some detail about the rival merits of switched star as against tree and branch systems, and a number of other technical matters. The Bill, however, is not concerned with them. It is concerned with services, not with a system by which the services are to be carried—the trains, as it were, rather than the track. The cable systems do, of course, need both encouragement and regulation, but this is the subject of another piece of legislation; the Telecommunications Bill, which will also shortly be before your Lordships' House. In Committee, no doubt, we shall consider how they can best be kept compatible.
The second White Paper subject that is not in the Bill has been left out of the Bill because it is already being dealt with. I refer to the interim measures by which we have ensured that the impetus once given to cable was not lost while the legislation was perfected. We announced these in the White Paper debates in June and July. Much hard work has since been done by the Government, by the independent consultants

487
commissioned to evaluate applications, by the advisory panel appointed to vet their report and, of course, by the prospective cable operators themselves.
On 25th November my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary announced that the Government hoped, subject to the satisfactory outcome of discussions on certain points, to be able to issue licences for 11 pilot projects, which he listed. We are also licensing a number of existing cable operators to carry a more limited range of additional programme services over their systems. Our objective is to develop, as quickly as possible, audiences big enough to make it worthwhile for companies to start providing programme services—services that will have to be attractive if cable is to succeed.
So much for the scope of the Bill. Your Lordships will now wish me to summarise its provisions. It may be helpful if I start by giving a brief outline of the Bill's overall structure before I turn to the details. The 45 clauses and four schedules fall into three main groups. The first deals with cable. Clauses 1 to 21 and Schedule I establish the cable authority and set out its powers and duties and the arrangements which are to apply for the licensing of cable programme services. The second covers Clauses 22 to 34 and the other three schedules. It makes a large number of changes to existing provisions of the civil and criminal law to take account of the advent of cable. Many are of relative minor importance, but others are more substantial. In the latter category are the provisions on copyright, obscene publications and incitement of racial hatred. These two groups of clauses make up Part I of the Bill. The third group comprises Clauses 35 to 42 and takes up the whole of Part II of the Bill. It confers power on the IBA to appoint DBS contractors.
These provisions are an important part of the Bill although they cover only a small fraction of the space devoted to cable. These three groups of clauses, which together make up Parts I and II of the Bill and its schedules, contain all the key provisions. Minor and formal provisions appear in those clauses of Part III.
Part I sets up the new cable authority and gives it the powers to grant licences for the provision of cable services in specified areas and to supervise, though with a light touch, the services which are provided. The provisions setting up the authority itself, are in Clause 1 and Schedule 1. The authority will have a chairman and six members. We want them to start work as soon as the Bill is enacted. and we therefore hope to announce who they will be while it is still going through Parliament. They will be appointed by the Home Secretary and obliged to report to him annually. The authority will be a totally independent body, and it will have to support itself financially from the fees it charges to its licensees.
Those provisions are straightforward. I wish I could say the same of Clause 2. Clause 2 sets out what it is that will need a licence under the Bill. Its meaning does not, I regret, spring readily from the page. It may therefore be helpful if I say a little more about what kind of services will need a licence from the authority. The control will bite essentially on services which are offered in some way publicly; which are offered, that is, to two or more private homes at the same time, or to a place where members of the public congregate to
488
watch them, as in a cinema or a public house. A service which is private in that it is sent, via a telecommunications system, from one point for reception at only one private house or any other place where the public do not have access to it, will not need the cable authority's licence. Clause 2 contains a number of other provisions emphasising that what the Bill is concerned with is essentially what we normally regard as television and radio.
The cable authority is also to have some functions in encouraging the kind of interactive services that will be available via the home television set. The Government believe that these could represent a development of growing significance. However, the later subsections of Clause 2 limit the scope of the Bill. Simultaneous two-way communications. such as the ordinary telephone or video-conferencing, are excluded. This exclusion exempts text services such as Prestel from the requirement to have the cable authority's licence.
Clause 2 also provides, in subsection (3), a power for the Secretary of State to prescribe by order certain descriptions of diffusion service, the provision of which, under Clause 4(8), it will be the authority's duty to promote. The Government's intention is that the authority should give precedence to applications for licences for services provided over wide-band systems as against those provided over narrow-band systems in the same area. I should add here that we intend that existing systems should be allowed to continue in operation only if by so doing they do not prejudice the development of wide-band systems. The distinction is also appropriate in relation to the kind of licensing process which the cable authority will have to undertake before authorising the provision of services over a new wide-band system. Clauses 5 and 6 therefore provide that it is only for diffusion services prescribed under Clause 2 that the authority will have to invite competitive applications, consult local opinion and weigh the applications against specified criteria.
As the White Papers set out, cable, with the multiplicity of channels it will be able to offer, is not to be regarded as a form of public service broadcasting. It has the capacity to generate tremendous variety, and it should be allowed much greater freedom so that it can develop in accordance with what consumers want. The more the channels that are provided, the weaker the justification is for telling the service providers what kind of service they have to provide. The Bill therefore makes minimal requirements. But those requirements will be insisted upon.
A part from the general requirement that cable operators should live up to the promises they make in applying for a licence, there are two main obligations. First, cable systems will have to include among other channels the ordinary broadcasting services of the BBC and the IBA, both of television and of radio, and including future DBS services. The authority is not to have a discretion to waive this requirement. Nonetheless, there could be special circumstances where it is inappropriate, and Clause 12 of the Bill enables the Secretary of State to make exceptions by order.
The second obligation on cable operators is to give priority to British programmes and to stimulate British production. We recognise that in the early

489
years there may be a lack both of readily available British material and, before cable expands significantly, of audiences big enough to justify expensive new productions. In the short term, therefore, cable may have to look to less expensive foreign material to fill a substantial proportion of its channels. Much of it is likely to come from America. But they will be expected to increase the amount of British and reduce the amount of foreign programme material as cable finds its feet. I ought to make clear that "British" in that context includes material from elsewhere in the European Community. As to the matter of a specific quota, the White Paper said that the statutory requirement on the cable authority will be exactly the same as that on the IBA. Section 4 of the Broadcasting Act 1981 requires the IBA to ensure that "proper proportions" of the programmes broadcast are of British origin.
It is the IBA's own decision that determines that the amount of material from outside the European Community shall not exceed 14 per cent. Similarly, it will be for the cable authority to determine how to implement its obligation under Clause 9(1)(d) of the Bill to ensure that "proper proportions" of British and European material are shown. This provision is complemented by Clause 21 under which the authority is required to report every year on the way they have discharged this duty. That means that every year the authority will have to review what the proper proportions of British and European material should be and how cable operators should be kept up to the mark in their commitment to British programme production. Furthermore, Clause 6 requires the authority always to take account of plans to use British or European material in the programmes which an applicant for a licence proposes to offer before it grants a franchise.
The Bill sets out in Clause 7 the categories of people who are either debarred from holding a licence for cable operations or allowed to participate but subject to certain safeguards. The main objectives are to prevent control of licensees by foreign, political or religious interests; to limit the dangers of media monopolies by restricting—but not prohibiting—the participation of newspapers, television and radio companies; and to provide safeguards against the development of practices and arrangements arising from cross-ownership within the media and entertainment world which might be contrary to the public interest.
The number of things the Bill says that cable operators must do is relatively small; but there are also various things which it says that they must not do. As the White Paper made clear, the Government are determined that there should be no undermining of the kind of programme standards that we insist on for the existing broadcasting authorities. There is to be no scope for undesirable material of a violent or sexually explicit nature. The cable authority is therefore required by Clause 9 to do everything possible to prevent cable programme services from offending against good taste and decency; or encouraging or inciting to crime; or offending public feeling. Moreover, like the IBA, the cable authority is to be under a duty imposed by Clause 10, to draw up a code on the portrayal of violence.
490
The authority is also required to draw up a code of standards in advertising. Under Clause 11, the authority must consult the IBA in drawing up its code. We expect their code and that of the IBA to have a common core but to diverge at certain points. In particular we expect that a degree of greater freedom may be appropriate on the more specialised cable channels. Clause 11 also requires the cable authority to draw up the rules under which the sponsorship of cable programmes will be allowed. The same clause also contains the provision which will limit the amount of advertising. On cable channels comparable with independent television the amount of advertising will be limited to what is permitted under the existing rules on Independent Television. On other channels cable will have freedom to take as much advertising as it can get, even to the extent of devoting a whole channel to it exclusively.
Clause 13 contains a further safeguard for our existing broadcasting services. This is the provision which is designed to prevent ordinary viewers being deprived of popular events by means of cable "creaming them off" and selling them to those viewers who have cable and are prepared to pay extra for specific programmes or channels. This is an important provision for the future of public service broadcasting and of course for the large proportion of the viewing public who will continue to be reliant on it.
I have drawn attention to some of the central features of Part I of the Bill as it implements the policy in the White Paper on cable. The remaining provisions of Part I deal with the powers and sanctions that the cable authority will have for supervising cable programme services and apply to cable programmes the law on obscenity and incitement to racial hatred. Clauses 22 and 23 contain the amendments to the Copyright Act to which I referred earlier. These give cable operators copyright in their own output. They also reinforce the protection which other rights holders enjoy in connection with the use of their works in cable distribution.
Part II of the Bill paves the way for independent services of DBS. The IBA will be the broadcasting authority for such services, and we therefore attract the generality of the existing provisions of the Broadcasting Act applicable to the IBA's services, without the need to repeat them in the Bill. But there is one difference in the scheme to which I should draw attention. Under Clause 36, the IBA will not be responsible, as it is for its terrestrial transmissions, for providing and maintaining the transmitter network: in the case of DBS, the satellite system. The Government's intention is to create opportunities within which private investment can seek to satisfy the demands of the market. Their success will depend on their offering to the public services which they wish to buy at a price which they are prepared to pay. Thus it will be for the DBS contractor rather than the IBA to negotiate for the provision of a satellite system and to take the financial risk involved. The IBA will retain responsibility for the technical aspects of the transmission and will in this way be able to exercise the same control over the services as it exercises over ITV and Channel 4.
Because the DBS contractor will have to take his own responsibility for the satellite system, we think it

491
right that the contract for the provision of DBS services should be longer than that for ordinary ITV services—it should be for up to 12 years, as Clause 36 provides. But the life of the IBA is at present due to expire in 1996 and there is plainly, therefore, now a need to extend that life to enable it to enter into a contract of such length from the time that DBS services might be ready to start, say in about 1988. Clause 40 therefore extends the life of the IBA until the year 2001. This extension was already possible by order under the Broadcasting Act, but the Government considered it appropriate for the change to be made as part of the amendments provided by the Bill.
This Bill enables us to move forward on the advancing frontier of communications technology and to do so without the dead hand of bureaucracy. The pattern of development will not be decided by Government telling the people what they ought to want but by private enterprise giving the people what they do want. Together with the Telecommunications Bill it harnesses the public demand for entertainment to the development of a communications infrastructure that will I believe have a profound effect upon our way of life in the next decade. And it guards against the domination of any area of communications by interests that might be hostile to the public interest or offensive to private taste. It is an important Bill and I commend it to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Trumpington.)
3.19 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the voice was the charming voice of the noble Baroness; the pen was the mighty pen of the noble Lord the Minister, Lord Elton. We well recognise the reason for his having been delayed. We therefore wish to thank both of them for the introduction of this Bill.
If follows almost from the last remarks of the noble Baroness that it is perhaps a truism to say that we are discussing this afternoon a Bill of great social and economic significance. We are engaged in writing a new legislative chapter, should this become law, in the history of mass media. A great responsibility therefore rests upon this House, if I may respectfully say so, to see that the Bill leaves us for another place should it be accorded a Second Reading this afternoon after which we have exercised the utmost vigilance and we have ensured that we have neither shut gates in the face of technological progress nor recklessly opened them too wide so that we have admitted unwelcome and possibly socially dangerous forces.
May I make the position of the Opposition quite clear? We realise to the full the inevitability of technological evolution and that it is good to widen the choice of the viewing and listening public. We recognise and want to sustain the opportunities which present themselves in this field for our national inventive genius in engineering, electronics and entertainment. We welcome anything that can add to the enjoyment of people and which can create employment. For these reasons we shall certainly not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill.
492
Having said that, we on these Benches think that the Government have given too little thought in a hastily-prepared measure to many vital aspects. This we think will become apparent at the Committee stage of this Bill. In our view the Government have also been all too careless in their failure adequately to protect the existing broadcasting services and the quality of our national life. One wishes that the rapidity with which this legislation has followed so closely upon the committee report and the White Paper could have been the lot of other legislation in vital social and industrial matters. As I have intimated, we on this side will be pressing for safeguards in various directions during the further stages of this Bill.
When one talks of technological evolution in this area, I am aware, and so are my noble friends, of the existing possibilities which could in time alter the lives and habits of many of our people, not least the physically handicapped. I refer particularly to the two-way communication capability known technically as "interaction" which allows information to pass in two directions. I quote from the Hunt Report presented to Parliament just a year ago and so instructively debated in your Lordships House, which says:
"cable operators can put questions to viewers through the television set and get their response; viewers can have fire or burglar alarms which can alert the emergency services; and, more fundamentally, interactive channels can provide rapid communications between businesses and between them and their customers. At its best therefore cable can help both business and the individual by providing new methods of working, buying and selling, direct from the home; increase facilities for education and training in the home; services like electronic mail and tele-banking; and a greatly increased and enriched choice of home entertainment".
Here comes the first warning before the trumpets sound forth too triumphantly. I quote again from the following words of the report,
"At its worst, however, it could lead to a waste of resources, risks to privacy and a lowering of the quality of broadcasting. It is therefore crucially important that the right decisions are taken".
There is nothing in the Bill, other than a recital of certain broad concepts, to guide the new authority to be set up. Incidentally, I ask the Minister whether I am right in thinking that its members will be on a part-time basis? There is nothing to guide the new authority to be set up to control such services as we are now considering. The noble Baroness seems to have taken some pride in her opening remarks in the fact that there was such little guidance save in general terms.
They could be so good, or, alternatively, a veritable evil—as Hunt envisaged as possible—if we were not careful. Surely the Government should have issued or should now issue guidelines as to the conditions to be attached to proposed licences instead of leaving such conditions to the unguided will of this new authority. Possible applicants for licences are entitled to such guidance and so is Parliament before passing this legislation.
I am looking at the need for care and for very adequate safeguards in the general licensing and overseeing of cable operators. It may also be that the programme makers and providers, who have responsibility for many relevant matters, have been overlooked in the Bill. I have researched with great personal interest debates which took place in your Lordships' House and elsewhere some 30 years ago during the passage of the Television Act 1954. As your

493
Lordships will recollect, that Act created independent television and permitted for the first time commercial advertising in our television services. Such were the fears of what commercialism could do to a valued national television service that one noble and learned Lord, the very wise and learned Lord who usually graces the Woolsack in your Lordships'House—almost as effectively as the noble Baroness who now occupies it—and to whom I gave notice of the fact that I would be quoting some of his speeches, defied his party's two-line Whip. I may find it necessary at other stages of this Bill to invite both him and other noble Lords opposite to follow that courageous example.
Never at a loss for a gentle phrase the noble and learned Lord expressed himself in these terms on that Bill at Third Reading. The first quotation reads as follows:
"The noble Earl the Postmaster General is always so personally agreeable in his approach to controversy that I think those of us who oppose this Bill in principle would be glad, if we followed our own inclinations, to smash a bottle or even a Rehoboam of champagne upon the bows of this singularly unseaworthy and ill-constructed vessel as it proceeds on its melancholy way down the Parliamentary slips towards the inscrutable ocean of political history.—[Official Report, 22/7/54; col. 1335.]
It is bettered in eloquence by the second excerpt:
"but I think I can honestly say that since my father took office in Mr. Bonar Law's Administration in 1922 I have followed in record almost every major Parliamentary occasion in either House of Parliament. I must say that I can recall no occasion whatever in your Lordships' House during that period of time in which a major Bill proposed by a Conservative Government has met with such a chorus of opposition from quarters normally either independent or friendly to the Convervative cause, stretching from the most reverend Primate to noble Lords of unrivalled experience in public service on all sides of the House".—[col. 1336.]
And the last excerpt is possibly the best of all:
"Lastly, I must say that I am unalterably of the belief that in broadcasting in a free country there are two equal evils to be avoided. The first is Government control which offends against the principle of freedom; the other is the tyranny of commercialism, by which in relation to broadcasting an editor of a broadcast programme unlike the editor of a newspaper, even though the editor of a newspaper may derive a great portion of his revenue from advertisements, is compelled to study not the real desire of his viewers but how to achieve the highest common factor of what those viewers will tolerate at a moment of time when the advertisements come on the air".—[col. 1337.]
Those are good excerpts. I only wish that I were capable of the same eloquence in addressing your Lordships on this occasion. But such were the noble and learned Lord's fears of commercialisation—and I am speaking here quite seriously—of this form of media and the introduction of advertising and all that went with it. They were echoed in many parts of your Lordships' House and outside it.
In looking at the provisions of this Bill and reviewing the history of the 30 years since the Television Act was passed, we might, I suggest, have two important considerations in our minds. ITV was not always as it is now, a medium which gives satisfaction and employs pretty high standards in regard to the control of its programmes. It had a shaky beginning when it went all out to capture audiences so that, in turn, it could capture advertising revenue; and the programmes, as some of us can remember, were for some years not very much to its credit. Having got some security however behind it by having attracted the audiences and the advertising, the standards of the programmes improved tremendously. If we are
494
lacking in care in this Bill to insist upon proper safeguards, do we not again imperil the security of ITV and thereby cause them to drop standards in a different and much fiercer competition? And is the competition fair?
Both the BBC and ITV have built-in responsibilities. They are publicly accountable not only to maintain high programme standards with a large amount of original material but also to put out a balanced selection of information, education and entertainment. As to the BBC, in the language of the Hunt Report, "they are shielded from direct commercial pressures in their programming". No similar constraints are put in this Bill on the cable licensees. The authority set up under it, in the language of the Government in its White Paper—repeated, I noted, by the noble Baroness this afternoon— "will employ a light hand".
The Bill, in Clauses 9 and 10, in other clauses relating to obscenity and race relations, says what every licensed service should not do and, in regard to news in programmes originating in the United Kingdom, the news should be presented with due accuracy and impartiality and undue prominence should not be given to the views of particular persons or bodies in religious or political matters et cetera. Nowhere is there any positive duty, such as is laid down in regard to the BBC and ITV, as to the contents of programmes apart from such matters as violence when they are, for example, primarily intended for children and young persons. I appreciate that, for some channels, such positive requirements might be quite inappropriate and indeed impossible; but for others where such requirements are appropriate, they should surely be in the Bill or at least be promulgated in the guidelines issued by the Government now as to the conditions which the authority should impose on licensees.
I turn next, if I may, to another aspect of programme content which not only has important social but important industrial implications. No quota has been laid down for imported items of entertainment coming from countries outside the European Community; and, again, the noble Baroness seems almost to glory in this and to forecast what we might have to whet our appetite by way of American films. We all know that there will be a grave temptation for cable importers to import cheap American films and other entertainment products from non-EEC countries. I take the point that some allowance should be made in the initial few years after the substantial capital investment has been made for the fact that an excessive requirement to purchase good but expensive British or other EEC films or items of entertainment could be too onerous.
What is quite unsatisfactory is I suggest the present Clause 9(1)(d) which merely puts upon the authority the duty to do what they can to require that there are included in the programmes "proper proportions" of recorded and other matters which originate in the EEC and are performed by nationals of member states. That general provision may have been sufficient for previous broadcasting legislation before we had the guidance that comes from experience. Established percentages have now been laid down. We are now legislating having had that experience. The quota, as

495
the noble Baroness mentioned, is at present interpreted by the broadcasting organisations as a 14 per cent. limit for foreign-source entertainment. Can we not and should we not lay down a maximum foreign quota (if I may so term it) which is to be effective as from a certain date? And should not that maximum be the same 14 per cent.?
In any event, is it suggested by this Bill that the Authority should fix a general edict as to the proper proportion or is the Authority expected to carry out a detailed examination of each licensee's position and fix the individual quotas? I should have thought that the latter course would be a very difficult and invidious task. There will be nothing as the provisions stand, however, to prevent long-term contracts being entered into by licensees for taking foreign, imported items of entertainment and giving that as the excuse for not being able to fulfil any suggested quota restrictions— and, human nature being what it is, once the licensee may have enjoyed the economic advantages of these cheap imports and has got away with it with his audiences, there is a very great temptation to continue with them as much as he can.
To continue with the content of programmes, may I say that we were very glad to see that certain recommendations of the Hunt Report, excellent though that report was, have not been followed in this Bill. Among these is the suggested electronic lock on a specific channel where films not suitable for children or young persons could be shown at all times of the day. I remember in this context that we were reminded in a previous debate of the crusaders and chastity belts and the over-employment of locksmiths during that era of our history. Suffice it to say that this specific recommendation of Hunt has not been followed.
One other recommendation of Hunt which has not been followed is that relating to the important matter of permitting advertising content in cable programmes. The Hunt Committee thought that because of its ability to provide new opportunities to local and national advertisers seeking specialist or local audiences, cable could attract entirely new spending on advertising. They recommended that in the early years of cable development there should be no limit to the amount of advertising permitted. The Hunt Committee took the view that this would be unlikely to damage ITV or ILR to any significant extent in the short or medium term.
While one recognises that there are some types of advertising which cable might catch and which would not be available to IBA or ILR, there is a definite limit to the total limit of advertising which is procurable, and, with the present tight commercial and industrial budgets, there will undoubtedly be some fierce competition, especially between ITV and cable. To have unlimited advertising time would be unfairly damaging to the finances of ITV and would inevitably lead to a deterioration in services, quite apart from unleashing through cable what I believe most of your Lordships would regard as a social horror.
While wisely, as I feel, not following Hunt, and after providing for a code in regard to advertising, the Government have contented themselves with Clause 11(3). This clause is not good enough. Surely there should be a clear provision without any provisos,
496
exceptions or grounds for dispute, that the same limitation should apply in a similar licensed service to that which applies to ITV. I understand that the present quota averages six minutes to the hour—and I believe your Lordships would think, "Quite enough too!".
Here again, is it envisaged that each and every licensee should be individually looked at and adjudicated upon? If there is to be a general ruling, should not the Secretary of State, in an important matter of this kind, seek the approval of Parliament by statutory instrument instead of it being left to his arbitrary determination in the event of a disagreement with the IBA—and "determination" is the word used in the Bill. I have limited my speech to these matters—important matters, I think—which relate to standards and the content of cable programmes, so that the Minister may have advance notice of some of the matters on which we are likely to concentrate during the following stages of the Bill.
I am very conscious of the fact that there are many other very important aspects—technical aspects involving the Part Report, the role which British Telecom could and should have played, and possibly can still play, and the social and other implications of creating favoured and non-favoured sections of our people whose reception or non-reception of cable will presumably be determined purely by commercial considerations.
I realise, too, that I have not touched on Part II of the Bill. There are. however, more quotas than advertising and foreign imports to be thought of in your Lordships' House. There is the quota which, in addition, dictates, by courtesy alone, that speeches should not exceed a certain time limit when there is a heavy list of speakers. I know that all these matters and many beside will be dealt with by subsequent speakers, including some of my noble friends. Suffice it for me to conclude my remarks by hoping that in our conduct of this Bill we shall earn the blessing and not the opprobrium of future generations because of the way this House has shouldered its responsibilities in legislating for a new technological era in the exciting, if in some aspects frightening, realm of mass communication.

Bomb Explosion at Harrods
3.44 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, with the leave of the House. I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the bomb incident in Knightsbridge last Saturday afternoon.
"At 12.41 p.m. on Saturday, 17th December, the Central London Samaritans received a telephone message that the IRA had placed a car bomb outside Harrods, that there were two bombs inside Harrods, one in Oxford Street and another in Littlewoods store in Oxford Street. The telephone call was made by a man with an Irish accent, and a code word

497
previously unknown to the police authorities was used to preface the message. As subsequent events showed, much of the message was false. In addition, the police had already received 22 other similar messages earlier that day about suspicious devices, all of which turned out to be false alarms.
"The Samaritans passed on the message to New Scotland Yard at 12.44 p.m. At 12.48 p.m. police units in the three divisions concerned were alerted. The stores were also alerted and put their own contingency procedures into operation. Police on ordinary and special security patrol and traffic duties instantly started a systematic search of the immediate vicinity for suspicious motor vehicles. Some roads were closed to the public and some premises were evacuated.
"Efforts were also made to establish the authenticity of the codeword, but with no success. At Harrods, police officers were stationed at each of the doors leading to Hans Crescent to prevent people leaving the store by that route, while the road outside was cleared and searched.
"Nothing was found in Oxford Street; but at 1.21 p.m. a bomb estimated at some 25 lbs exploded in a car parked in Hans Crescent. It killed five people: a policeman, a policewoman, a young mother, a reporter and an American citizen. In addition, 92 people were injured, of whom 20 are still in hospital, five of them seriously injured. Of the 78 civilians injured, several were children, of whom two are still in hospital. The bomb also caused extensive damage to property, including many homes in the area and cars parked in the street.
"Subsequent investigations have established that the car used was a blue Austin 1300 GT, registration number KFP 252K, which the police are engaged in tracing. The bomb was detonated by a timing device similar to that used in other IRA attacks.
"A mass of debris and other evidence is being carefully sifted and examined, and other inquiries about the car and its contents are being vigorously pursued. I can assure the House that everything possible is being done to bring those responsible for this outrage to justice.
"The IRA made a statement last night in Dublin in which they admitted responsibility for the attack, as well as for the bomb outside Woolwich barracks ten days ago. They also claimed that the attack was unauthorised and would not be repeated, and they regretted the civilian casualties. As I have said elsewhere, I find the disclaimer of responsibility utterly contemptible. Those who place a bomb of this size in a street crowded with Christmas shoppers cannot evade responsibility in that way. Moreover, the bomb was timed to go off just at the moment when those investigating the situation were likely to be approaching it. I totally reject the implied distinction between civilian and police casualties. What has happened is that the IRA has found that the action taken by its members has caused universal revulsion and condemnation. It is a piece of nauseating hypocrisy for them now to try and disown it and to claim that some kinds of brutal murder are legitimate and some are illegitimate.
"The whole House will, I am sure, wish to join me
498
in expressing a sense of outrage at what has occurred, sympathy with the victims and their families, and admiration for all those, including the police, emergency services and staff at the hospitals, who have worked tirelessly and with devotion to deal with the aftermath of this monstrous crime.
"Before this incident the commissioner had already taken special action in central London to counter recent terrorist threats. He had increased the number of police officers on traffic, crime and public order duties, and had deployed additional officers from special units, including dog handlers, to inner London districts. He had also, following the Woolwich bomb incident on 10th December, issued an appeal for stores and the public to exercise increased vigilance.
"I reviewed yesterday with the commissioner progress on his investigations into the incident and on further measures which he has now put in hand for the public's greater protection in the weeks ahead. The commissioner has introduced an additional measure whereby a number of vehicles are charged specifically with the task of responding to bomb threats anywhere in the metropolitan area. These crews are patrolling 24 hours a day; they are able to respond swiftly to any threat received, and to summon specialist help where necessary. The commissioner has further increased by 64 officers the number of dog handlers deployed, deployed 30 additional Traffic Branch officers and increased uniform foot-duty officers by 320 in the inner district. He has also increased the number of CID and Special Branch officers by 200 in central London and deployed a further four Special Patrol Group units, totalling 120 officers, in the inner districts. But particular care has also been taken to ensure that policing against terrorist threats is fully maintained elsewhere in the London area during this period.
"Public vigilance is now essential in order to give full effect to the extra measures I have outlined to increase security. Those who perpetrated this crime will already have learned that their action has in no way weakened the unshakeable resolve of Government and public alike that violence will not secure its objective. Indeed, if anything, an outrage of this kind makes our resolution and determination stronger than ever".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, we on these Opposition Benches are grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable and learned friend in another place. It is on such an occasion as this that all Members of your Lordships' House speak with one voice—and that was exemplified by the visit paid by the Prime Minister the Home Secretary, the Leader of the Opposition and my honourable friend the shadow Home Secretary to the hospitals, where they visited the injured. In doing so, they represented us all.
As I said, there is unity in the expression of our abhorrence at an act which will take its sordid place in the annals of evil men; and at this time, like the noble

499
Lord the Minister, we want to be associated with the sense of loss that we all feel—a national loss—about two brave, young, promising members of our police force. We extend to their families our heartfelt sympathy, as we do indeed to the families of three other young people who lost their lives in this terrible ordeal. Our prayers, too, are with those who were injured, including several members of the Chelsea police force who are now lying in hospital, and we hope that they will have a full recovery.
We want also to associate ourselves with all that has been said about the police and others who assisted as well as they could after this dreadful affair had taken place. I hope your Lordships will agree with me that we ought possibly to include the members of the staff of Harrods, who, according to all reports, behaved with great coolness of mind, with great courage and with great care for the public.
As the noble Lord the Minister said in repeating the Statement made by his right honourable and learned friend, our united determination is that the perpetrators of this foul crime should be brought to justice. Equally are we determined that not one drop of political advantage should be gained by the shedding of this innocent blood.
I could say something about the security measures which were announced this afternoon after a consultation between the the Home Secretary and the Commissioner of Police. I think we were all interested and grateful to learn of the larger measures of security that are now being taken, but I think it would be wise of me if I did not strive to ask any questions about them. I am perfectly sure that the noble Lord the Minister will bring to this House those matters which he thinks are appropriately brought to us, and that all of us should exercise that degree of discretion which, unfortunately, a foe of this kind engenders within us.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that those of us on these Benches wish to be associated with the words of the Home Secretary in another place, expressing his horror at the scale of this atrocity committed outside Harrods on Saturday? Is he also aware, first, that it appears from the statement made from Dublin by the IRA that they claim that there are representatives active in the United Kingdom, supplied with explosives provided by the IRA, who are wholly outside the control of the IRA leadership in Dublin? Is he further aware that no one would take protestations of this kind in any degree seriously?
Secondly, is he aware that we recognise that there is no certain way in which we can protect members of the public when they are involved in the simple process of Christmas shopping? But will he recognise that it is perhaps desirable to take into account the ease with which car bombers can put their vehicles of destruction outside large departmental stores in London which we know, on the basis of past experience, to be potential IRA targets? Could one at least express the hope that this matter, relating to car parking arrangements outside potential targets of the IRA, will be taken into some degree of consideration?
Lastly, would the noble Lord take this point into account? In view of the dreadful death of these young
500
police officers and of the other members of the public which took place on Saturday afternoon, as well as the injuries caused, including those to a number of children, could we express the hope that those American citizens who have subscribed money to Noraid and other front organisations of the Provisional IRA in the United States will take account of what their money has achieved?
3.58 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for their response to the Statement on this appalling event. I welcome the sympathy which they have extended to the injured of all sorts, and indeed of all ages and nationalities, who were caught up in the blast. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, did not wish me to dilate in any way—and I am grateful to him for that—which might compromise the effectiveness of the police response to the heightened threat. I think, however, that your Lordships would wish to know that the commissioner is concerned that the need for the increased commitment of police to central London should not in any way diminish the resources available for policing greater London as a whole. To allow for this, training courses have been suspended, overtime has been increased and senior officers have been given discretion to cancel rest days when this is necessary to maintain proper levels of policing. A proper cover, therefore, will be maintained at all times and in all places.
The noble Lord. Lord Harris, specifically raised two matters. First, he hoped that the Americans who misguidedly support allegedly charitable organisations, purporting to support the cause of republican nationalism by means of the IRA, would know what their money had bought. I hope indeed that they do know what their money has bought. It is a tragedy which will be more close, perhaps, to the hearts of some of them, in that one of their fellow citizens, aged 28, was a victim of this outrage.
Finally, the noble Lord. Lord Harris of Greenwich. asked about the possibility of banning parking outside major stores during the Christmas period. This was a matter upon which my right honourable and learned friend specifically consulted the commissioner, who told him that this possibility had been most carefully considered but that it would not materially assist in reducing the risk of terrorist bomb incidents in London. As your Lordships know, Sir Kenneth Newman has considerable experience of these problems, and of the measures against them, from the period when he was Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I think that we are in good hands.
4 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, in the short period I have been a Member of your Lordships' House, this is the third occasion on which I have had to comment on the ferocious murders which have been carried out by the IRA, each of them just as grisly as before. Have your Lordships taken into consideration that on Saturday of last week a young Irish policeman in the Republic of Ireland, a young member of the Irish Army in the Republic of Ireland, a young soldier in Northern Ireland—a member of the UDR Regiment—two

501
young members of the police force here in London and five civilians all lay murdered? All were victims of the IRA. A large number of others were maimed. This should indicate that the IRA are the enemies of all of us in these islands, both in Ireland and in Britain, and that now it is time for the Government to take into account the legitimacy or otherwise of the so-called Provisional Sinn Fein as a political organisation. Will the Minister accept from me, as one who has lived in Northern Ireland, that Provisional Sinn Fein and the IRA are one and the same thing?
The so-called Member for West Belfast in another place at the present moment issued statements over the weekend condoning the murder of the young Irish policeman and Irish soldier on the ground that the murderers were doing their duty. He has refused to condemn those who were responsible for the grisly murders and maiming which took place here in London. Will the Minister accept that if the Government were now to decide to treat Provisional Sinn Fein as they should be treated—as the IRA—they would have the overwhelming support of the people in Ireland and in Great Britain.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is certainly a sad matter of note that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has had such frequent occasion to make such observations as he has just made during the time he has been in your Lordships' House. He has particular experience of this matter, which we all respect. As to the first point which the noble Lord raised, it is indeed significant that within a period of two days police officers and soldiers were killed in the Republic of Ireland, in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. We have indeed a common enemy. As to the noble Lord's question about banning Sinn Fein, my right honourable friend is urgently considering with his colleagues this possibility and its implications. It is also understood that Dr. FitzGerald is giving thought to the same matter.
Lord Blease: My Lords, may I join my fellow citizen from Northern Ireland, my noble friend Lord Fitt, in emphasising the number of occasions when this House has graciously and sympathetically identified itself with the people of Northern Ireland who have fallen victim to terrorist brutality and murder gangs.
As a citizen of Northern Ireland, one who left Northern Ireland's shores this morning, I wish publicly to express my support for the Government's Statement. I want to share wholeheartedly with my noble friend Lord Mishcon in conveying heartfelt sympathies to all those who have suffered as a result of this outrageous attack on the London shopping public, at a time when the community celebrations are for peace and goodwill. Families throughout these islands, both in Britain and in Ireland, will be united in the terrible sense of pain, agony and grief which we share with all those for whom this Christmas will be a time of intense suffering through vile acts of such savagery. It is understandable that a wave of public revulsion and emotional distress will arise at this dreadful time. However, I appeal to all those with influence in Her Majesty's Government and in the Opposition not to precipitate any major political decisions arising from this recent upsurge of terrorism, especially at this highly emotional time. We must sit down calmly and
502
think through what will be the results of these tragic events and their repercussions—repercussions which, as the Minister has fairly said, go far beyond these shores. Perhaps they will have a detrimental effect on the machinations and the evilness of these persons who perpetrate such crimes. By all means let us strengthen, support and encourage all those with responsibility for security, but parliamentary democracy and justice can be impaired and undermined seriously by proscribing duly elected representatives. It does not end at the door of Parliament; it can go into the media, broadcasting, public bodies and otherwise. I would urge serious consideration of other ways, rather than the proscription of elected representatives. I feel that the electorate ought to be the ones who are responsible. They are the persons who will take the right direction. Once we begin to tamper and interfere with parliamentary democracy we are heading for trouble. I wish to end by saying that I support wholeheartedly at this particular time the remarks from the Government Bench of the noble Lord the Minister.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am glad to welcome the stalwart support of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, who never hesitates to put a forthright view on occasions such as this. Humanity is diminished by the inhumanity of these attacks. It is important that we should not also diminish democracy in our response. My right honourable and learned friend and all my colleagues are very well aware of the care with which any response must be framed in order to show that it is in no way a concession or a diminution of human liberties that is wrested from us by terrorists who are murderers most foul.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, I feel sure that I am expressing the view of all of us who sit on the Cross-Benches when I say how much I agree with everything that has been said in the House this afternoon, in particular the hope which has been expressed that the lesson will at last have been learned in the United States of America. Secondly, may I associate myself with the moving and perhaps overdue tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to the police, to whom we owe so much, and to whom we shall always owe so much.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, reminds us that this House speaks with a voice, the unity of which is rarely paralleled. It will be taken note of, I hope, not only on the other side of the Atlantic but by all those who have shown courage, resourcefulness and steadfastness in the face of this terrible threat.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, during the late war we dominated the intelligence field. Intelligence is one of the integral, if not the most integral, element, in countering terrorism. I ask not for details, but can my noble friend give an assurance that those who do this work are fully manned, have the proper equipment, and are of the right quality to deal with the very devastating activities against this country?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that we are very well aware of the intelligence dimension of this exercise, and that we do not stint our efforts in pursuing it.
Lord Plant: My Lords, I wish to speak as anex-chairman of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. I saw these devasting incidents when I was chairman over there—as did the noble Lord, Lord Elton, when he was serving in Northern Ireland at the same time. It is indeed distressing. I support completely the Government Statement. But I would go further: I believe it would be the wish not only of the people of Northern Ireland but also of the people of the United Kingdom to proscribe the IRA. I believe that people are waiting for a move from the Government. I do not believe there is any good in the Government sitting down and saying, "We are looking at this question in depth". I believe the time has come for very considerable action.
I was glad to hear the noble Lord the Minister say that the policing in London has been strengthened at Christmas. It is of course a time when the police cannot enjoy the comforts of their families because they will have to do more overtime and more pounding of the pavements. But I believe that the police in London, as with the RUC, will be only too glad to do what they can to rid of us the scourge of the IRA. They are murderers, and I believe that the Government have to act in that light.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Plant, is an expert on human rights. The most fundamental of all human rights is the right to live. It is that which we seek to defend, and it is not improper to take very great care about the way in which we do that and not to plunge at once into this course.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister has just said something which I, too, believe in. It is all very fine saying that we must take action, but we cannot take violent action immediately without giving the matter great thought and realising exactly what it is that we are in for. I agree with the noble Lord in that respect.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am glad for the support of the noble Baroness, which is sometimes not so readily available to me.
The Lord Archbishop of York: My Lords, since almost every section of the House has expressed its support, sympathy and admiration for the Statement which has been made, perhaps I may also add a word of support from these Benches. I should simply like to remind your Lordships' House that that to which we are reacting today is also the almost daily experience of the people of Northern Ireland. So may I ask that your Lordships extend the sympathy which we have expressed to the victims and their relatives also to the people of Northern Ireland for their prolonged agony?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the most reverend Primate brings the compassionate support of the established Church to our efforts to see that in the tug of war between good and evil we are not dragged further towards evil by such terrible events.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the Statement repeated by the noble Lord the Minister called for public vigilance. That is a very sensible and highly desirable call to make to the British public. But I wonder whether the noble Lord will look into a query that I have, although I am not sure he will be able to answer my point this afternoon.
There have been instances in London when the public have exhibited vigilance and have then run into dispute. For example, in some parts of London, such as the London Borough of Ealing, when people find an abandoned car they are tempted to look around it, and they may fear that it contains a bomb. They think it prudent therefore to inform the local authority; whereupon the local authority tells the member of the public to inform the police—whereuponsome sections of the police say "No, it is the responsibility of the local authority". If we are to call for public vigilance. we have to make it very clear to the public to whom they should apply the results of their vigilance—whether to the police or to the local authority—and so avoid the confusion that I have outlined but which, unfortunately and regrettably, exists.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the answer is to tell the police and to tell them quickly.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I intervene because, as the only citizen of the Republic of Ireland present, my silence may be interpreted as in some way dissenting. I want to assure the House and the Minister that I fully support not only what he has said, but in particular what was said by my noble friends Lord Fitt and Lord Blease.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding us once more that with the Republic of Ireland, we have here a common enemy.

Cable and Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
4.17 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for the detailed and lucid way in which she introduced this Bill. I have known for a long time of her great interest in television, ever since we were discussing some time ago what was then the very beginning of breakfast television.
I was reminded by what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said of the speech made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor some years ago. I remember it vividly, because at that time I was opposed to independent television. I voted against it. Not only did I do that, but I was a Whip in the other House and I tried to make sure that everyone else voted against it, too. At this stage perhaps I ought to quote some words which would be better quoted from the Bishops' Bench: that, "joy shall he in heaven" et cetera, et cetera!
We on these Benches support the Bill because it will bring additional channels to television without

505
affecting the four channels we have at the present time. It will bring them to those people who are prepared to pay just a little extra for those channels. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to the possible technical aspects of cable television. I agree with him that some of them are, perhaps, a little worrying, and could be a little frightening. But this is a long way off, and I do not think that one ought to write too much into the fact that this Bill will receive detailed consideration during 1984. At the moment, I believe that we should concentrate just on television.
The consortia which are to be licensed for cable television will, we arc told, all be privately financed, rather like the contract holders of independent broadcasting, independent television and independent local radio. In my view they are entitled to a reasonable return for their investment. In fact, it may take a long time before they are able to get that, but they are entitled to it. It did not come immediately with independent television, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has already reminded us.
We are glad that the Government have decided to adopt a similar (and I say "similar") system of control as with independent television and independent radio, with the setting up of a cable authority to do almost exactly the same kind of work (but not precisely the same) as is being done by the Independent Broadcasting Authority today.
There are many points about this Bill on which I should like to have additional information and clarification, but perhaps they may be left until Committee stage of the Bill, when I understand there will he a period of three days during which we shall have the opportunity of discussing the Bill in detail. Nevertheless, there are one or two points that I ought to put to the Minister at this stage, and to which he may feel like replying when he comes to wind up.
First, I should like an assurance from the Minister that the 11 licensees or franchise holders—whichever one calls them—who will have been set up prior to legislation, and those who are operating cable today, will all come under the control or umbrella of the cable authority. I would ask the noble Lord whether that is likely to happen as soon as the cable authority functions; that is to say, as soon as it has been set up as a result of this Bill.
I would ask whether the cable authority would have the right—I am trying to think of an extreme case, and I think I can—to revoke the licence of any one of those 11 if it were necessary to do so. It may not be, and I hope it will not be, but would the authority have that right? If we do not do this, if the Government's view is that the 11 and the existing cable licence holders are outside the cable authority, then the Government are in a difficult position because they are going to find themselves involved in a day-to-day matter, in control of programmes and many other things in which no Government should ever be involved. So I hope the answer is in the affirmative, and that when the cable authority is set up they will take over.
The Government have always required of the Independent Broadcasting Authority, in respect to franchises for television, and especially independent local radio, that in the first place consultation should take place locally, with the people of the area and with
506
the local authorities. May I ask the noble Lord whether there were any consultations with regard to these 11, or were they just appointed out of the blue? Again, in consulting local opinion, or in requesting the IBA to question public opinion, the Government get an idea of what the feeling is within the locality. If there was nothing of that sort done as far as these 11 are concerned—and I have no idea whether or not that is so—I am afraid it could lead to difficulties later on.
Another point is that as far as independent television and independent local radio are concerned at the moment, we have companies with franchises whose finances are almost all British capital. I say "British" in the widest possible sense, because I know it includes some Canadian in radio and Australian in independent television. So what I am really asking is: is there likely to be any possibility of American investment in British cable companies under the cable authority? Further, is there any American investment in any of the 11 already set up? I know some of these questions are a little unfair to drop on the Minister at this stage, but no doubt he has the answers at his fingertips as usual.
The Bill proposes to restrict the amount of advertising on cable television in the same way as it is restricted on independent television. As has been said, I think, it is six minutes in the case of television, and I think nine minutes for radio, per clock hour. Many may think that this is too much. It is not too much, but anything in addition to it would he difficult to operate. I make this point because under the Bill as now drafted the Secretary of State, on appeal, has the right to change the cable authority's agreed time for advertising. For example, if a cable company found it was not making money, or was losing money, one obvious way of recouping some of the losses would he to have additional advertising time. Under this Bill the Secretary of State would have the right, if he so wished, to grant them additional time. I hope he will never do this, because once he starts he will get into a snowballing situation from which he will find it very difficult to extract himself. That must be left entirely to the cable authority, whether or not we agree to the time fixed.
May I now come briefly to Clause 14, where the Government set out quite a lengthy procedure on complaints—complaints of infringement of privacy and questions of the integrity of people appearing on the programmes. This clause sets out a great deal of detail about this, and it is very important that it should be done: but I cannot understand why they have done it, because we already have the Broadcasting Complaints Commission set up by the Government to do precisely the same work for the BBC and the IBA—set up by statute, quite independent of the BBC or the IBA. Why, then, go to all this trouble of doing something different in Clause 14? Why not let the Broadcasting Complaints Commission do it?
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether I am not right in thinking that the Broadcasting Complaints Commission deals with individuals who may feel that they have been wronged—individual complaints, not to do with either balance or distortion, or with any of the other evils that might arise?
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, I appreciate the point, but if a company feels it has been wrongly represented I am not sure whether or not the individuals within that company could take the complaint to the commission. I rather think they can. However, my view is that Clause 14 is perhaps unnecessary while we have the Broadcasting Complaints Commission.
I hope the Government will not in any way succumb to any appeal—and they will get them from all sorts of areas and all sorts of people—to write types of individual programmes into the Bill. Again, this is a slippery slope. We know that the programmes are required to entertain, to inform, to educate; there will be religious programmes and educational programmes; but once you begin to go much further than that and write into the Bill the sort of programmes that many people might feel should be in the Bill, then it would be extremely difficult for the cable authority to function. It is of course right that we should always adhere to what is in the charter of the BBC and in the broadcasting Acts with regard to the whole question of good taste and decency, of which we are all aware.
For many years, without any statutory requirement, both the BBC and the IBA have used a self-imposed quota limiting the amount of foreign material which may be televised. This was done to protect British production and to protect thousands of people employed in the industry. We have a great wealth of such people in this country—writers, musicians, actors, song writers and, of course, technicians who work on the other side of the camera. All ought to be protected. This is done by the BBC and the IBA by means of a quota worked out between them all. A figure of 14 per cent. foreign has been mentioned, but I should like to put it the other way and say that we want at least 86 per cent. British. It may be that it will be difficult at the beginning; I accept that. But anyone who has seen a BBC excerpt of the sort of thing appearing on cable in America will be well aware of how important it is to prevent unnecessary material, which can be not only very cheap but also very nasty. I am sure that the cable authority will act responsibly in this field. I would not approve the putting of such a quota into statute. It must be worked out by what one could loosely call both sides of the industry, and I am sure it will be if the cable authority behaves as the Independent Broadcasting Authority always has behaved.
With regard to the final part of the Bill, I was pleased to note the allocation of two direct broadcasting by satellite channels to the Independent Broadcasting Authority. This is in line with the two channels already allocated to the BBC. I understand that immediately this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament and becomes law the IBA will be prepared to go ahead and advertise the contracts for DBS—that is, direct broadcasting by satellite. I hope the BBC are equally prepared to go ahead, but they may have difficulties that the IBA does not have.
I should like to mention just one thing on the technical side which I believe is important to all of us. The European Broadcasting Union has just accepted and endorsed what is known as the MAC system of colour television broadcasting for the whole of Europe in direct broadcasting. I am pleased about that, and I hope that everyone else will be. because it is British. I
508
am also pleased because it is a product of the Independent Broadcasting Authority's engineering department, near Winchester. It is hoped, and possible, that when DBS comes—although it may be set up very quickly it could take three or four years—in addition to the four terrestrial programmes we shall have completely different programmes from the satellite, giving us yet a further choice of programmes.
Finally, we hope and expect that as well as giving us more programmes in addition to the four we already receive—perhaps as many as 20 or more channels in the fullness of time—and what I hope will be very good programmes (a matter for the cable authority), cable television will also provide a great deal of work in the electronics field. When cable television is fully operative, those who are prepared to pay a little more than the current broadcasting licence fee of £46 will be able to receive it. The new cable authority and the holders of the successful cable television licences will have a tremendous job to do. I know that they can do it. We have the technique, the ability and the will. From these Benches we wish them well.
4.32 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, I want to start where the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, finished by giving a general welcome to the provision in the Bill concerning the establishment of this cable authority and to the kind of oversight that it is expected to exercise. Many of us have felt that the role of the authority is of crucial importance and I am very glad that its duties, powers and responsibilities have been so clearly spelled out in the Bill.
One of its key tasks, as has already been mentioned, is to award licences for the prescribed diffusion services. So I am glad that Clause 5 provides for careful local consultation before licences are granted. I hope that when the authority takes steps to encourage comments and suggestions from members of the public it will also alert local community groups, including the churches, to their opportunities to respond so that the authority is able to grasp what it is that the local community requires.
I very much welcome, too, the encouragement in Clause 6 for the provision of programmes which will have local appeal and local participation. Because the company that receives the licence or franchise will enjoy a virtual monopoly in its area. I believe it is very desirable that the cable authority should publicise the applications it receives and the prospectuses that are on offer. This will enable people and community groups to make their comments on them before a final decision is taken. It is desirable, too, that the authority should say why it has given a licence to a particular applicant. Therefore, I hope that the Bill can be strengthened in those respects or some provision made in the guidelines, which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has so wisely asked for, and which the Home Secretary might give to the authority in discharging its responsibilities.
I wonder, too, whether provision should not be made for the authority to have to give prior approval before licence holders may transfer or sell their interests to other bodies. If not, there would seem to be no effective check on local franchises being swallowed

509
up through larger holdings which may not have any immediate local connection. In fact, we could have a position similar to that of the 19th century when the smaller railway companies were swallowed up into the big four.
I am also glad that the authority's duties include, in Clause 9, ensuring good taste and decency in programmes and, in Clause 10, the drawing up of a code concerning violence. In that context I also welcome the inclusion of the clauses concerning obscenity and incitement to racial hatred, because I am sure that this insistence on programme standards will be very widely welcomed. Indeed, it is very important.
Like other noble Lords, I believe the Bill is rather vague in describing the authority's duties in the provision of proper proportions of British and EEC programme material. Many have expressed the fear that a lot of cheap, tired and trivial American programmes could well he dumped on our screens. Of course, in the early stages the cable companies may well be dependent on American material, but despite the assurances given by the noble Baroness in her opening speech I wonder whether there should not be some statutory authority written in for a regular review of the position and to ensure that there is an increasing proportion of British programme material shown by cable companies. I know that we are all very concerned to encourage the development of British skills in programme making and are aware of the tremendous release of energy and initiative that has come as a result of Channel 4. We want to see that initiative continue to develop when cable television gets under way.
There is one other matter concerning the authority's responsibilities which I should like to touch on, and which has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, in connection with complaints about unfair treatment. As I read Clause 14 and compared it with Sections 54 and 55 of the Broadcasting Act 1981 I realised how very close they are in describing the functions which the Broadcasting Complaints Commission already discharges. Therefore, I wonder whether it might not be simpler and perhaps wiser for the complaints commission to be the final arbiter in complaints that are put to the cable authority.
When we debated the White Paper in July I ventured to stress the importance of the right choice of the chairman and the part-time members of the authority and that they should be people of wisdom, foresight and standing who would command the respect of the general public. Today, as we receive this Bill and see the very considerable duties and responsibilities that are rightly entrusted to the authority, I believe that this is all the more important. It is essential that the authority should possess a wide range of skills, experience and discernment in its membership. I am very glad that the appointments will be shortly announced and I am also glad to hear from the noble Baroness that the authority will be required to make an annual report to the Home Secretary on the discharge of its functions.
I end by referring to the provisions concerning religious matters. The Bill restricts religious and political bodies from holding a licence and the Government have decided against allowing such
510
groups to have even a limited stake in the ownership of a franchise. However, I am more concerned that churches and religious groups should be involved in the actual provision of programmes. I appreciate that in cable there will be more scope for religiously and politically committed material than we have normally been accustomed to in public service broadcasting. So I think it is a wise provision in Clause 10(3) to guard against undue prominence being given to the views of particular persons and bodies in religious matters. We need a wide spectrum of views and opinions, not just a sectional monopoly. For that reason I believe that the Bill is also right to exclude from being expressed the views and opinions on religious matters of the person providing the service.
Clause 10 enables the authority to give guidance on appeals in programmes for donations. It is of course public knowledge that in the United States there are several large fundamentalist groups which openly seek to be involved in British cable. What is known in the States as the "electronic church" is in large part financed through emotional appeals to viewers in the course of the programmes. I think on these matters that the authority will need to give very careful guidance about appealing in the actual programmes for donations.
Related to that—and I must apologise for not having given him prior warning of this question—I wonder whether, either when he replies to the debate or later, the noble Lord can advise us on the matter of religious advertisements. The Broadcasting Act 1981 prohibits religious or political advertisements. But I notice that in Clause 11(2)(a) of the Bill, while political advertisements are disallowed, religious advertisements are not mentioned, and I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us whether or not that is a deliberate omission.
Many of us in this House have, I believe, not been overwhelmingly enthusiastic about the advent of cable television programmes. Some have felt that the four channels we already have and the possible satellite channels are really all that we need. Some have feared that the high standards of public service broadcasting which we all enjoy could be damaged or eroded by cable, and that, paradoxically, in the name of widening viewers' choice we could end up by narrowing it only to those who can afford to subscribe to cable.
However, I have felt that some of those dangers are very much lessened by the safeguards in the Bill, and Clause 13, which deals with protected events, is one of the safeguards. But I think that the strongest of all the safeguards lies in the considerable duties and powers that are being entrusted to the cable authority; and much will depend on how these responsibilities are carried out, on the kind of guidelines that the cable authority is given by the Home Secretary, and on who will be appointed to discharge the responsibilities that are entrusted to them.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Hanson: My Lords, I welcome the Bill and support the Government's strategy for an enlarged choice of home entertainment, together with the introduction of communications systems which will open up new horizons in our homes. This important

511
subject has already been extensively examined in the Hunt Report, in the White Paper, and in debates in this House and another place. In offering some observations and suggestions, I am conscious that there are in this House many noble Lords with considerable experience in broadcasting and the communications world—as, indeed, we have already heard this afternoon. I should perhaps declare to your Lordships that, though not connected with cable, I am a director of a company which has a minority interest in Yorkshire and Tyne-Tees Television.
This afternoon, with your Lordships' permission, I should like briefly to explore how best to ensure the most practical choice for viewers. The aim is to achieve a modern communications system for business and the home on the shoulders of further TV entertainment, and, as the Bill states, to secure the benefits for the United Kingdom which cable technology can offer.
Providing home interactive facilities incorporating fibre optics will undoubtedly advance our communications technology. It will also offer the prospect of more jobs and opportunities for British industry, and for Britain to be the leader in marketing these products and services in the rest of the world. But, my Lords, let us not be dazzled by visions of unlimited requirements, each catering for a different special home interest. Do we need to set ourselves the task of providing services that the viewer will not require or that companies cannot afford?
There is much experience in the United States and Canada on which to draw. Financial difficulties have beset many whose original hope was to provide the television equivalent of the corner newsagent's shop. Just as the customer can choose from an array ranging from daily newspapers to a variety of special interest magazines, so the dream for cable in the United States of America envisaged scores of channels; but not any more. For America's 33 million cable viewers today, their choice indeed goes much further than our existing programmes, but it has turned out to be much more limited than was predicted or promised. It has concentrated mainly on a handful of programmes with very wide appeal, such as recent films, sport, news, and possibly music.
A recent survey conducted in the United States of America discovered that cable subscribers watched only two more channels than did non-subscribers—a finding of some significance, I believe, when estimating audience needs here. Three of the most ambitious and prestigious cable programme companies in the United States went out of business last year at a cost to them of nearly £100 million. CBS cable, for example, spent lavishly on its programmes, was available to 5 million viewers, and yet was watched regularly by audiences in the tens of thousands only. It lost £35 million in its one year of existence. Furthermore, two of Canada's six channels have closed down because of lack of demand.
That experience in North America will certainly not be lost on the new cable authority, nor on those who are to provide the services. At the same time, it will hardly have escaped attention that cable systems have plenty of other competition to face. The very fact that in this country we have the highest ownership per
512
home in the world of video cassette recorders is not simply evidence that there is a public appetite for further home TV entertainment.
The VCR machine is already a competitor for cable, since at the moment it is installed in 25 per cent. of our homes—a figure which, according to best trade estimates, will go up to 50 per cent. in two years' time. DBS—direct broadcasting satellites—provide more competition. Most European countries will operate their own DBS channels, the programmes of which will be able to be received direct in our homes via suitable dish aerials, which themselves are becoming smaller, cheaper, and more efficient annually. Although four of the United Kingdom's five transponders have been allocated to the BBC and ITV, the BBC, as we all know, is now reconsidering the timing of its own part in the programme.
Turning to other available systems, I would point out that there is a school of thought which believes that signals can be carried inexpensively from building to building by direct line-of-sight laser, which does not even use a broadcast frequency.
Finally, there is MDS—a multipoint distribution system—which is picked up in the home by a small TV aerial and unscrambled by a decoder. MDS can carry eight signals which could provide—and time will certainly tell—all the channels that may prove to be needed. A moment ago I said, "Finally", but I am certainly wrong about that, for, as we speak this afternoon, someone, somewhere, is surely inventing another system, which in five or perhaps 10 years' time will sweep all before it.
Nevertheless we cannot stand still, and so I am glad that the Government are opening the windows to this fascinating new world. My concern, however, is that concentration on the word "cable" shall not exclude other systems. It is my hope that the cable authority will be encouraged, in fact, told, to examine alternative systems and to permit such systems to be installed even if only as pilot schemes. In the past 20 years, the path of broadcast communications has expanded but only into a road. Suddenly, it is about to change into a multi-lane highway with developing technology allowing us to move along those lanes at an ever-increasing pace. That is the note on which I should like to conclude—to have a care before locking ourselves into a single technological solution.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: My Lords, it is my privilege to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, on his excellent maiden speech which was, if I may say so, a model of clarity and lucidity. Lord Hanson is known widely for his successful entrepreneurial interests but he also has a wide range of social and cultural interests. I know that we all hope to hear him speaking often in this House.
I am very happy today to welcome the start of this Bill's progress, not just because it largely follows proposals in April's White Paper which, in their turn, largely followed the proposals of the inquiry which I had the honour to chair. I am really glad because today we approach the setting-up of the new cable authority which will have the crucial task of reconciling two things; the encouragement of diversity and innovation

513
in response, particularly, to local demand, on the one hand, and the maintenance of certain standards and the safeguarding of the public interest, on the other. This will not be easy, but it is absolutely vital. My only regret is that the choice of the 11 pilot projects had to be made before the cable authority was in existence, even on a shadow basis, and thus could begin cutting its teeth and also starting the process of public consultation.
It is worth remembering that when my inquiry was taking evidence we listened to two main arguments against the cable authority. The first was what one might call the electronic publishing argument, the argument that a cable system would offer such a wide range of choice that it should be free to put out what it liked provided that it did not break the law of the country on such matters as sedition, obscenity and defamation. We rejected that argument partly because we simply could not conceive that in the early years, at any rate, it would be able to provide the sort of degree of choice that you get in a bookshop and, secondly, because we agreed with the view that most people see the carrying of programmes into their homes as different in kind from the act of going out to buy a book. A book is read alone whereas most television is watched by the family as a whole.
In parenthesis, I was a little sorry to hear the argument about chastity belts and electronic locks again today. As it has been made. I should remind your Lordships that the principal recommendation that we made on decency was that all the cable systems should observe precisely the same requirements as the BBC and the IBA with the single exception of coded subscription channels and films passed for public viewing. However, I accept fully the arguments for rejecting this one relaxation.
The second argument against an authority came from people who said. "Yes, certainly, there must be standards and supervision. We do not take the argument of the electronic bookshop, but you can leave all this to the industry and to self-regulation". In different industries and different professions there are arguments for and against self-regulation. I think that we were convinced that it was simply not possible at a time when a new industry was establishing itself on a local basis, and when there were clearly differing views within the industry itself on what was permissible and what was not. I think that subsequent debate in your Lordships' House and elsewhere has shown that there is now general agreement on the need for an authority.
However, we need to be clear about what kind of body it will be. There is no existing model that fits it, and it should be a very different kind of body from the IBA because, just as cable television should not be allowed to jeopardise public service broadcasting, so it should not attempt to become another branch of it, providing a balanced diet for the country as a whole. It ought, we felt, to provide a supplement to public service broadcasting which some people might want but not represent deprivation if they did not want it. It should cater in particular for local specialised and minority choice. But if it is not to ape public service broadcasting, then it must not be over-regulated.
I see the cable authority as having three main tasks. The first is the award of franchises following really rigorous examination of competing proposals to see
514
whether what is being offered is really likely to come about, to see the rate at which particular areas will be cabled up (not just the rich streets going first and the other areas being left), and to see the intentions regarding the provision of the interactive services and in particular to see what local people want.
Secondly, it must encourage and keep in touch with innovation and respond to developments. All of us are clear that we are moving into a new world and that we cannot really foresee what is going to happen. Mention has already been made of the way in which the IBA responded flexibly to developments in independent television. The cable authority will have to do the same. Thirdly, it will have to act as a watchdog over standards. This does not mean only decency. It also means the operator living up to the performance he promised and providing good programmes, not shoddy programmes.
This does not mean back street driving or breathing down the operator's neck the whole time. It does, however, mean monitoring, combined with sanctions that can actually be used against the bad performer. I do not think that any of this needs a very large staff. Indeed, cable is most likely to develop quickly and successfully in response to genuine local demand if the authority is kept small.
This is not the time for detailed comments on the Bill. I shall therefore confine myself to five very brief points which I should like to put and which I hope will receive consideration later. I must say that when I read Clause 2 I found it very baffling and very opaque. The noble Baroness this afternoon gave us some further elaboration on it. I shall read what she said carefully, but I am not sure that I am all that much clearer about the distinction between diffusion services and prescribed diffusion services, or the need for it. Secondly, Clause 6(2)(e) refers to the authority, when granting licences, to take account of the provision of the interactive services such as tele-banking and tele-shopping with the eventual aim of having most of the country, or certainly the urban areas, capable of receiving and transmitting signals on wide band cable.
I remain a little bothered not only about the division of responsibilities between Ministers, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Industry, which is perhaps inevitable, but also about the division of responsibilities between the authority and Oftel. I hope that paragraph 54 in the White Paper, that is not altogether reflected in the Bill, about the need for close and co-ordinated relations between the authority and Oftel, will come into effect. It is absolutely crucial that an entertainment led cable system results in a subsequent widespread development of the interactive services that can benefit individuals—not just consumers, but students and all types of other people.
Thirdly—and I say this with very great diffidence after listening to the right reverend Prelate who has just spoken—I am a little bothered about what the Bill says as regards religious bodies. It would appear that the Government have modified their position slightly since the publication of the White Paper which, according to my reading, accepted our view that religious bodies should not participate in the ownership of cable systems and should not have their own channels. As I read it—I may be wrong—the draft Bill seems to envisage that they might hold shares in a

515
cable system, although not a controlling interest, and might also have their channels, provided that the authority does not think that it would lead to results which are adverse to the public interest.
Most people would agree with the right reverend Prelate that one of the benefits of cable ought to accrue to the churches, giving them new opportunities to reach people in their homes. In some areas this might mean reaching sizeable communities who share a common faith whether Christian or non-Christian. We were, however, very concerned that the ability of particular small sects to raise large sums of money should not be the determining factor in gaining access to air time or to cable time. As the right reverend Prelate said, there are aspects of the "electronic church" in America which I would not want to see copied here. I may be wrong in thinking that the Bill is drawn more widely than the White Paper, but I do not think that I am wrong.
Clause 11(3) deals with the amount of advertising time to be permitted on cable. This is a matter to which reference has already been made. When I first read this provision it appeared that again it marked a diversion from the White Paper which talked about cable being limited to the same amount of advertising time as independent television, on comparable channels. That is not, I think, what the Bill says. It appears to imply that the IBA would have to be consulted and give their agreement on channels which were not comparable. When the noble Baroness spoke she used the words, "comparable channels" and I hope, therefore, that that is what is meant and what will be included in the Bill. It would seem to me to be inconsistent with how cable should develop if the IBA had a veto on the development of classified advertising or local advertising channels.
Finally. I am a little bothered about the sweeping nature of Clause 15 which seems to say that the authority can give directions to an operator on absolutely anything. If it is read in conjunction with other clauses, like Clauses 11 and 16, then it is understandable. But if the authority were really to exercise the powers provided in Clause 15 it could only do so by exercising close day-to-day supervision of all the operators and regulation of their services, which is not, I think, the intention.
No one can foresee with any degree of certainty the likely demand for cable television. The noble Lord, Lord Hanson, has sounded a warning about this. All I would say is that we do not necessarily have to have what they chose to have in the United States of America, and it does not follow that Gresham's Law will result with the bad driving out the good. Cable should use its multi-channel capability to provide more of an à la carte menu with programmes in which relatively small groups of people may be interested, while catering also for large audiences with amore specialised taste. In other words, it should liberate its audience from the constraints imposed by the programme scheduler.
To enable it to tread the delicate path between liberty and licence will require a quite special kind of oversight—one that subjects prospective operators to a most rigorous examination before franchises are granted, but one which also then stands back and does
516
not interfere on a day-to-day basis unless sanctions are required against an operator who under-performs, in which case those sanctions must be effective. I feel that the Bill goes a very long way to provide such a framework and I welcome it.
Finally, I should like to say that, until there was the long discussion following the Statement on the bomb outside Harrods, I had hoped to be present for the whole of this debate. If I have to leave before the final speeches, I apologise to your Lordships.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, it is indeed a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and also the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, in this debate. However, although it is a privilege, it is a rather daunting one because I suspect that both noble Lords who have spoken before me know, on the one hand, a good deal more about the Bill and, on the other hand, a good deal more about its background than most of us in the Chamber. I rather suspect, too, that if the whole process had stemmed from a "Hanson Committee", rather than from the Hunt Committee, we would have a rather different Bill before us this evening. Therefore, I hope that we shall not only hear further from the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, in general, but I hope also that we shall hear further from him in the later stages of this Bill when we shall all seek to improve it.
I propose to confine myself to a single aspect of the Bill, and I take that course not only because it has been dealt with so admirably by my noble friend who spoke from the Front Bench. As I shall be speaking mainly on a single aspect of the Bill it does not mean that I shall confine myself to that one aspect at the later stages. I hope to take part in endeavours to improve the Bill even as regards Part II, which could be regarded in the long term as more important than Part I and which up to now has received scant attention from all of us and is going to receive scant attention from me at this stage. However, that does not mean that I underestimate the very grave importance of Part II of the Bill and the consequences which could arise from it.
Taking the Bill as a whole, if it were unamended it could be the drop of poison which would make British television as unviewable as its American counterpart, where a choice of 20 different stations means only a choice of 20 different types of tosh. If, in despair in the United States, one turns to their public service network—which can seldom be obtained except in private houses—it is more than likely that one will get a British programme, which is a welcome relief. However, it indicates a line of development which we do not want to go down and which I think the Bill will assist us to go down unless we subject it to substantial amendment.
The reason why British television is different, and I venture to suggest better than most television in the world, is the 86 per cent. British requirement, which means that we have developed our own native television production. That requirement was imposed upon British television by trade union muscle: but in fact the trade unions in this endeavour received very considerable external support. They did not do it all by themselves by a long chalk. Many outside the unions recognised that if they had not succeeded, the British

517
film and television industries would both probably have practically disappeared by now.
It is the 86 per cent. requirement which has maintained a production industry in films and television which has a high reputation throughout the world, which has received awards, and which is earning us very good money in terms of its export potential. So we must be careful that, in going along with technical demands and new developments, we do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. That may not be quite the correct phrase to use, but I am sure that your Lordships know what I am trying to say.
We must be careful that British television does not go the way of the British press which, in large degree, presents mush for the majority and calls it freedom. It is this sewage-type freedom which the Bill stands in danger of presenting to the authority. What is more, it authorises that authority—in my view, without a sufficient degree of safeguard—to pass on the effluent to the British public, which has already acquired a taste for the stuff because of the 14 per cent. already transmitted by the two existing authorities. This 14 per cent. tends to go out at peak times.
Perhaps I am being hard on likening American television to such British newspapers as the Sun—much of it is quite harmless pap; and once in a decade they come up with something really memorable like "The Day After". This had even more impact in the United States than it had here, perhaps because their normal diet of visual mucous, one might call it, is constantly interrupted by even more insulting advertisements, which are apparently used to soften the brains of the American people: "Freedom—what deeds are done in thy name".
If it is conceded that the non-British proportion is to be not more than 14 per cent., why cannot this be negotiated with the authority, as it was in the case of the ITA and the BBC? At the time of the creation of those authorities no statutory requirement was laid down and the question may reasonably be asked: if we could manage without a statutory requirement then and we could rely upon the authority to negotiate a reasonable proportion, why is it that we cannot do that now? I think the reason is that we live at a different time and in different circumstances. The consequence of cable could be very different. To some extent I think that the pass has already been sold, because the guidance note to applicants for licences says:
"In the early stages applicants may need to draw on a significant amount of ready-made overseas material".
Do the Government really believe that if cable gets away with a high percentage of cheap and popular pabulum it will be possible to prevent the other two authorities from doing the same? They would be placed in an extremely difficult position if this stuff proves relatively as popular as the Sun is compared with the Telegraph and The Times, or as the Sun and the Mirror are compared with the Telegraph and The Times, or the Guardian, or whatever example you like—as the popular press is compared with the less popular press.
Therefore, the outcome could be the rapid and complete decline in the quality of British television. In my view there are fields where the market can operate without control and with results beneficial rather than
518
otherwise. I am not one of those who take the view that the market has no place—not at all. For example, I believe that in retail clothing the operation of the market has been beneficial, and one cannot say anything to the contrary. But in the area of the arts and communications, untrammelled freedom can, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said, mean a kind of Gresham's law—a Gresham's law of the mind. I believe this to be extremely dangerous. I believe that the had does drive out the good, and the experience in other countries suggests that that is the case. So far as it goes, I think that our own experience also suggests it is the case.
It is necessary at this stage to have a statutory limitation and I hope that your Lordships will reach that conclusion. When I say that the bad drives out the good, I do not mean the pornographically bad—I do not think that that is the danger—I mean the empty, the repetitive, the harmless: the product which aims to please everyone at the cost of meaning nothing much to anyone. This is what we have to fear. Once we embark upon that path, the other two authorities will have the utmost difficulty in not sliding along it as well.
Glossy, technically-efficient "Knots Landing" and "Dallas" types of programmes are all very well in their present proportions, but without a statutory quota we face an unending diet of sub-"Dallas" material and the exclusion of the British programmes which have, as I have said, brought both sales and awards in many countries. The White Paper recognised that when it said:
"The existence of the quota has contributed to the establishment of a strong domestic production capability within both the BBC and independent television."
Unmistakably that is a statement of truth. But it will be impossible to sustain that quota if it is not imposed statutorily on cable from the beginning. For example, Italy now takes 80 per cent. of its television, mostly dubbed, from foreign sources. It has no quota. Without a quota the economics of cable will force British operators into a similar situation. It is not that they will do it because they want to do it; it is because they will find that they have no alternative but gradually to slide along that path. Unless he is statutorily debarred from doing so, the operator will be unable to resist the temptation to stay solvent at all costs. Indeed, it could be argued that it would be his economic duty to do so. That is why I believe that all operators must be on exactly the same statutorily limited basis from the start. If cable cannot function on such a basis, then we should ask ourselves whether cable is worthwhile at all.
In summary, I believe that the authority must be given closer and more detailed statutory responsibilities rather than a looser and less restrictive framework which applies to the existing authorities. My future activities on the Bill will be directed to gain your Lordships' interest in and support for that endeavour.
5.19 p.m.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, I must start by declaring an interest, in that I am an executive director in one of the consortia that has recently been chosen to discuss with the Government the matters that it is necessary to discuss with a view to concluding a

519
franchise. Noble Lords may note that I have said this somewhat carefully because it is not correct at this moment to say that the franchises have been awarded. I think I should also refer to the fact that, because of my experience over the years, I have been associated with and have been a member of the Cable Television Association, the trade association of the industry, which is soon to be much enlarged, and I am a member of that association today.
I should like to join other noble Lords in congratulating most warmly my noble friend, Lord Hanson, on his first-class speech. He was too modest in what he said about his experience, because it became very clear to us that, on both sides of the Atlantic in the field of broadcasting and other entertainment, he is a man of very considerable knowledge. I was grateful to him for the frank, if not brutal, way in which he drew our attention to the difficulties that many operators were incurring on the other side of the Atlantic. This helped us to put the nature of the risk into some perspective.
I recall that, in the debate on the White Paper, the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, if he will allow me to quote him, said, among other things:
"Experts in the City doubt that a return on cable will be seen for at least seven years, maybe not until after 10 years. This pessimism is borne out by the North American experience". [Official Report, 7/7/1983; col. 670.]
Therefore, when we discuss this Bill I hope that your Lordships will constantly bear in mind the high risk, long payback, nature of this investment.
We have an unknown market to explore. We have to put the majority of the capital literally underground before we can find the nature of the answers. If by any mischance the answers turn out to be a lemon, then that cable is worth scrap. It is a write-off. That points to the degree of risk which is being incurred by those who are, shall I say, foolhardy enough to embark in the early stages on this great experiment.
The White Paper was an extremely clear document, as was the report produced by the noble Lord. Lord Hunt. Both of them covered the whole ambit of the television industry. I must say, as the noble Lord. Lord Hunt, said, that, unlike the White Paper, this Bill in parts is extremely obscure, particularly in the definitions that appear mainly in Clause 2, although there is another most important one in Clause 5 covering related services. Indeed, there are definitions which your Lordships will need for which you will have to look in another Bill altogether.
I should perhaps tell your Lordships that, in an effort to get some greater understanding of these obscurities, I turned over the weekend to the explanatory notes so kindly produced by the department for our better understanding. I had only to get to the first definition, entitled Cable Programme Service, to find the following line:
"The activities of sending and conveying are conceptually distinct".
At that point I thought that perhaps I should do better to return to the Bill, because the esoteric nature of the explanation was bound to be beyond my limited understanding. Quite seriously, those companies which are going to dig up the roads, lay the cables and put out the programmes must be in a position to
520
understand this Bill fully. Even if they cannot, they must be able to turn to their lawyers to advise them. Already I have found two who tell me that they will find it extremely difficult to do that.
I now come to what I regard as one of the most serious omissions from this Bill, and it stems from the divided control under which this industry is going to have to operate. I suppose that this originated with the Hunt Report, although, from the way that the noble Lord took the point up, he cannot have expected that it would be followed through with such extreme care. Anyhow, followed through it has been. It was made clear in the White Paper that there was to be dual control, but it was not until the Bill was published that we actually saw how dangerous and difficult this could be. For, whereas in the White Paper we were told that the cable operator would be given a franchise for 12 years followed by another eight, we had to look in vain for the licence that would be given to the cable provider because that appears in another Bill and when you turn to that Bill you find nothing more than that the licence shall.
"continue for such periods as shall be specified".
Really an industry in this situation is in for a degree of uncertainty which I do not believe it deserves, and which I do not believe it can afford. I believe very strongly, therefore, that at a later stage in this Bill we shall have to embark on some serious amendments. I believe that the only way to do this is to provide that the cable authority has the power to require the Office of Telecommunications to do certain things in order that they may be able to give a cable company the certainty that it needs in order to embark upon its enterprise.
I would go further than that, and say that the Telecommunications Bill, when it comes, will have to have amendments which are complementary, so that the two work in together. Consultation simply is not enough. There must be a primus inter pares. I must warn that all this is capable of taking up a good deal of your Lordships' time when we come to the Committee.
I should like to refer now to what I regard as a strange provision in the Bill. It is that the cable authority has to consider whether certain types of organisation, if they were shareholders, might be acting adversely to the public interest. I find those that are picked to be a strange choice. We are not talking about the Mafia or the Militant Tendency. We are talking about programme contractors: newspapers: local authorities: those involved in making films: and those involved in other sorts of entertainment. Surely these are just the sort of people we need to play their part in cable consortia, because between them they have much of the knowledge needed in order to make a success of this new industry. At the least, when we come to this clause at another stage, we shall have to explore the nature of public interest, how it is to be adversely affected and the way in which the authority is to set about making its difficult decisions in the course of sticking to the clause.
There are a number of points to do with programming that will have to be explored at later stages of the Bill, but I understand that these are to be dealt with by other speakers. I will not deal with them now because I have limited my time severely. I will

521
deal with just one more subject and that is the length of the licence. In the White Paper we were told that the licence for the cable operator was to be for 12 years. In the Bill we find that the licence is to be for a maximum of 12 years. These two periods are very different. "Twelve years" means 12 years, and "a maximum of 12 years" means from nought to 12 years. I suggest that this is an obscurity which should be removed by the removal of the word "maximum". I shall seek to deal with that at another stage of the Bill.
Finally, there is the length of the licence. In the White Paper there was a reference to the difficulty of establishing exactly when a cable operation was under way. It was suggested that the licence should start from the time the cable operation was actually working. From my own experience, I think it is impossible to say, if one is wiring up a city or an area, when one is actually in business. One is never completely in business, but always extending, first the trunks and then the feeders. I believe it would be better to make the licence longer and to make it run from the day that it is signed. I suggest that the time required in those circumstances is not 12 years but 15 years. I shall return to this at a later stage in the Bill.
I have taken up enough of your Lordships' time. Though I wear two hats, I should like to share what has been said by other noble Lords. I welcome the Bill; I am extremely grateful to the Government for the speed with which they have tackled it and I hope that my noble friend will not think, from any of the suggestions that I have made, that I feel any other way. It is a brave Bill that we must all applaud and no one does so with more enthusiasm than I.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Briginshaw: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mishcon in his usual able way delineated the line that participants in the debate from now on should take about utilisation and rationalisation of time. I propose to be guided. Also I should like, not as a mere formality, to associate myself with the congratulations on the maiden speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, both for its content and its value. Our all-party Media Group recently listened to representations from the Radio and Television Safeguards Committee. These people were highly qualified and their representations fit into an indication that is emerging from the debate that we should take note of what we do not know rather than what we think we do. We were well guided in preparing ourselves but the questions and answers underlined how much we do not know about the manifold implications of the introduction of cable broadcasting to our country.
It is a great generalisation that broadcasting in this country harbours purveyors of high standards. They are the users of first-class technology and techniques. Nevertheless, the well-known dictum that the public is entitled to higher standards than it wants is acceptable to me because I have experienced in another media certain press proprietors saying, "We stoop low to give our readers what they want". That has an air of irresponsibility and is not acceptable. In these circumstances I felt happy to listen to the representatives before us giving a moderate but sincere set of proposals
522
for parliamentary consideration. To reach the present position we found that the current quota arrangements specified that the proper proportion of British material—this has already emerged in the debate—amounts to 86 per cent. of the material transmitted and assessed over a six-month period. The committee, and myself in particular, saw the danger to Britain's high standards unless cable begins to operate with a quota.
My noble colleague Lord Jenkins of Putney has already mentioned this fact, and it is common sense. The background is that in July 1983 the chairman of the committee on safeguards, Mr. Peter Plouviez, wrote to the Home Secretary. He reminded him that the committee had been established orginally to seek safeguards against what was then, in 1954, seen as a probability that the new commercial companies would use inexpensive imported films and recorded material.
So that I do not abuse your Lordships' time and attention I will use a method of summarising matters which in my view are of moment. The Radio and Television Safeguards Committee, which attended on us, has been in existence for 30 years with a proud and consistent record of successfully compaigning for the retention of higher standards in all forms of British broadcasting. It has done so against the background that it includes 13 separate organisations representing a variety of groups including, as has already been mentioned, writers, composers, musicians, actors, journalists, technicians and sports people.
The prime priority is a quota for cable comparable with BBC and IBA. The publication of the Cable and Broadcasting Bill confirms the fears of representatives that there is a real threat to the present high standards of the material shown on our television screens. Within my earlier general qualifications, I believe that to be true. The Radio and Television Safeguards Committee fought hard and long in order to reach the present position that provides the basis on which a quota will exist. As I have said, in July 1983 the chairman of the committee, Mr. Plouviez, wrote to the Home Secretary. He reminded him that the committee had been established originally to seek safeguards; and that this would avoid much of the importations of inferior material that would weaken the 86 per cent. position of the British industry itself. To me it appeared an over-simplification when the Home Secretary replied:
"Cable is not to be seen as an extension of broadcasting: it is a different kind of medium which will fulfil a function distinct from broadcasting …"
That may be so. Nevertheless, it seems to me that insufficient is said in that respect.
Having made these points, the whole basis of the information that we sought was to avoid the real danger of large-scale dumping of old American entertainment progammes which can be bought off the shelf for less than £1,500 an hour. Employment prospects will he crucially affected by these decisions. Therefore, I am hoping that, in view of the material that has already been given in the debate, we shall be led to feel that we should move towards the provision of a quota.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Hill of Luton: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in the warmest congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, on his maiden speech, particularly as he could bring his own relevant experience to bear on the subject. But, for the rest, I confess I may show a little less enthusiasm than some of your Lordships have shown for the advent of cable. As the noble Baroness was speaking, I could not help recalling that it was at about the beginning of the century that research revealed that messages in sight and sound could be transmitted through the ether and, on that basis, there have been many developments, including sound radio and television. Secondly, with the satellite, we are on the verge of an immense new development in the character, the nature and extent of our broadcasting.
And this is the moment when it is proposed to go back to cable, to dig holes in the ground, possibly to put up new posts! Why? Is it to aid television, to extend its scope, to broaden its character? Not a bit of it! It is to enable the Government to secure from the investor sufficient money for the development of what is delightfully called information technology. We are not considering the advent of a programme intended primarily to extend the scope and improve the character of the existing services. It is a device to produce money from the investor—money which he may well lose. If I myself had any money, I should not invest a penny in cable television. It is, as I say, to enable the money to be found from the external investor.
So, consistent with that attitude, it is of course quite natural for the Government to seek to make it easier for those assuming the responsibility of cable television to get an audience and, therefore, easier to find from advertisements the money they need. That is what we are considering. It is not a television proposal in the ordinary sense but a financial proposal to secure a particular result—other than television—by organising this development. So it is not surprising that conditions arc proposed to be made rather easier for the newcomer, easier than those now applying to the existing service.
There is no provision, for example, for the separation of advertisements from programmes. That leads to advertising programmes, programmes that delude one into believing that they are a normal contribution to one's entertainment, but skilfully embedded in them are advertisements for a particular product. For us to go back to the advertising programme would be a retrograde step. In regard to smaller points, there is the exclusion of political advertising. Very reasonable, too, one may think. But it can be modified at the whim of Government. The responsible Minister can modify or withdraw that rule. Even the greatest and noblest of Ministers is a political animal. I would not trust a Minister of any party to modify the rule on political impartiality. We all know that the statement that coincides with one's own views is marvellously neutral. The statement on the other side of course is wickedly partial.
Then there is the impartiality requirement. Yes, it is there! But for news only—an area which seldom reveals partiality. It is in current affairs that the lack of impartiality is sometimes found. Consider the
524
questioner who, by the nature of his or her question, reveals what his or her own views are. And, not infrequently, it happens both on sound and television. As two noble Lords have already said, there is no requirement for the limitation of imported programmes to 14 per cent.—there is only "a proper proportion". What in Heaven's name is "a proper proportion"?—particularly when, as a Government, you want this broadcasting system to be successful in order that the money may come in for the development of information techniques. And there are others.
I am now going to venture on a little prophecy. I think the cable programmes, naturally and inevitably, will have a very substantial proportion of American material, good or bad. No one can see American television, and indeed no one can study in particular the contributions we now get from American television, without realising that it would be disastrous if there were to be no limitation on imported television, including American television. I will not say more on this subject because the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has elaborated upon it and a reference has been made to it by the noble Lord, Lord Briginshaw.
What is it going to be like? American material is cheap: it has earned its corn in the States and it comes here dirt cheap. What else?—quizzes with money prizes? Yes, that will be a popular line. It might buy up Association Football, other than national matches such as the Cup Final, or national events such as the Derby, and so on. What would be the result of that? This is not going to be a universal service. It is for those in built-up areas who can afford to pay more for the service. I do not believe for one moment that this service is going to be extended to the whole country. It is an appalling thought that our roads and paths are going to be dug up with cables everywhere in order to give this to the occupants of urban areas. It is unlikely that those who live in the countryside will ever get it. There is no profit, but only loss, in extending it to them.
The most important point I want to make is this: triviality succeeds in terms of numbers. It did at the beginning of independent television. They got to over three-quarters of the audience, leaving the BBC, at its worst, with rather less than 25 per cent. Triviality is a number-gatherer, an audience-gatherer; and so, bearing that in mind, what will be the impact on the other services? Perhaps I should say in passing that the press today is seeing the same sort of thing. The Sun newspaper, with an immense circulation, is greatly prosperous. Your Lordships know the theme of the newspaper and you know the kind of thing—the rounded phrase has given place to the rounded figure in drawing an audience.
Good heavens! If we believe that triviality is going to succeed until there is profit, we need to look at independent television. Once they began to make money they sought to acquire the esteem that had hitherto belonged to the BBC—and very good too. If this were going to succeed, then the triviality might die quite early. But is it? Is it going to die, bearing in mind that it is not for everyone and bearing in mind the excellence of existing services? I know it is easy for us to say that our television is the best in the world; but

525
it is, and it would he a tragedy if in order to find money for investing in information techniques in the future the standards of the other two services were in any way depreciated. It could happen.
What if the advertisement income were substantial? There would be a fall in the advertisement income of independent television. None could estimate it, but there would be a fall. After all, it is bearing a very heavy annual burden for the fourth channel. But, if income were substantially affected—I do not like saying this—there would he more triviality returning to independent television to compete for numbers.
The case of the BBC is different. If there were a substantial fall in the audience of the BBC, they would find it much more difficult to get increases in the licence fee that are wholly justified by the circumstances. I am not suggesting they would become more trivial—with the former chairman of the BBC sitting so near, I dare not!—hut it could happen. And to develop a service with the motive of finding money for the laying down of cables and the rest, that is not a proper motive for the development of a television service. There is a very substantial danger that in its early days, when seeking investment and seeking money, the standard of the service as a whole will be lowered.
Your Lordships may ask: what happened with independent television? As soon as they got the money they became conscious of the need for more serious broadcasting. I just do not think that cable is going to find the money. I would ask your Lordships to think of the immense cost of cable. Think of its provision in London—cables down all over London. I do not think it is likely to succeed. The essence of what I am saying is that triviality is the secret of numbers; triviality is bound to be the principal element in the new service, and it could possibly extend to the others.
I think I have spoken for long enough. I have been rather irked by the fact that so many of your Lordships see this as a great new development. It was once said in this House that our wives will be able, through this new information medium, to get in touch with the supermarket and order their foodstuffs. They like shopping. They do not want to have to send a message. But I think I have said enough about that—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, I think he was quoting something that I said when I in turn was quoting Hunt. I specifically said that I thought these interactive services would be of great benefit, especially to physically handicapped people.
Lord Hill of Luton: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's point. From what has been said today, I see no hope of defeating this Bill. This accommodating attitude that is being shown on all sides of the House suggests that we shall do no more than make some modest amendments.
Your Lordships may think I am a weary, false prophet in this matter. All I can say is that I have had a good deal of experience within the television area and that leads me to suspect that producing a service not for its own sake but in order to find money for activity in a different field is a formula for trouble. I do not think, despite the triviality that is inevitable, that
526
it is ever going to he a paying proposition for the investor, and, if it is not, then triviality will be heaped upon triviality in the hope of enlarging the audience and so the income.
6 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I must first apologise in advance for having to leave your Lordships' debate early. I have to celebrate a special event for a nephew which could be said to be a previous engagement arranged some 21 years ago. I should like to congratulate very much my noble friend Lord Hanson, who gave us the benefit of a very specialised knowledge which we even understood. He also had a contribution to make which was not controversial, though perhaps it would not have been agreed to by the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton.
With regard to the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, I have to say, in immediately succeeding him in speaking, that I welcome this Bill and, if I dare say it, I thought that his speech was one such as might have been delivered by his late majesty King Canute on an earlier occasion. I really welcome in this Bill the opportunity for further benefits, from the many advances in telecommunications facilities during the past 30 years, to be made available to the whole population at prices which they can afford.
The potentialities are splendid. The potential for vastly increased numbers of entertainment and, more especially, information services, and the capability of providing two-way communications, stand out to me as being particular benefits. I gathered from my noble friend Lady Trumpington on the Front Bench (who delivered somebody else's speech so well that we might have thought it was her own) that she was saying much the same as 1 have just said, and in that respect I agree with the Government. I also believe that there are great possibilities in the alternative systems, to which my noble friend Lord Hanson referred, and I agree strongly with him that there are all kinds of hopes for the future.
I do not think that the rather sad note which the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, cast, seeing it as competition between entertainment channels, is all that we shall get out of cable. Cable will give us many other things and I think we shall be surprised, if we care to read the report of this debate in the next century, at what has come forward in the meantime. I also suggest that a side benefit of a greatly increased choice in services, which is what will be provided—of course, with those services limited in relation to obscenity and matters such as racial hatred—is that people will be less likely to be brainwashed by individual announcements on particular channels. Thus, unlike George Orwell, I see the wider use of telecommunications in 1984 to be a safeguard of individual liberty, rather than a means of restricting it.
However, turning to the Bill I found myself disagreeing, in particular, with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I believe that the Government have taken great care in commissioning studies, including the most important one—and it was not the only one—under the chairmanship of the noble Lord. Lord Hunt of Tanworth, and in issuing a White Paper earlier this year before proceeding with the Bill. I do

527
not think it is a rushed Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said. The Government have taken almost too much trouble, and maybe have confused themselves in the process. That is the only point which I had to take up with the noble Lord, and I thank him for listening.
However, I find that there are many features of the Bill which I shall want to question and there are several which really ought to be amended. Many of these are very detailed and technical and, though I know it is helpful to Governments at this stage to get an idea of what they might be, I would not want to detain your Lordships by going through them.
There are just two main points which deserve brief mention, and I am not the first to mention one of them. First, there are the inter-relationships between the cable authority and the new Office of Telecommunications which is being established under this Bill's stable companion, the Telecommunications Bill. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, expressing similar reservations. The granting of a licence to a cable operator under the Telecommunications Bill, and the granting of one to a programme provider under this Bill, are interdependent and must be properly co-ordinated. In the Bill at the moment, I do not believe that the arrangements for such co-ordination are good enough and my noble friend Lord De La Warr has already emphasised this point.
To digress briefly, a moment ago I referred to this Bill and the Telecommunications Bill being stable companions, and they are in the sense that they both have the same owner—the Government. However, sadly they are under different trainers. Though I appreciate that changes cannot be made quickly and that this Bill is not an appropriate vehicle for such a change, I believe that the multiplicity of civil departments and subordinate authorities, established to supervise the presentation to the public of the great opportunities of telecommunications, can only hamper the effectiveness of that presentation.
There really is a need at some later date for the Government to review this whole scene and to simplify it greatly, with the minimum number of departments and subordinate authorities supervising telecommunications, especially the technical side. For example, it is ridiculous that the Home Office retains authority for civil frequency allocation, which is clearly a technical matter and better handled by people with a greater technical knowledge.
The second main point on which I believe the Bill to be deficient—even though I listened very carefully to my noble friend Lady Trumpington, I still feel it to be deficient—is the apparent lack of a provision in Clause 2, and in particular in subsection (1), covering a commercial application of this potentially splendid new communications facility. I hope very much that we shall be able to include such a provision during the passage of the Bill through this House, unless my noble friend on the Front Bench can show me that it is already there.
Finally, I am sure the Government are aware that the Committee and later stages of this Bill are likely to be lengthy ones and probably longer than, for
528
example, those of the Data Protection Bill—and I am addressing my remarks to the Deputy Chief Whip. For that reason it is particularly unfortunate that fate has brought together this Bill and the Telecommunication Bill at the same time, because some of us are involved in both. However, I hope that this Bill gets a fair wind and, in principle, I wish it very well indeed. In conclusion, I apologise deeply to my noble friend Lord Elton for not remaining for his speech, and indeed to any other noble Lords for whose speeches I am unable to stay.
6.9 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I welcome this Bill. It seems to me that it is realistic to plan for cable and not to allow Western Europe to go its own way, as it has been doing for many years, as have the USA, Canada and other countries. We, who are the pioneers of television, should be involved in it and I am glad that the Government have brought forward this Bill. It seems to me that in this country there have been three phases of television. There was the first phase from 1936, when I joined the BBC television service, until 1954. There was a rather big interruption for most of us in the middle of that period, when there was a BBC black and white monopoly.
Then there was the second phase from the breaking of the monopoly. The introduction of the ITA was fought, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said in his opening speech, most vigorously in this House by the present Lord Chancellor. I disagreed with him. I remember listening to all those speeches. I think that the lesson of that was not that he was wrong (which he was, in the event) but that we found a typically British compromise which has worked out extremely well. Everything that he forecast about lowering the standards and how hopeless it was going to be—and we had films of Fred J. Muggs shown during the Coronation broadasts in the USA. which were brought back here and shown to everybody as typical of what would happen—has not happened. In the event, nothing of the kind happened. We reached a compromise and we shall reach another compromise, provided that in both this Bill and in subsequent legislation we adopt a flexible approach. We are not perfectly wise; we shall not foresee some of the technological developments and we shall have to come back to this problem. Therefore I plead for flexibility of approach and for cable not to be tied down too greatly.
I am glad that the Government have followed the recommendations of the admirable Hunt Report. It is right that there should be a separate cable authority and not the IBA. It is a different and in some ways a competitive area. Therefore it is much better that it should have a separate governing body. I regret that there are so many rules about who should participate. I hope that initially cable will prosper on loyalty to local interests. The access programmes will bring that about. The Bill provides that local newspapers are not to be allowed to become shareholders. This is to be regretted because it is too restrictive. However, I accept what is contained in the Bill.
I was a little surprised to see that of the first 11 franchises to be granted. British Telecom will have five. It is a very substantial holding. They will provide

529
the cable; sometimes they will sell it; but it is more than likely that they will invest. Noble Lords on this side of the House and opposite will recall that the target of cabling 100,000 houses will cost about £30 million. If British Telecom are to cable those five, it represents an investment of £150 million. I should have thought that British Telecom had other fish to fry. I should like British Telecom to modernise the public sector telephone network and to provide some of the services which are so admirably provided in the United States before they invest in this way. It is their decision, but it is a very substantial decision.
I turn next to the code relating to advertising which is dealt with in Clause 11.I wonder whether or not we are tying ourselves a little too much to the IBA. The IBA will have to be consulted. There are other respectable and admirably founded advertising bodies. The Advertising Standards Association, the ISBA and the Advertising Association all have a long history of controlling advertisements, both in taste and in content. I cannot see why the IBA should be the only body to be consulted. The Bill details just one body, and one sees who has been left out. I should have thought that it would be wiser for the established advertising authorities to be consulted about setting up the code instead of it being tied to one body.
According to the Bill, the companies should he allowed to advertise, but for no longer than the average for the IBA, which is currently six minutes in each hour. Why not? If it is thought that the traffic will bear more advertising and that it will help to improve the standard of programmes, because more can be paid for performances, and if people are willing to accept seven or eight minutes, that is the judgment of the cable operating company to which they ought to be entitled. It is not the task of Government to lay down exactly how many minutes in every hour companies should be allowed to advertise. If people do not like the advertisements they can switch off and they will not renew their subscription. There are four broadcasting channels and there is to be a DBS channel as well. I do not believe that a responsible and economically viable cable operating company would exceed the time allowed. It would probably keep to six minutes in every hour, but I do not believe that we have the right to tie it down.
Moreover, if we forbid some of the advertising provided for in the Bill, pure advertising on one channel might be ruled out completely, which would be a pity. One knows that there is a customer desire to take advertising magazines, many of which are beautifully printed. I read some of them, and occasionally I read advertising newspapers. I do not intend to refer to the one in Warrington. But they prosper. I see no reason why advertising should not appear on one of the channels. If people look at it, a service is being performed. Lord Hunt said in his report that he thought it would be unwise to put a time limit on advertising.
May I turn next to protected events, which are dealt with in Clause 13. The clause is in a mess at the moment. I hope my noble friend will have a look at it before the Committee stage and that the Government will take the initiative in amending it. Noble Lords will remember that when ITV was set up the following six protected events were written into the first charter: the
530
Cup Final, the Grand National, the Derby, the Boat Race (if this were a modern list I doubt whether it would include the Boat Race), Test Matches and Wimbledon. The existing broadcasting authorities have the first peck at those events. If they do not want to take them, they can be picked up by others.
The question of exclusiveness also arises. The BBC have had a five-year exclusive agreement in this country for the televising of Wimbledon, and very well have they performed that task. I am not criticising the BBC. But if they are covering a Centre Court semifinal, what is to stop cable bidding for the other semifinal on Court No. 1 or Court No. 2? The Wimbledon authorities do exactly that. They sell to the NBC in the United States and to the cable companies in the United States television coverage which is not necessarily shown here. This is highly rewarding financially. I would remind noble Lords that it is rewarding not just to Wimbledon; £2 million was handed last year to the Lawn Tennis Association. It went towards founding clubs, and helping with the coaching of our youngsters, which eventually will mean, I hope, that we get back into the Davis Cup at the top end rather than lower down.
The money from television coverage goes hack into the sport and the money from cable will also go hack into the sport, whether it be rugby football, or football or rowing. Therefore one has to ask why there should be a list of six sacrosanct events, which means that you are depriving the organisers of the sport of the right to negotiate. Surely cable ought not to be excluded. Overseas companies might be interested in watching promising youngsters from their own countries playing at Wimbledon on a court which is not being covered by the BBC. It is too inflexible at the moment and I hope that my noble friend will look at this point.
Finally, I hope that the Government do not bend to the desire which has been expressed in one or two parts of your Lordships' House about fixing a firm limit of 14 per cent. of products from foreign sources. It would be unwise initially. The Olympic Games are to be held next summer in the United States. Would all those events count as foreign products? Would one have to say that the 14 per cent. limit could not be exceeded? What happens about Test Matches from Australia? Are they foreign? What happens to all foreign programmes? It might be films only. One hopes that in due course, cable will certainly be a stimulus to our own film industry, which is showing signs of revival—and I believe that cable will further help that process. Provided that the trade unions accept new technology and do not go for the over-manning that is a feature of Fleet Street, then I hope we shall see a considerable increase in the film industry in this country. That will be of tremendous importance not only to our own cable companies but also for exports all over the world.
I should like to reiterate that I support this Bill. In some ways, it is too inflexible and I hope that before we come to the Committee stage the Government will consider most sympathetically whether we are wise to tie down cable too much. Finally, I would say that I so much agree with the admirable maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, and even with some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton. I myself am not sure that there will be 30

531
prosperous cable channels, but I certainly believe that there will be four or five extra channels and that people will make money from those—but I would not invest too heavily in any greater number than that.
6.21 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, there will come a time when we shall look back at this Bill as an historic Bill marking an historic first step. The charter of the BBC in 1925 was an historic first step, but it was not the last step. It was succeeded by many charters; and this Bill will undoubtedly be succeeded by many Bills as we gain experience of working a new facility and exploiting a novelty.
I have no doubt that we shall have many ding-dong battles in Committee between the various different lobbies who will raise their voices in this House. I must say that I have no commercial interest to declare in any of them. The only lobby in which I am interested is that which endeavours to emphasise and preserve the cultural values of our society and standards of good behaviour as opposed to attenuating them and allowing them to deteriorate.
From that point of view, I find myself in some sympathy with a number of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. I agree with him entirely that if all we shall get is more trash then, clearly, we do not want it. But it is wrong to try to stifle the birth of the future just because you cannot see the shape of things too clearly through the fog. I believe that that attitude is a mistake. The important thing with any novelty is to face up to the difficulties as they come along; confront them, do not funk them. Do not take counsel of your fears, above all things.
This Bill takes me back to nearly a quarter of a century ago when, as I reminded your Lordships last Thursday. I was a governor of the BBC. According to an account in The Times this morning, I was one of the less distinguished members. However, hard words break no bones and I shall not pursue that point! The colleague whom I remember most clearly in those days was Mrs. Cazalet-Keir, better known to those with long Parliamentary memories as Thelma Cazalet, MP. She and I fought many honest battles together, shoulder to shoulder. One of them was to persuade the BBC to take an attitude of enlightened patronage to what was then being called subscription television or pay-as-you-view TV, which was being tried out on a small scale by a little syndicate. I thought our attitude towards that exercise ought to be helpful and I wanted to take a small share in the enterprise; to share the inevitable losses with them and to gain experience as we went along.
I remember how I used to advise my colleagues on the board and the director general in these words. I said: "Remember the advice which Gamaliel gave to the Sanhedrin: 'If this thing is of man it will fail. But if it is of God, you cannot withstand it'. I believe this is really the shape of things to come in the future. Do not fight it. If you can't beat it, join it. But don't join it on such a crippling scale that you lose too much money in the early stages". It is always a mistake to over-invest in a novelty before one can see some of the difficulties.
532
I have no doubt in my own mind about the vision I had of the future. I was then deeply involved in the pioneering phases of lasers and fibre optics. I could see the future quite clearly for cables and telecommunications. I doubt whether Thelma Cazalet saw it as clearly as I did, but between us we fought the same battle against the BBC bureaucracy, which would not touch it with a bargepole. They were blackly hostile to the whole concept as a threat to their own existence—the bureaucratic attitude I was denouncing last Thursday.
If one goes into a modern, Californian-style house, one drives up to the garage door, presses a button and then a sonic signal opens the garage door. One drives in and shuts the garage door by pressing another button. Then one steps out of the car, through a door, and one is in the hall of one's own house. That is the standard style of house built elsewhere. It is built around the garage because the automobile is an essential part of modern living. I visualise that at some time in the future, every new house will have some kind of electronics room built into it. If one is an engineer, then one will have an electronic drawing board with its light pencil. One may indeed communicate, as the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, said, with the department store or whoever it may be, ordering up the weekly vegetables and so on—a great help to the handicapped. Such an arrangement will doubtless be duplicated in the living room in the form of a cathode ray tube for your television set. But there is no doubt in my own mind that an electronics room in every house is something that will come about.
With regard to this Bill as the first step in that process, I wish to take up two points. First. there is the wishy-washy command structure sketched in Schedule 1. A command structure involves a partnership between two people who have quite a different view entirely of time. It is the difference between decision and execution; between policy formation and implementation. There is the chief executive's/ chairman's/commander-in-chief's strategic view for which he must have time to sit and think and plan, and the field-commander's/chief-of-staffs/ managing-director's duty is to carry our those plans and policies. Whereas a managing director is always short of time, for the chairman and policy-maker there must be time in hand to sit and think.
This Bill merely provides for a chairman without telling us what he is going to do, and for a deputy chairman. They have the power between them to appoint a secretary. Here I am repeating what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, when I ask: will he be a full-time chairman or a part-time chairman? Will he be an executive chairman? Will his deputy be next in line as his successor, or merely somebody who takes the chair in the chairman's absence? Will the deputy in effect be the managing director while the chairman is the policy-maker? Will they appoint a chief executive of their own? Will he be a long-term career appointment while they are short-term, ministerial appointments, so that the situation which I sketched out to your Lordships last Thursday emerges—in which, after a few generations of members have gone by, the long-term chief executive has everything in his own hands and his colleagues have no more control over him than a clutch of mice have over a cat?

533
Where is the command structure sketched out? What are the duties of the secretary? Will he be just the servant of the members and their conscience—that is to say, a person who advises them permanently on whether what they propose is or is not intro or ultra vires? Or will he be a secretary-general and the equivalent of a chief executive? None of these aspects is sketched out in the Bill. If we pass Schedule 1 in its present form, everything then lies in the hands of the Minister without there being any parliamentary control. That would not be so bad if Ministers were any good at creating command structures for quangos, but all the evidence I have shows that they are not very good at creating command structures for quangos—and this is just another quango. When the noble Lord the Minister replies, I hope that he will be a good deal more explicit in respect of the hoard structure he is proposing.
The second point I wish to raise concerns the preservation of standards by the control of obscenity, violence and so on. If your Lordships will read Sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Bill, you will then perhaps go to Statutes at Large and examine the Obscene Publications Act 1959. But I would advise your Lordships not to do that because it was amended by the Obscene Publications Act 1964, which was subsequently amended by the Criminal Law Act 1977. You will find it, not in Statutes at Large, but in Statutes in Force, and, if you then do what I have done and produce a filled-in version of what the future legislation on this subject will be, you will not come to any better conclusion than I do with all the scissors and papers and glue folded away: "a poor thing but our own". We call it the Obscene Publications Act; it ought to be called the pornographers' charter of freedom. The whole thing is based on a misconception. I am not going to go into this in detail. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, last Thursday told us that his right honourable and learned friend is taking the law on obscenity into consideration. All I can say is that if he comes up with anything, that will have to be the first amendment to this Bill we are considering.
The other thing it provides for is control of obscenity by codes and standards and public acceptability. That is another bruised reed, because nobody knows what the public accepts or does not accept. It probably accepts whatever it gets; it can switch the set off, it can switch the sound off, it can leave the room, it can send the children out of the room. There is no way of finding out. Quite clearly the standards that are produced now offend very many serious-minded people very much indeed. I do not accept the complacency with which the bureaucracy justify whatever they put in front of us.
There goes my ten minutes, my Lords; thank you very much.
6.32 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I want to say a word, if I may, about cable programmes and certain important aspects of the subject—what it seems likely the customer will want from cable and whether the Bill is an adequate framework to ensure that he gets what he wants. If he does not get what he wants the whole enterprise will clearly fail. Ever since the debate on this
534
subject began in Britain it has been recognised that cable will make it possible greatly to widen choice of entertainment, but there will be what has been referred to as "more of the same", and what some fear will turn out to be more of the worst of the same.
It is also becoming increasingly clear that cable has enormous potential for meeting different, more urgent and subtler needs, the needs of millions of people who find themselves with more leisure time than ever before because of shorter working hours, unemployment, or longer life after retiring age. Those needs are by no means adequately met simply by passive film watching, and we greatly underestimate the human condition if we believe they are.
As work patterns change and we tend to live longer probably the most exciting and potentially fruitful aspect of cable, from everybody's point of view, is its capacity to involve people in a variety of spare time activities in a manner that is not possible by way of the wider network and one-way communication of broadcasting, and indeed is not so far possible in any other way.
We know from broadcasting that there is great enthusiasm for programmes which encourage and give ideas for active pursuits like gardening, cooking, bird watching, camping, boating, keeping fit. We also know that locally based broadcasting, local radio talk-ins, local information services, local news-spots have a big following. When on a limited scale it has been possible for local groups to broadcast about their activities such programmes have mostly been popular.
What is needed now is a cost-effective way for voluntary organisations and other community groups to communicate locally with people beyond their own membership and thus involve far greater numbers in participating in new interests, activities, sports, service for others, educational interests, fulfilling activity for hours not spent in paid employment. In practice that can best be done by cable operators offering access to such groups on terms which the groups can accept and respond to. This is, of course, anticipated in Clause 6 of the Bill, where the critieria for being granted a licence include the extent of plans to provide programmes of educational value catering to local tastes, programmes in which people can participate and programmes for which related services will also be provided.
But is Clause 6 as it stands an adequate description of what has to happen if there is to be large active customer involvement in the cable scene? What is required, surely, is that a cable company says to the local branch of the playgroup movement or of Age Concern, or some other local voluntary group, something like this: "Look, you have an idea for a programme which will interest other local people in your particular activity and will get feedback from them. You get together yourselves and work a programme up. If you want advice, ask us. When you have your ideas sorted out come along to us and we will put our studio and its manager, our camera and sound people, at your disposal and they will help you make the programme. You will not pay us anything and we will not pay you anything. It may be that when you have done this a few times you will develop some of the expertise among yourselves. If so, we shall be delighted. In the meantime we are at your disposal."

535
For this to happen the best means is probably provision by the company of a two-way community access channel. In the United States of America community access works best. I understand, where there are specific channels for the purpose. At Fort Lauderdale in California, for example, there are two access channels, one for voluntary organisations and one for statutory, and that works very well. In this country the pilot project at Greenwich began with a community access channel and developed from there.
I understand why the Government believe that cable is most likely to succeed if it is not over-regulated, but the Government see the need for safeguards—some of them have been referred to—under Clause 7. Must there not also be a stronger and clearer statement in Clause 6 that licences will he granted only if there are adequate arrangements. which should even perhaps be quantified, for access by voluntary organisations and community groups, with the necessary facilities and help provided at no cost to the group. Must there not be insistence that the cable laid is capable of taking this two-way communication? Would it not also he essential—and this is an important point—that at least one member of the authority itself, as described in Clause 1, should be a person with experience and understanding of voluntary organisations and of the relevant sort of participatory activity and learning?
I could go into this area in greater detail but at this stage I would only want to put down a marker and to ask my noble friend the Minister whether he will make sure that the Government pay great attention to representations made to them recently by concerned voluntary organisations which, I believe, share roughly this point of view.
Cable, even at the outset, is not just an opportunity for business people and the entertainment industry. It is not just a job creator. It is an opportunity for a revolution of the way we use our leisure and the way we find work activity which is not employment. We must ensure that the framework provided by the legislation maximises the chances of this happening successfully.
6.40 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords. I confess I find myself much more in sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, than with any other speaker I have heard today, because I believe that the Government are coming forward with an irrelevant Bill at a particularly unfortunate and irrelevant time. In the time available to me I want to show first, that cable is a small part of broadcasting, and will be a small part of broadcasting rather than a major part, and, secondly, that broadcasting will be a small part of cable. That is not as tautologous as at first it might appear.
My introduction to cable and satellite came a number of years ago when I was a consultant to the Federation of Rocky Mountain States, based in Denver, where they were going in for cable access to parts of that difficult terrain, stretching from Idaho down to Arizona where ordinary television was not available. They were trying to test, first, the technical side of getting the dishes available on the roofs of schools, community centres, and so on; and, secondly,
536
the kind of programmes acceptable to those isolated communities. This was thought to be a viable proposition in spite of the fact that cabling had already come to Denver. Anyone who knows Denver, Colorado, will know that it sits at the foot of the escarpment of the Rocky Mountains and is particularly favourable for normal transmission methods but is surrounded by this huge territory which is not so favourable.
The experiment of the satellite technology was almost entirely a failure because it was based on a total misconception about the relative importance and role of traditional television, of cable and of satellite. It was no less a failure because it preceded the growth, which we have seen in this country, of video cassette recorders which make a huge difference to the market potential of both cable and satellite.
Have the Government actually looked seriously at the existing experiments in pay television which have been going on for a number of years? In those experiments, which were presumably carried out in favourable areas, what we have is pay television reaching 18 per cent. of the homes which actually subscribe to the cable and only 6 per cent. of the homes passed by the cable. That is not a very encouraging invitation for anyone who wants to invest. That is where I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hill, who said he would not put a penny into cable. Neither would I. The test market that we have had so far supports our views rather than the views of those who look more favourably on cable.
Let us look at the experience of cabling in other countries. It is not, as some people might think, that the most developed countries have the highest percentage of cabling. By no means is that so. Belgium has75 per cent. of cable and The Netherlands has 60 per cent., hut both countries have cable as an intrinsic part of the public service network. with very heavy public and, indeed, local authority involvement. I believe Canada has 60 per cent. cable. However, that is because of its peculiar terrain where people are generally concentrated on the 48th parallel, a long way from each other and where traditional transmission is expensive, but they are fairly concentrated in urban areas. In those circumstances, which are quite different from the geography of this country, cable appears to be viable. Even so, it is worth noting that the arts Channel "C" in Canada has recently gone bankrupt.
On the other hand, the United States, which everyone looks on as either a dreaded or admired example of what is to happen here, has only 33 per cent. cable. That should give a potential investor cause to think about the commercial possibilities.
Let us consider the possibility of increasing the market size for broadcasting. I wonder how far noble Lords think the extension of broadcasting will go in terms of sheer quantity; the number of hours watched per day. Britain is already the highest in Europe with three hours ten minutes of television viewing per person per day. The highest in the world is the United States with four hours per day. That figure has been static for a number of years. Indeed, it is starting to show indications of a decline. Therefore, at the most we have the possibility of a 30 per cent. increase in viewing. Clearly, with a greater choice the amount of money available for broadcasting will be spread more thinly.

537
The other aspect that investors in cable should consider is the growth of VCR. Britain has one of the highest penetrations of VCR. The figure was 22 per cent. in April of this year and probably 27 per cent. for December 1983. Most informed forecasts suggest it could he 50 per cent. by 1988. Taking the combination of direct broadcasting satellite and VCR availability, if one wants to make a forecast of what home viewing of broadcasting is likely to be by, say, 1990, my forecast would show the complete irrelevance of cable. What we are likely to have is direct broadcasting satellite available and financially worthwhile for, perhaps, six hours a day and for the rest of the day, up to 18 hours, there could be time shift using VCRs readily available at a cost of possibly £1,500 per hour at 1983 prices. It would be something of that nature and anyway quite different from the kind of cost involved in original cable broadcasting and original use of all the channels which are, in theory, available.
I think that we may land up at the end of this decade not with a heavily cabled country at all, but 50 per cent. of households with VCRs, 10 per cent. with cable and perhaps 1 per cent. with direct satellite, using the smaller dishes likely to be available at that time.
The second point on which I wish to argue is that broadcasting is a small part of cable. The Government's argument appears to be that cabling will be entertainment led; in other words, the broadcasting element of cable will be the part which encourages investment from the private sector. That in the Government's and particularly the Prime Minister's view will he of enormous benefit to us. The noble Lord, Lord Hill, has already adequately debunked the investment argument, and the only thing I would say about the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, is that, through no fault of his, his committee was actually debarred from considering the technological aspects of cable as opposed to the broadcasting side. It was suggested to him that cable was to be viewed as a part of broadcasting, whereas I believe it can be shown that cable is not an important part of broadcasting, nor broadcasting an important part of cable.
It is certainly true that there are other good reasons, apart from broadcasting reasons, for considering the wider provision of cable. Reference has been made already to the issue of tele-marketing, tele-banking, financial services, and so on. I believe that a much more relevant analogy is the opportunity that exists through office automation. In five years' time there will he very few offices which do not have a universal terminal access for data processing, for electronic mail and message switching and for text preparation in one form or another. I suggest that in five years' time from then the same will be true for homes; people at work, students, people engaged in lifelong education, and so on, will be wanting to make much greater use of the leisure that will be available to them. Sometimes, of course, it will be enforced leisure. So on that basis there are certainly economic justifications for cabling. There is no justification for pretending that cabling can come to a significant number of people on the basis of the profits to be made from entertainment-led cabling; and that is the fallacy in the Government's argument.
Where does that lead me? It leads me to think that
538
we must make a much greater separation between the actual exercise of cabling and the question of the provision of programming—programming itself being a subset of software. So far as cabling is concerned. unless we can be convinced that there will be an economic case for investment in widespread cabling for entertainment purposes, the only alternative must be a Government investment, a public project, with the purpose of providing not just greater choice in broadcasting, but also the opportunity for interactive communication between homes, just as there has to be between businesses.
It is a difficult argument to put. I suspect that it is not economically justifiable in the next year or possibly not even in the next five years. I am not now suggesting that the Government should invest in the £3,000 million programme that will probably be involved in a basic cabling network. But the alternatives do not stand up to argument, and it may be better for the Government to take back the Bill, to swallow both their pride and the difficulty that they will have in appearing to deny people the choice of using a higher degree of information technology, and instead to say, "Let's come back to it in a few years' time when we shall know more clearly what are the alternative technology developments".
The corollary of that is that when we come to the stage of looking at the programming, at what will actually appear from using cable, satellite, or whatever method then comes to the surface in the battle, we must he as liberal, as unauthoritarian, and as non-regulatory as we can possibly be. To that extent there are valuable parts in the Bill which would be useful in 1988 when the Government could, and should, reintroduce it.
6.52 p.m.
The Duke of Portland: My Lords, I venture to address your Lordships since for some years I was a director of British Relay Wireless, one of the first cable television companies. There is no doubt that our television is far superior to that in any other country, and it is imperative that we maintain our superiority. Thus we cannot afford to delay the development of cable television. The same consideration applies to fibre optics.
In another place preference has been expressed by the Opposition for a national cable television system, rather than freedom for the various licensee companies to adopt whichever system they prefer. Competition at home will put our industry in a better position to compete abroad.
Cable Television will not only bring more entertainment and information services to the home, but later, through the so-called interactive services, two-way cable will open the possibility for people to buy, sell, hank, study, work, and even protect themselves through security systems, using their own cable. For that the industry must enjoy freedom to develop.
When introducing the White Paper in this Chamber and in another place respectively the Lord President of the Council and the Home Secretary intimated that it was the Government's desire to afford cable television as great a measure of freedom as possible. However, perusal of the Bill now before your Lordships gives me

539
a feeling that the drafters of it hanker after controls. Speeches are continually being delivered on the necessity to find and further new industries. We have one in cable television; let us not smother or strangle it with bureaucratic controls.
It is natural that pay-per-view should he a bone of contention, arousing fears that the general public will be deprived of viewing the principal sporting events that they have hitherto enjoyed, despite the safeguards contained in the Bill. But I beg your Lordships to bear in mind that the development of cable television and the employment that it can directly, or indirectly, bring will depend on the money that it earns.
Five years are required to establish a cable network properly. If the franchise period is to run for 12 years, the operator will have only seven years in which to earn some money after five years of waiting and of large capital expenditure. This will not further the development of cable television. Security of tenure for a longer period would encourage investors and hasten development and the resultant employment. Much will depend on how the cable authority interprets its role and on such guidance as it may receive from the Government.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, in view of the time that remains to us, I shall try to speak in shorthand as far as I possibly can. First. I much regret that I cannot congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, since unfortunately at that moment I was upstairs in this House and did not have the opportunity to hear his speech. I indeed regret that since the noble Lord joined your Lordships' House at the same time as I did. It was a great sorrow to me that I could not be present when he spoke.
I turn to the other speeches that have been delivered today. As usual, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, was very forthright, though it was perhaps rather more pessimistic than normally. However. I noticed that he was really the first speaker who put foremost the interests of the consumer, the person who will actually receive the signals that will be sent down the cable. I am thankful to him for that, and I congratulate him on it.
I was also much impressed by the breath of fresh air which we had a moment ago from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who told us of what had happened in other countries. I am sorry that he did not mention Japan, where, I understand, there are at present no proposals at all for cable. Wisely and cannily, they are sitting back as they always do to let other people make all the mistakes first.
There has, I believe, been a widespread misunderstanding regarding what cable is all about. I have spent a large part of the last three years talking to people about it privately and indeed publicly, and about the interaction between it and direct broadcasting by satellite. The trouble is that when one points out the problems and difficulties, such as the kind to which the noble Lord. Lord McIntosh, referred, one is, or tends to be, accused of being against cable—as though one could be against something which is coming anyhow.
540
There is no doubt at all that there are certain factors which eventually—and I stress, eventually—will bring great benefits to the inhabitants of this country; never to all the inhabitants, only to a proportion of them. In addition to the interactive elements of cable which have been mentioned, there is another aspect which I do not think has so far been alluded to. I refer to forms of community television, which at present are not possible with the areas covered by the regional ITV companies and even less so with the much larger regions covered by the BBC. However, cable, with its smaller components, can produce local television, which can be of undoubted benefit in the future.
It can also produce, I believe, through the use of international consortia, opera and other forms of high grade entertainment which are at present rather too expensive for any one television company or corporation to produce on its own. Specialised channels are another element of cable TV that can be of undoubted benefit. However, we come back all the time to a Catch-22 situation. It has been mentioned a hundred times that the advance of cable can only be entertainment-led. Possibly, it will collapse. If it does not collapse. there are other difficulties. If it does not collapse, its future revenue may, indeed, he of Reuter's proportions. That may be, in the end, the way that cable will go. That may be the final benefit. But, at the moment, there are far too many imponderables.
At the heart of the problem is this Catch-22 situation—the fact that, on the way to producing these good results which I can foresee in the fairly distant future, we may end up by destroying what I described in my last speech in the House as the least worst television in the world. Even then, I was accused of complacency for saying it. The point is that, up to now, almost by mistake, we have had a very good way of financing our television. Although in keen competition at the sharp end, the BBC and ITV are financed in quite different ways. In the future, this will not be so. ITV will be in direct competition with cable for advertising revenue. As already pointed out, that revenue is perhaps finite. We do not yet know. There are so many things that we do not know. What we do know, as I have already mentioned, is that the whole of this country is never going to be cabled. You can argue about what percentage, 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. or, if you are optimistic, 60 per cent., will be cabled. What you do not have is the universality that both independent television and the BBC provide at present by their terrestrial networks and in the future, I hope, through DBS programmes.
In providing the framework for spreading cable round the country, the Bill is. I regret to say, extremely vague. It contains an inherent conflict, already mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, with many of whose remarks I agreed. It is an inherent conflict between the Home Office-sponsored authority and Oftel, sponsored by the department. Unless more stringent requirements are laid upon them for what one does and what the other does and the relationship between them, we are going to have continuous battles.
Some very odd phrases are used in establishing the authority. In Clause 7 and subsequent clauses, we see the phrase:
"shall do all that they can to secure".

541
That is a light rein if ever there was one. I am also informed that it is the first time that this particular phrase has been used in legislation. There is no precedent whatever for instructing an authority—an authority, mark you—to do all that it can to secure, poor dears. What does it matter whether it is a part-time or full-time chairman if it is not given the authority to do what it ought to be doing?
The same follows throughout the rest of the Bill. What is a proper proportion? That point has already been brought out. There is much else that will obviously need a good deal of attention in committee. The "must carry" rule has been mentioned in passing. Undoubtedly, this will have an effect both on the law relating to copyright and, believe it or not, on the law relating to theft. There is not a sufficiently clear differentiation between wide band and narrow band cable. My understanding—I am open to correction—is that it is open to those who provide narrow band cable to receive a DBS signal, transcribe it, and issue it without further payment down its cable to its own subscribers. If that is not theft, I do not know what is.
We are very unclear about the whole sporting scene. I shall not go into details, but it is quite impossible to protect what are called national events unless you clearly forbid pay-per-view. It is impossible to erect a fence around Wimbledon, the Cup Final or the rest. That is on the assumption that cable does become powerful and is successful. If cable works, cable will inevitably be able to outbid both the BBC and ITV for these national events. It will do so partly because it will be able to buy up lesser events for which it will pay more than is at present paid for the national events. The sporting authorities will then quite rightly say, "Why should the lesser events get more than we can get for our major event? Why should Bourn mouth get more for its tennis players than ours at Wimbledon?" More will have to be paid, which will be an excessive sum for the existing broadcasting authorities.
Another issue mentioned in the Bill which will have to be examined in committee relates to complaints. There is a perfectly good statutory broadcasting complaints commission. Why should the authority he allowed to look at complaints on its own without having to refer them to the same broadcasting complaints commission? Are not the complaints likely to be of exactly the same nature—unfairness and all the other things that go before the broadcasting complaints commission? Why should there be this difference? Is it also connected with a lighter rein?
Finally, I return to DBS. I was accused privately the other evening of talking nonsense by saying that it was complementary to cable. It certainly interacts with it and has a close relation to it. The two are bound up, one with the other. Here, we have some real difficulties. Just to show how much misunderstanding exists of the problems involved, the Standard chose to state, I understand, on Friday, that the BBC was being terribly obstinate and was delaying the introduction of DBS because it was insisting on C-Mac. Any of those who know anything about this matter will be aware that the resistance that the BBC put up to C-Mac was very considerable, partly because we believed that extended PAL, to all intents and purposes, except to the greatest experts, was just as good a system, but more importantly, because C-Mac is a very much
542
more expensive system than extended PAL and is unlikely to be accepted by any other country in Europe. There are a few rumours that the French might still accept it, but that is highly unlikely.
What it will cost extra to the owner of a set is a matter of considerable argument. There are those among the manufacturers who persuaded the Part Committee to recommend the adoption of this standard saying that it would cost only £50 extra a set. I do not believe that. I believe that the cost would be nearer £200, like other experts who have suggested that this is the correct price. But, worse still, not only will it increase the cost to the consumer, it will also delay the introduction of DBS. There is no chance whatever, now, of DBS being introduced before 1987. The particular manufacturers concerned have not yet even designed the chip that lies at the heart of the C-Mac reception. We are not going to get any kind of DBS before 1987 even if a satellite were ready. There would not be much point in putting it up if there were no sets down here to receive it, especially when the BBC is having to pay the British consortium 30 per cent. more than the cost of buying transponders on an American satellite. So in every way the difficulties which have been put in the way of DBS have been introduced, not by those who would like to see it flying around the sky, but by the actions of Government.
If we had DBS it might be that it would not be a success either. That is one of the matters which we have to face. We just do not know—especially in view of the fact that VCRs are so very popular in this country—whether either DBS television or the whole system of cables, interaction and the rest of it will be a success. I am not a pessimist. I believe that we have to go on and that we should be mad not to do so. But we certainly cannot go on with a Bill which is as complicated and as badly drafted as this one and which is so much in conflict with another Bill that is at present proceeding through another House and is about to arrive here. I certainly should not advise your Lordships to vote against the Bill, but I should advise your Lordships to scrutinise it very carefully in Committee.
7.11 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I should like to start, slightly surprisingly, with a quote from the Fellows of Eton College:
"Cable will be injurious to the discipline of the School and dangerous to the morals of its pupils. Anyone who knows the nature of Eton Boys would agree that they cannot be kept from a television".
In fact, I apologise for misquoting: it was not television to which they were referring, but the arrival of the Great Western Railway through Slough in the early 19th century. Lest I be accused of being elitist, I should mention also a letter from, Lord John Russell to Stephenson saying that he thought that the railways would:
"Corrupt public morals in rural areas: especially the Sailors of East Anglia".
Railways and cable have in my view so much in common that I think that that quote is relevant.
Basically I welcome the Bill. Cable is a track of access just like the railways. In the 19th century we

543
had an iron network spreading throughout our land. In the 20th century it is to be hoped that we are to have a network of fibre optics and co-axial cable. Both have the same aim—to improve access. The good news is that it does not cost the taxpayer anything. Surely it must be right that a cabled country is better than an uncabled country? That must be as true as saying that a country with railways is better than a country without them. Therefore, I am basically wishing the pioneers good luck, and I am only slightly concerned that we are going to be too restrictive in our legislation.
The key must surely be to build the track. The many interactive benefits that will derive from it have been mentioned already. For example, there is instant electronic mail. It is hoped that delay in the first class post will be very much something of the past. There will be many more benefits that we can no more envisage than could the founders of our railways. Indeed, these interactive cable services will run initially at a loss. They must come in on the back of narrowcast television, and therein lies the rub. If the narrowcast television also loses money then the network simply will not be built. I believe that we should give the pioneers a free hand. Cable is very risky. I have heard the figure of £3½ billion mentioned with no return for 10 years—perhaps for even 20 years. Whatever we do, quite a few pioneers are going to go bankrupt in the same way as the Victorian railway pioneers went bankrupt. It is inevitable. So I say in my philistine manner for once that we must give the public the chance to have what they wish to pay for. Whether it be "Coronation Street" as opposed to "Horizon", I do not think is our concern. Whether it even be "Kojak", "This is your Life" or, in particular, "Come Dancing", I do not think is our concern, either.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Hill, is not present but he mentioned pap, sawdust and triviality. Of course I go along with that. In fact I have a vested uninterest, because I am the maker of rather esoteric and I suppose highbrow documentaries, and I am almost talking myself out of a job right now. However, it makes the best economic sense to go for what would be thought to be most profitable and that is not, of course, to say—as has been said previously—that the standard if low must stay low. Once the track is built—andthis is the key point—and once the subscribers are hooked, then we can raise the standards. I noticed that other noble Lords have questioned whether we will ever raise the standards I believe that we can and must do so. I believe that the essence of that is in the Bill and certainly in the White Paper.
The way in which the Bill is too restrictive has again been mentioned, particularly by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing. I shall list very quickly four points and I think that they are all "repeat" points. First, the BBC could show Test Match highlights and cable could not show the whole match. Secondly, since there may be no capital return for perhaps under 20 years, a franchise of up to 12 years is too short. Thirdly, too many channels could be taken up if the "must carry" conditions apply, particularly if DBS is to be included. Finally, the classified advertisement, Daltons Weekly, type of magazine programme, would seem to me to be
544
impossible with the Bill as it now stands, although I noticed what the noble Baroness said about it in her opening speech and it may be that I am wrong in that connection.
What I would endorse is the view that British material should be in "proper proportion" and not a quota of 86 per cent. Indeed, 86 per cent. by statute is wrong. The BBC and the ITV do not have it. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, as regards this matter but I still have the same feelings. I think we risk killing the goose that laid the golden egg if we follow that course. My goodness! the authority should work towards that goal once we are all hooked on cable, but not before.
As to the very understandable fear that there could be British technicians out of work, I should like to quote once again:
"Hundreds of Innkeepers and thousands of horses will be thrown out of employment".
That was said in another place about the London to Birmingham railway. We also rejected it in this House. The railway was abandoned and that caused John Francis to write in 1851:
"Men who had lifted their heads high mourned their recklessness and women wept for that which they could not prevent".
Please, not that again! I certainly welcome the cable authorities' light touch or light hand, and I hope that it will be feather light, perhaps even as light as hydrogen. Obscenity and racial hatred apart—and obviously they must be excluded—I wish pioneers all power to their elbows and I conclude with one line of Horace, beloved by the noble Lord, Lord Annan:
"First acquire wealth. Then practice virtue".
7.19 p.m.
Lord Glanusk: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, who came in like a battleship with all guns firing. I also am in agreement with the principles of the Bill, not because I believe that there is a serious need for more entertainment in the home, and nor do I believe that there is a great fund of new worthwhile material waiting to be launched on the public. But I do believe that in the next decade or so a large number of advantages will appear over the medium of cable, some of which are hard to visualise at present.
Meanwhile, as an ex-salesman myself, my sympathy goes out to the poor sales managers and their staff who will have to launch this new source, with little more than entertainment to offer in the early stages, on to a public already well served with four radio channels, four television channels and apparently unlimited video cassettes, some of which are of rather dubious quality. That really is tough competition and if the cable companies are to succeed they will need early and rapid development of alternative services, probably with the aid of the interactive facilities which they uniquely possess, in order to attract the public to this new system of unproven worth. But if they can overcome these first few years, in spite of the huge capital outlay required, all of which has to be committed before any rental charges are collected, it could bring nearer a whole new way of life, both to the private individual and to the business man and woman.

545
With regard to the Bill itself, a number of points require clarification, some of which have already been mentioned but I think they are important enough to be emphasised again. As was mentioned by my noble friend Lord De La Warr, there is the confusion between the Department of Industry and the Home Office. Half of the cable broadcast system—namely, the cable itself—is to be licensed by the Department of Industry and Oftel, while the head-end equipment and the programme operators are to be licensed by the Home Office and the cable authority. In my opinion, this is bound to lead to confusion and at some stage to damaging and expensive bureaucratic delays.
There are provisions in the Bill for the two authorities to consult one another, but what happens in the event of disagreement? It seems a little heavy handed to have to go to the Cabinet for an answer. In her opening remarks my noble friend Lady Trumpington touched on the complexity of some of the definitions in Clause 2. I am not sure that I followed exactly what she said, but I think there is still some difficulty. This clause deals with some definitions, including "prescribed diffusion service", which, to paraphrase, says that it is a service which the Secretary of State may prescribe by statutory instrument. This does not seem to me to give us a very good idea as to what they are getting at. It is a little like looking in the Oxford Dictionary for a word only to find the statement "To be published in our next edition".
Similarly, in Clause 5(5) of the Bill there is reference to "related services", which is scarcely a definition. I would submit that without some expansion of these definitions it is extremely difficult fully to understand the Bill and the intentions behind it. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can enlighten us before the next stage.
There is also a further anomaly. One can imagine certain services which can be offered by an operator which are not included in the definition of "licensable services"; nor are they included in that of a "restricted service". In other words, I am thinking of a service which is not piped to two or more dwelling-houses and where the audience has a business interest in the programme. These could be services put out on a dedicated channel for business schools, and including professional language courses, advanced education for teachers, piped to all schools in the area, trade union branch meetings connected directly to area headquarters, and suchlike. As the phrase "business interest" is not defined in the Bill, it remains a moot point whether children at school learning maths or science via a cable system are classed as business users. Certainly many of them will not deny that it is "pleasure".
Services of the sort at which I have attempted to hint—and I am sure that there will be many more of them in future—become almost by default "unlicensable services" and are therefore outside the control of the authority. At this stage I merely wish to raise the question whether it is wise or desirable to leave them uncontrolled.
The question of the duration of the licence has been fully covered and I do not think I need mention it again. But I think the majority believe that 12 years, with no time for installation of the cable added to that, is too short. It is possible to foresee a situation in which an operator in a particular area goes into voluntary or
546
compulsory liquidation or may have his licence revoked under Clause 17 for some malpractice or other, which would have the unfortunate result that the cable supplier will be left with a dead cable and no revenue. The Bill states that the authority may re-advertise the franchise if it sees fit, but surely it would be more equitable on the cable supplier if the Bill stated that the authority must re-advertise, and very quickly.
Under Clause 16 the authority can demand that a licensee produce records of his programmes up to the three months after the date of transmission. On the face of it this appears to be a very heavy burden on the operator. I should like to try to explain to your Lordships why. An operator who is putting out 10 hours a day on, say, 20 channels and who is storing it on the normal 10-inch video tapes will be required to store and catalogue a stack of reels over 9,000 feet high—that is about three times the height of Ben Nevis. I would suggest that a far shorter period than three months would be sufficient and much of the material—such as that which is received from the BBC and the ITA and immediately re-broadcast—could be excluded from this clause.
The question of direct broadcast by satellite has been fully covered by the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, in his excellent maiden speech which I much enjoyed. I would only mention that in Clause 12 of the Bill it appears that all DBS channels are to he included in the "must carry" clause. At present only some four or five DBS channels are proposed on the first satellite, and I believe that this would be acceptable to the operators. But at least two more satellites are planned in the long term, and it would not he reasonable to expect the cable operators to put out some 20 channels under the "must carry" rule, as this would take up over two-thirds of their available capacity and prevent them from promoting their interactive capabilities to the full, which is the declared intention of the Bill.
I think that I have said enough to outline some of the anomalies that have occurred to me. All that remains is to wish the House, when the Bill goes into Committee, the best of luck in revising it.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I must begin my speech this evening with a very sincere apology. One or two noble Lords may have noticed at the time, and it is possible that perhaps even one might recollect that, when I first had the honour to be introduced into your Lordships' House almost exactly eight years ago, I was, as a result of indulging in athletic activity not wholly consistent with my constitution and my then state of physical preservation, suffering from what is known in technical medical terms as a prolapsed intervertebral disc resulting in a paralysis of my fifth lumbar nerve. As a result of that, my first few weeks in your Lordships' House were spent creeping about on two sticks, and I may say that I felt entirely at home in your Lordships' House. But I recovered.
Of course we never learn from experience. The only thing we learn from experience is that we never learn anything from experience. This weekend I have done it again, but this time it is the fourth lumbar nerve, not the fifth, as a result of which I had to spend this

547
morning finding out whether I have to spend Christmas in plaster or in hospital, or whether I am allowed out and not under restraint. As a result of that, I had to do something which I regard as well nigh unpardonable. Speaking below the line, I was unable to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, which I understand was admirably read to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. Nor did I have an opportunity to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. However, I did arrive in time to hear the speech of my noble friend Lord Aylestone, which was fortunate. So I can be absolutely sure that my noble friend and I are in entire agreement on this matter. Therefore, I think we may regard the Alliance as undivided.
Having made that apology, it would he right if I tried to be brief, though having said that I shall try to he brief perhaps it will not be misunderstood if I say nevertheless I should like to reserve the right to be somewhat more lengthy during the later stages of our consideration of this particular Bill. In saying that, perhaps through your Lordships I may say a word to thank the many kind people who have sent me all these briefs about the Bill. All these various briefs I have received are invaluable. Many I agree with wholly, but in the main they are points which I should wish to deal with at Committee stage rather than on Second Reading. I hope that the fact that I do not refer to any of them during Second Reading will not be regarded by any of those organisations who have sent me these briefs—as they have been sent to other noble Lords—as indicating that I do not appreciate them.
My noble friends on these Benches support the Second Reading of this Bill. We do that because we should like to see the establishment ultimately of a fibre optic cable network in Britain. We should like to see that particularly for the benefits of the various interactive services which we believe would ultimately flow there from. Here I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton. I do not think we are thinking only of providing a means of stopping people going to the shops when they actually want to go. Many of the benefits of the interactive services would be vast in terms of employment for the disabled and perhaps employment of women with children. There would be many opportunities. There is meter reading, and all sorts of things. The advantages have been spelled out by other noble Lords on other occasions, and they are valuable.
Having said that, on these Benches we question the wisdom of trying to bring in that fibre optic cable network in Britain on the back of entertainment, or perhaps even hopefully on an educational TV cable service. As the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said in kindly quoting from my speech on the White Paper, I personally have grave doubts as to the viability, in financial terms purely, of cable TV as it now appears to be.
Indeed, I believe that the need for the new cable companies to become financially viable—and if they do not, they will not continue to exist—may itself affect adversely the standards of TV cable services, or could affect adversely the standards of those services. That is a matter on which I agree wholly with the noble
548
Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, who made that particular point.
My impression—and I say it is no more than that lest the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, should quote me again—is that, when the franchises were announced recently, many of those consortia which were disappointed, far from being cast into the slough of despond, breathed deep sighs of relief. Again, I would venture to suggest that, by the time we arrived at D-Day, I doubt whether all 11 successful applicants will still be in the field. We may find that because of the financial difficulties some may have decided to fall by the wayside.
Let me say a little more on that particular matter before I move on. On these Benches we are not wholly obsessed with arguments about the relative merits of the public and the private sectors. We believe in both. We believe that there is a place for both the public and the private sector. Having said that, one wonders whether it is wholly a matter for the private sector and the cable companies to be responsible for the infrastructure—for what in the North we would call the "gubbins" of cable TV.
We do not expect the plumbers to install the public sewers. The public sector provides the sewers, and then imposes charges for people to be connected thereto, or to have a use of the sewers. I hope that nobody will consider that there is any Freudian significance in my mentioning sewers as a sort of parallel in relation to cable TV. That was not intended. But if we look at what has happened with water supplies, gas, electricity, and indeed sewage, the infrastructure is in general provided by the public sector. In my view, perhaps British Telecom should be providing the fibre optic cable network, and then should make substantial charges to companies for use of it. If we do that, then the financial burden on the companies would be less than it may well be.
When we talk about the financial burden, of course they have to have income. I know it is a point on which my noble friend Lord Aylestone feels strongly, but I am bound to say that advertising revenue to support television, or indeed radio, is not limitless, as Channel 4 has already shown and Breakfast TV has shown. If we insist on the companies extracting more and more revenue from advertising, that could have a damaging effect on very viable concerns like commercial radio, for example, in which I ought to declare an interest as a director of one of the independent commercial radio companies.
However, in looking for income in a new venture—and this is a new venture—we ought to be prepared to be innovative. It was always my impression that in your Lordships' House and another place everybody always turned their backs, as did the BBC and the IBA, on any question of sponsored programmes. I can understand that. On the other hand, I very much share the view expressed forcefully by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, that we need certain minority programmes of quality. He made the point, and he is right, that sometimes you can only get those by providing the means whereby people can pay for them by pay TV.
Of course, who knows what a minority programme is? Back in 1967 when I had the honour to be a

549
member of the BBC's General Advisory Council at a time when the BBC, on the whole, preferred advice of a somewhat different character from that which it regularly received from me, I suggested that the BBC might look at snooker as something to televise. I was told by the then chairman and the then director general that snooker was a minority interest. It was no good thinking about that for television. I merely say that we do not know in advance what is a minority interest and what is a majority interest.
I think that perhaps we should think a little about sponsorship in terms of standards of programme. I believe that certain insurance companies, banks, and others might be prepared to sponsor a programme of high quality—something costly like opera, ballet or something of that kind—which otherwise might not take place at all, and certainly could not be supported by the kind of advertising to which the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, referred, where the amount of advertising time is limited by the hour and is not related in any way to the programme.
That is a way in which we could increase standards. On this question of standards, I very much share the view of those who express fears about our own private sector production companies. It is important that they should be given adequate opportunity to develop both from the point of view of employment and from the point of view of providing outlets for genuine, creative talent. But I am perhaps a little uneasy about being grouped together with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, in being extremely patronising about anything that ever comes from America.
Whenever anybody refers to American television programmes they refer to pap. All right, we have plenty of pap of our own. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, made that clear only last week in your Lordships' House. Our programmes have their high prestige value in the United States of America because they are considered in relation to productions such as "Brides head Revisited", or the "Bar Chester Chronicles"—programmes of high quality coming from both channels. But, if they were to be judged by some programmes which are purely of British initiation, then we should feel very uncomfortable indeed. There is much stuff in the United States which is valuable and of high quality. When one is talking about quotas, let us think a little more about the maintenance of standards rather than about saying 10 per cent., 14 per cent., or 16 per cent. I want to know: 16 per cent. of what? I think the noble Lord, Lord Hill, quoted the Bill as saying "a proper proportion". A proper proportion of what? I do not mind how high the proportion is of something which is of good and high quality, but I do not want much of a proportion of things which are bad and of low quality.
I really must come briefly to one or two detailed points which I shall not make, but I shall put up as markers to the noble Lord who is to reply so that he will know the matters into which I shall want to go more deeply later in the Bill, and so that he will know the kind of matters upon which my noble friends on these Benches will require some reassurance if the Government are to continue to enjoy our support on the Bill throughout its later stages.
First, on a point just dealt with, there is an important need for the active encouragement of, and
550
the provision of incentives for, the growth of the independent production sector here in Britain. That is important; I will not deal with it now, but it is something on which I will speak later. Secondly, there is the need to make absolutely sure that the cable operators are responsive to local needs and the need to ensure that there is an adequate local content in programme material. Here I say advisedly "local" rather than "regional". The trouble with the old BBC regions was that they were too big. The northern region stretched from Newcastle down to Manchester and from Chester right over to the Wash. This idea that if one lives in Manchester something is desperately interesting because it happens in Blackburn is not true. It is no more interesting than it would be if it were in Bog nor Regis. Once we get to smaller units—and cable can get to smaller units—I think there is a genuine type of homogeneity of interest in a locality which there is not in a region. We should want to see that the cable operators are responsive to local needs and that there is an adequate local content in programme material.
We want to see a diversity of choice of programmes throughout the cable companies and throughout the network. We should want to find the means to make absolutely sure that the provision of cable services will not merely provide a facility for the well-off, and for people who can afford high rentals, but a facility which could be of benefit to the population as a whole.
Finally, I think we shall want to know a little more about the links between the cable authority and voluntary bodies of one kind or another, particularly those voluntary bodies that are responsible for information services, like the Citizens' Advice Bureau, the Consumers' Association and so on. I hope there will be effective links between the cable companies and between the authority and those voluntary bodies. I personally think that those links might be most secure if, in the appointment of members to the cable authority, the Secretary of State considered somebody who could be known to be in close contact with those national voluntary bodies and would be in a position to speak on behalf of them and keep the cable companies in touch with what those bodies were doing.
Those are the points which we shall wish to consider further in the later stages of the Bill. In the meantime we are prepared to give the Bill a fair wind for its Second Reading.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, first I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, on a most interesting and informative speech. He has convinced me of what I was already beginning to suspect, that cabling is not a new technology; it is an intermediate technology that could easily be put out of date by satellite or by other means.
In this debate all the speakers have expressed their hopes and their fears of the effect that cable systems and services, covered by the Bill, will have on the life and prosperity of the nation. We are in the early days of an information and communication revolution, an industrial revolution, which will change the ways we do our work; the ways we conduct our business and

551
make use of services such as shops, banks and bookmakers. Where the advanced nations lead the less advanced will follow and one day they will require the pioneer nations to supply them with the new technologies and new systems. If we lag behind other advanced nations in this revolution we shall lose trade, employment opportunities and influence.
The Government have seen the light and acted quickly—some people think rather too quickly. So have the Governments of France and Germany. In fact, both these countries are going harder for the goal than we are and they are doing so by putting considerable public funds into the cabling experiment. Our Government have a phobia about public expenditure. Here I am following the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, with whom I agreed completely on this point. The Government are leaving the entire development to private enterprise which will simply receive gentle guidance but no cash support. The speed and spread of cable development will depend not on the national need but on what the market can support.
What the market can support will depend on the unpredictable appetite of the urban population for more entertainment. The revolution is to be market-led, entertainment-led. It will depend largely upon how many people are prepared to spend how much on new channels of entertainment and how much these channels will cost to provide is what Mr. Stephen Hearst, writing in the Political Quarterly, said,
"It is as if the Roman senate had sanctioned without debate the proposition that improvements to the supply system of the Roman Legions should first be introduced by speeding up the chariots in the hippodrome".
I should like to quote the Financial Times of 2nd December which is nearer to the market than I am:
"There is at least a risk that cable television will not bring attractive profits for its operators, will not lead to worth-while improvement in the choice of programmes available to viewers, and will not deliver entertainment in the most cost-effective way".
The Financial Times adds that there is a view in the telecommunications industry that the dream of an efficiently-integrated communications system, is looking increasingly unreal. Many people seem to have supported that view tonight as if the first Lord Thomson of Fleet were laughing in the shades about people applying for licences to lose money.
The development does not depend on the instant response of the public. Capital must go ahead of demand and take a long term view of the possibilities of profit. How long a term nobody can say. Cable could catch alight like wildfire just as video has done, to everybody's surprise. But it may be that seven lean years will have to be endured before the profits are significant. By that time I take it that there will be additional sources of revenue from the interactive services. But this will put a strain on the programming in the earlier years. The operators will be under pressure to make their investments pay as soon as possible; investments heavier than the French and German cable operators will have to bear.
Some of us would be happy tonight if this were a Bill to permit Government participation in the physical side of the cabling project, which was likely to cost £3 billion or £4 billion. We should have liked, as we have
552
argued in previous debates, the Government to decree that there should be a single national cable provider and that provider should be British Telecom. The danger of the course that the Government have taken is the pressure that can be put on cable operators to maximise their audience. Those of us who have worked in popular journalism know what it is to be driven down market by the need to survive in the face of severe competition. Usually it means increasing the sensational and decreasing the serious content of the newspaper, even perhaps to turn it into a casino. Many people fear that when the same pressures are felt in programming for the small screen operators will fall back on what has proved elsewhere to be a cheap and effective formula of providing a surfeit of soap operas, quiz shows, Westerns and crime thrillers with plenty of violent action. All these are acceptable and enjoyable forms of entertainment, but they are not enough in themselves. Popular entertainment needs a wider base, more variety to give us all more choice.
Against this gloomy view, however, can be set a belief that the cable operators cannot surely believe that people will pay £4 or £5 a week for additional programmes of this kind which they are already receiving from the broadcast programmes supplemented by video. Surely the cable operators must provide programmes better than those available off air or provide things that viewers do not get off air such as an all-music channel, a sports' channel, a children's channel and local news. Nevertheless, the problems are formidable. From the beginning, first radio and then television, have had to work within a limited number of wavelengths. There has always been more talent than there have been outlets and suddenly all this has changed. There are to be almost unlimited outlets and it seems impossible to service even half a dozen new ones without recourse to material which has been broadcast already. Cable television, as one writer in the Guardian put it, will be a voracious monster, devouring the stocks of feature films and endlessly regurgitating them. In their anxiety to attract the entrepreneur, the Hunt Committee proposed a bare minimum of safeguards. Cable operators should not he under the close supervision that the IBA exercises over the programme companies, et cetera, encouraging them to widen their range of entertainment; and would not insist upon as much as 86 per cent. of the material broadcast being of British origin.
The Hunt Report aroused the fear in some of us that what is acknowledged to be the best television service in the world might be subject to intense and unfair competition. There is a good deal in the Bill to militate against these fears, as there was a good deal in the White Paper. Cable television will be limited in the amount of advertising it can give in programmes which are similar to those on independent television. The noble Lord. Lord Orr-Ewing. was wondering why this should be so. It is simply that when we are watching commercial television we are protected from having too much advertising which plainly does not work. One's mood is uplifted by a play and, quite suddenly, the play stops and there is a lady feeding food out of a tin to her cat. It is to protect us against too frequent interventions of that kind. Nevertheless, if it is permitted to cable, which is putting out similar programmes to ITV, to be free of that restriction, there

553
must be a demand from some companies at some time to increase the amount of advertising on commercial television. And that would be against the listeners' interests. I should have thought.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, the point I make is that it is against the subscribers. They have paid for their rights. They can very quickly switch off if they do not like the amount of advertising and they will not subscribe again; so that you are killing the market in which you have invested a lot of money to serve. It seems to be that this is automatic in a market economy—which cable would be.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord would like to remove the restriction from independent television; because that is what it would lead to. I do not think that that would be very popular in this country. You would have more people switching to the BBC perhaps.
Cable television also would be obliged to carry a proper proportion of matter originating on this side of the Atlantic. Nor will cable be able to pick up the large audience which may exist for what are known as adult movies. The idea of pay-per-view pornography guarded by the sort of paternal padlock has really been laughed out of existence by everybody who realises that the modern child has enormous dexterity and a certain prurience. Nevertheless, however much good we may hope from cable, the mere proliferation of channels, the fragmentation of audiences, which has already begun with the creation of Channel 4 and the advent of VCRs, could start a trend of unfortunate consequences.
As more than one speaker has pointed out in the various debates we have had on the subject, if ITV profits are substantially diminished by the loss of viewers and it is caught in a struggle for the ratings we shall finish up with more but worse television; and the BBC itself, which always has to justify its licence income, may have to lower its sights and engage in the struggle. Indeed, it is already facing the problems of a diminished audience as a result of the fragmentation.
One must welcome, however—and I was welcoming it wholeheartedly—the freedom to cable operators, properly circumscribed, that the Bill gives to provide sponsored television and pay-per-view television. It is one immediate way of making programmes of high quality which would not, in the normal course, have been available to the viewers. Nevertheless, the noble Lord, Lord Howard, causes me to think again when he points out that the existing broadcasting companies for which the great national events are now reserved would no longer be able to reserve them if the sports authorities and the people running the sports were offered vastly greater sums by the cable companies. It would be difficult to say to Wimbledon that it could not sell its tennis tournaments to the highest bidder. I think we shall have to think about that seriously again as we go into Committee with this Bill.
It is to be welcomed that the Bill puts the BBC, ITV and radio within the cable picture by requiring the operators to carry all the present services and the new ones which will come some day via satellite. To have the whole range of public service broadcasting alongside the new cable channel will provide real
554
choice. Nevertheless, the Bill is far from satisfactory. Take the stipulation that channels similar to ITV will share the limitation on the amounts of time which may be given per hour to advertisements. This is the meaning, I assume, of Clause 11. Perhaps the noble Lord when he comes to reply will answer specifically on this question. One can see that a local programme providing classified advertising is dissimilar to ITV and therefore, quite rightly, will be unrestricted. One can see that shopping features, particularly when they come to have an interactive response, must be excluded. But suppose that there is an all-sport channel or an all-music channel or a children's channel; surely these will be unique. Will they be under any restriction about the amount of advertising that they can carry? The words of the White Paper and the words of the Bill—which are rather obscure—say that the programmes must be analogous to those on independent television. The greatest concern has been expressed, particularly by my noble friend Lord Jenkins, about the amount of British material that can be broadcast. The phrase used in Clause 9 about "proper proportion" comes from the legislation which governs ITV. Nevertheless, no attempt is made to stipulate what this may mean in the context of cable television. We know that the amount used by the broadcasting authorities does not exceed 14 per cent. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether this is the notional figure which the cable authority are expected to have in mind when it takes into account, under Clause 6, the extent to which the applicant proposes to include matter which originates within the European Community—which roughly means, in this context, in Britain.
The question is one of considerable importance both culturally and economically. Surely, the Government should give a target figure which must be attempted or should lay down guidelines for the authority. The authority may be the best judge of practicalities but the policy must come from the Government and must be in much more precise terms than a "proper proportion". Indeed, it might be possible to approach the problem by stipulating the amount of British and European material which should be the target for the early years.
There are 160 independent production companies now operating in Britain. Many of them have proved their excellence in their contributions to the splendid Channel 4. "Britain can make it!" we used to say; or it can make a lot of it. No doubt, it could provide some less expensive programmes, although, obviously, it cannot compete with the American material in price; for that material may be sent here—dumped here, in fact—after covering its cost in the United States.
The more one looks at the subject the more convinced one is that the cable authority must be much more intimately involved with the operating companies than was envisaged. The very terms of the Bill, making them take into account the range and diversity of programmes offered when an applicant for a franchise comes before them, presumes that they must subsequently monitor how the successful applicant is fulfilling his obligations. I think the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, had it right when he suggested that there should be something like the two sides of industry discussing these problems together.

555
The authority have also to see that the programmes do not offend against taste or decency under Clause 9, and under Clause 10 they have to ensure the political balance of programmes. I think this is a most important subject, which has hardly been touched upon. They have to see that they comply with the requirement not to give undue prominence to the views and opinions of particular persons or bodies, not only on religious matters but also on matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy. This, in a way—it depends on the way it is interpreted—could turn out to be just as rigorous as the stipulation in Clause 9 that all news given in programmes which originate in the United Kingdom must be presented with due accuracy and impartiality. The authority can be certain that the cable programmes will he under the hawk-like surveillance of local political parties and not merely that of self-appointed moral guardians, who will also be extremely active.
The Government have kept well away from the process of selecting the operators who are to pioneer the project; yet they must have learned from these people who are going to risk their money what are their aspirations and their apprehensions. What undertakings did they give about the range and diversity of the programmes? It would help in the consideration of this important Bill if the Government tonight would share this knowledge with us.
Finally, one would like to know the kind of people whom the Government have in mind to perform the important role given to the authority. I think the role is much more important than has been supposed and that, although the authority may have a velvet glove, it must have a mailed fist inside it. One hopes that the people who are appointed will be people who know something about television, and even that some of them may have had a professional role in a high level in the BBC or in independent television. Has the authority the right kind of powers to ensure compliance with its demands? That question has been raised several times during the debate. It certainly seems to possess two powerful deterrents. It can refuse to renew the licence at the expiry time or, under Clause 17, it can even revoke a licence. But it is a characteristic of such drastic powers as the power to revoke that they are not easy to use if they fail to deter. What other sanctions does the authority have or might it acquire?
The future, of course, is not clearly visible. In spite of all our apprehensions we must welcome cable in the hope that it will give us a wider choice of entertainment and a wider supply of information. We must give it the incentives and opportunities it needs to provide the best possible programmes and services. Then we shall have to study very carefully clause by clause this Bill as it goes through Committee, for there are many questions to be asked and there will he a lot to amend. In fact, never have I known such a clear White Paper produce such an obscure Bill.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the function of a Minister winding up a Second Reading debate is threefold. The first thing I have to do is to thank your Lordships for
556
your careful and expert contributions to the debate. Many noble Lords have contributed from a wealth of experience far exceeding my own which will enable them to exercise a most valuable influence on the development and refinement of this Bill—a process which I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, and others, may take longer than had been hoped. Some of your Lordships have a direct or indirect interest in the industry which may be affected by this legislation, and I am grateful to them for acknowledging such interests since this enables your Lordships to take proper advantage of their close and up-to-date knowledge, both of the state of the art and the state of the market in which it is practised.
I am also very glad to take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, on his compellingly interesting contribution to our debate and for the way in which he welcomed the Government's opening windows on the fascinating new world of computers. I hope we shall hear him very much more often in the future. I should also like to extend congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, on having triumphed over not one disc, but two, in order to get here for the end of the debate. Given the narrow choice he has before him—and I am sure he will know exactly what I mean—I hope that he spends his Christmas "plastered" rather than hospitalised.
My second function is to review the balance of your Lordships' debate. What has struck me again today, as it did when we were discussing the White Paper a few months ago, is that whatever the differences of view may be over some of the detail of the Government's proposals, there is an almost universal acceptance that it would be very unwise to try to prevent the development of cable and direct broadcasting by satellite. I say "almost universal" because of the charming and eloquent—although, in my view, misdirected—speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, in particular. He believes that we should be better off sticking to what we know and love. In many walks of life. that is the best advice anybody can give, but I think not in this one.
The great majority today, even those who fear we may be going too quickly, accept that there is nothing to gain and much to lose in turning our hacks on these two new developments. None of us can know how cable and DBS will work out in practice. One of the difficulties in approaching a Bill such as this is that it does not attempt to plan out the future for us. The Government's objective is to seek to create the right framework within which those who wish to invest in these new areas are free to do so, and nobody is compelled to. How quickly cable and DBS will establish themselves will depend upon the success of companies in persuading the consumer to buy the services which they can offer.
Some of your Lordships have suggested that the Government are leaving cable operators too much freedom and that more safeguards are needed for the BBC and the IBA. Others have warned that the cable industry could be unnecessarily fettered by some provisions in the Bill and they wonder whether the "light regulatory touch" talked about in the White Paper may in practice turn out to be rather less light and rather more regulatory than they had hoped. I shall return to that.

557
The third function—one for which, inevitably, my time does not suffice—is to answer the individual points and queries raised during the debate. I will provide what I can in the knowledge that all else—and a good deal more else—will be dragged out of me by probing amendments put forward by noble friend and noble foe alike. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, recalled the typically trenchant remarks of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor at the time when we were considering the introduction of independent television. Many people have expressed the same misgivings about the consequences of giving cable the freedom to provide its own programmes. I do not accept that the Government have not given sufficient thought to these consequences or to the safeguards which are needed. Those considerations were the purpose for which the inquiry under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, was set up, and the Government have accepted the conclusion of the inquiry that greater freedom can be given to cable without damaging the essentials of public service broadcasting, provided that we have the kind of safeguards which are embodied in the Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, also raised the point which had been specifically asked about by the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, which related to the character of the authority. I can confirm that it is the intention of my right honourable and learned friend to appoint members to the authority on a part-time basis, as happens with governors of the BBC and of the IBA. It will be for them to appoint the full-time members of their staff who will help the authority to exercise its functions. I wonder privately whether I might bring passages in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, to the attention of the incumbents of the position of chairman as they succeed each other.
The noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, raised some questions about the cable pilot projects. I can confirm that as soon as the cable authority assume their powers under the Bill, all existing cable programme services will become subject to their supervision and the licences issued by the Home Office will have effect as if the cable authority had issued them. That will mean, in particular, that if necessary the authority will be able to revoke the licence of any operator. On the question of consultation with local interests about the pilot projects, the Government took the view that the purpose of the projects in providing an early but limited impetus to the expansion of cable in advance of legislation—which was, in itself, regarded as somewhat unusual by your Lordships—should justify a streamlined process, which would not involve all the steps which the cable authority will be obliged to take under the Bill. There were therefore no local consultations and no advertising for competitive bids for each area.
The noble Lord also raised the issue of foreign investment in cable. The Bill contains provisions preventing the foreign control of cable operating companies, but does not preclude shareholdings by foreign interests. I may return to that if there is time later. The same approach was followed in considering the pilot project applications. None of the successful applications is from a foreign company, but four of the
558
11 have minority shareholdings by American companies.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield was also interested in the ownership of companies and referred to the need to ensure that the cable authority could prevent the control of cable companies changing hands without their permission. We believe that the Bill already gives the authority the powers which they need in this respect. Under Clause 4(6), the authority can write into their licence conditions which they consider necessary to enable them to ensure that ownership arrangements are acceptable to them.
A number of your Lordships. including my noble friends Lord Glanusk and Lord De La Warr, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others, have recoiled in public alarm before the apparent complexity of the definitions in this Bill, and particulary those in Clause 2. I recognise and indeed sympathise with their symptoms, as I manifested all of them myself in acute form when I first came up against the definitions in the Cable and Broadcasting Bill. I hoped that the passage referring to definitions in my noble friend's excellent opening speech might help to mitigate these symptoms.
Listening to it does not seem to have had this effect; maybe reading it will not either. But in case in reading it—as I hope your Lordships will—you should inadvertently be misled, I must put just one gloss on what my noble friend said. The exemption from licensing for text services, such as Prestel, derives from Clause 2(6)which talks about moving pictures, and not from Clause 2(4) which deals with simultaneous two-way communications, such as video conferences. I regret that that knowledge came into my mind too late to transfer it to the paper.
Beyond that, I should have liked to refer your Lordships to the Notes on Clauses, which are now available to your Lordships, but in view of the comments of my noble friend Lord De La Warr on them I do so with some hesitation. The interaction between the concerns of the Department of Trade and Industry and of the Home Office is an area of central interest in the Bill and to my noble friend Lord De La Warr. I was grateful to him for explaining not only his interest but his expertise in cable, which I am glad to acknowledge. Perhaps I should therefore explain how the telecommunications licence and cable authority licences will inter-relate.
The telecommunications licence will authorise the running of the cable system, the provision of telecommunications services over it and the connection of telecommunications apparatus to it. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has announced his intention of issuing licences for 12 years in the case of tree and branch systems and 20 years for switched star systems. In considering applications for licences, he will be guided by the criteria set out in Clause 3 of the Telecommunications Bill
The cable authority's licence will authorise the provision of cable television and sound services over such systems. It may also include conditions requiring operators to provide any other types of non-telecommunication services which they promise to do when applying for the licence. They will have to

559
deliver in order to keep the licence. Interactive services, such as tele-games or tele-shopping will not therefore need a cable authority licence. But if they are promised as part of the overall package, then the authority will be able to hold an operator to his undertaking.
In considering applications, the cable authority are required to take into account the criteria in Clause 6. Licences for services over the new wide band system are up to 12 years in the first instance and eight thereafter, so they will remain in step with the telecommunications licence. It is widely accepted that it is the television services which will be crucial to the economics of cable, and for that reason the cable authority will have the key role to play in deciding between competing applications.
But the Secretary of State, assisted by the Director General of Telecommunications, will have to reach his own decision on the award of the telecommunications licence, and this means that the two licensing authorities will need to work closely together. Clauses 5(4) and 17(2) of this Bill impose specific duties on the cable authority to consult the telecommunications licensing authorities.
I can assure my noble friend that if his expression arises from the difficulty of following what I have said, it will be at least a little clearer when he reads the report of it. He also referred, in particular, to his concern that the Telecommunications Bill contains no indication of the length of licences and suggested that this would undermine industrial confidence. The White Paper on cable has already made it clear that the Government intend to grant licences of 12 years for tree and branch and 20 years for switched star systems, as I have said. These periods will also be applied as appropriate to the pilot cable systems.
There are two reasons why the Government took the view that it would not be necessary or desirable to include these periods in the Telecommunications Bill. First, licensing under that Bill will cover a very wide range of systems, from the BT system at one extreme, to entry phones at the other. There is, therefore, a need for flexibility to enable licences of varying lengths to be granted, according to the different circumstances. To prescribe particular periods for cable systems would not be consistent with that approach.
Secondly, the cable industry need not fear that the Government will change the period of licences after they have started to run. The Secretary of State has no power to revoke at will, and the licences will define the term of the licences and the precise circumstances under which they can be revoked. Unless these circumstances arise, they will continue in force until the end of their specified life. The cable authority's licence will run from the moment when operators start to provide services. I can therefore assure your Lordships that the period for building the system will not count against the 12 years. I think that my noble friend Lord Glanusk was among those who raised this point. It is true that when the service does start it may not be available throughout the whole of the local area, but that is one of the factors which we had to take into account in deciding to allow a longer period for the first licence in any area than for subsequent licences.
560
As my noble friend said in her opening speech, this Bill deals with the leading edge of technological development. Indeed, the fascinating speech of my noble friend Lord Hanson will be received with a good deal more enthusiasm by viewers of "Tomorrow's World" than by potential investors in cable systems. Investors may draw comfort from the speeches of the majority of other noble Lords and, particularly from that of my noble friend Lord Mersey. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, who were "Hear, hearing" away during the speech of my noble friend Lord Hanson, will no doubt be vastly relieved that, unlike Governments of another political complexion, we intend that the risks shall be taken by private money and will not be taken by the money of taxpayers.
Leaving aside the astringent experience of Canada and America in my noble friend's account, I think I should pick up one of his technological points. He referred to the possible advantages of MDS—multipoint distribution services. I ought perhaps to mention one substantial disadvantage of this system, which he sees as a threat in comparison with cable; that is, that it depends on the availability of frequencies for transmission over the air, and would therefore be in competition with a growing number of other services which cannot readily find alternative means of distribution. Cable, on the other hand, offers us considerable scope for the distribution of television and sound services while avoiding the constraints of increasing frequency scarcity.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, the noble Lord, Lord Briginshaw, and many other noble Lords were concerned with the benefit that a high proportion of British material can confer on the standards of programmes and on industry. The authority has three specific obligations under Clauses 6, 9 and 21 relating to British and other European Community material. First, it must consider applicants' proposals in this respect at the licence application stage. Second, it must include conditions in the licence in pursuance of its duty to secure that a proper proportion of such material is included. And, third, it must report to the Home Secretary each year on how it has carried out its duty in this area.
The Bill, unlike the White Paper, does not talk, as some noble Lords would wish, in terms of an increasing proportion as time goes on, because this is not a concept which can readily be translated into statutory language. We have enough trouble as it is with statutory language. The obligation to make an annual report will ensure, however, that the authority keeps progress under regular review. The Government believe it would be a mistake to attempt to write any particular percentage into the Bill. I say that for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick. Nor is there a notional percentage. The authority, like the IBA, may decide to set particular figures for particular channels or across the whole service, but that will be for the authority to decide.
That was by no means the only concern of the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton. Another was his deep and, I suppose from this Dispatch Box I have to admit, healthy scepticism about the political impartiality of Ministers. This made him, like the noble Lord, Lord

561
Hunt of Tanworth, look very much askance at Clause 15 and at the question of a light touch. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, looked at Clause 15 askance because he thought that it might give the authority rather sweeping powers over cable services. He acknowledged that the clause needed to be read with the other provisions of Part I of the Bill. I can confirm that the Government do not see these provisions as cutting across the light touch which we wish to encourage. The authority will not normally pre-vet programmes, but it is obviously sensible that it should, and there are occasions when it can, under the Bill, have the power to intervene before the event if it has reason to believe that an operator is about to break the terms of his licence.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, that the requirement in the Bill that the cable authority should do all that it can to secure certain things, which first occurs in Clause 7(1), is not without precedent. Indeed, exactly the same words appear in the Broadcasting Act in relation to the IBA's duties to control its programme contractors. The justification for the words in the Bill is exactly the same as in relation to that Act. The requirement is a strong one. The authority will be failing in its duty if it does not do everything in its power to secure the objectives set out in the Bill.
The noble Lord, since I mentioned him, referred to possible difficulties over the theft of pay television services. The Government are aware of this difficulty and are considering whether there is a need to bring forward additional provisions during the passage of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, referred to the possibility that political advertising might be introduced on the say-so of the Minister. I return to that point. The position for cable is exactly the same as for independent television and local radio under the Broadcasting Act. Any such development could happen only following a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament and subject to such terms and conditions as Parliament might determine. The noble Lord will find the provisions in Clause 11 of the Bill.
Noble Lords were interested in the restriction of ownership of cable. The White Paper spoke of excluding local authorities and religious and political interests from having a stake in cable operation. The right reverend Prelate was the first to raise this issue. It would have been difficult to provide in the Bill that there should be an absolute prohibition on their having any shareholding, however small. Clause 7 therefore prevents them from controlling a cable company, but where they merely have shares in it, it will be for the authority to ensure that the shareholding will not lead to results contrary to the public interest. This will leave to the authority discretion to determine when such a shareholding is too large. If it is not too large the authority will be free to grant the licence. If it is too large, it will not do so.
To continue with the interest of the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, in religious broadcasting, I would say that the Hunt Report and the Government's White Paper make it clear that there would be a place for religious and political programmes on cable. So far as whole channels are concerned, the authority will have some
562
discretion. Clause 10(3) imposes an obligation on the authority to prevent undue prominence being given to any one view and to exclude any expression of licensees' own beliefs. This is slightly more flexible than the White Paper proposed, partly because the concept of a channel is not one which the Bill uses. Political advertising is banned, as it is from ITV and independent local radio, under Clause 11(2).
Religious advertising is not ruled out, but I am repeating myself a little. The code has to be acceptable to the Home Secretary. It is not the Government's intention to permit unrestricted paid advertising of religious views on cable. By relying on the code rather than on statutory rules, it should be possible to allow, for example, factual advertising of religious events and activities while preserving safeguards in more sensitive areas. I can tell the right reverend Prelate that Clause 7(3) allows religious participation in ownership but only if it does not, and only if it is not likely to, lead to results which are contrary to the public interest. The same goes for local newspapers. This seems to leave the authority with a proper measure of discretion in the matter. Clause 9(1) gives the authority the same duty as the IBA concerning taste and decency. Clause 10(1) goes further than the White Paper in requiring the authority, like the IBA, to draw up a code on the portrayal of violence and programme standards generally. Clauses 24 to 26 and Schedule 2 make the necessary amendments to English, Scottish and Northern Irish law to make cable programmes subject to the criminal law on obscenity. Incitement to racial hatred by cable will also be an offence under Clause 27. We believe that this constitutes an effective set of safeguards against undesirable material on cable.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I rise to intervene only because I did not raise this point in my speech since I thought that it was long enough as it was. However, in the racial incitement clause, which is very important, I notice that the only word used is "words". Pictorial display is not mentioned. This is a very menacing form of racial hatred. I ask the noble Lord not to deal with the point now but to look at it, since it would save an amendment at the Committee stage if I happen to be wrong.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord has suavely lengthened my speech by means of not lengthening his own. It is a Committee stage point, but if I receive an answer before I sit down I shall refer to it. Still on kindred subjects, I revert to what the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said on the Obscene Publications Act. I want to assure the noble Earl that it is unnecessary to amend the Bill in order to attract any amendments to other legislation cited in it. They will still be attracted to the Bill in its revised form, if it is revised after its passage and enactment. While, therefore, I recognise the noble Earl's close interest in the subject, I hope that he will not feel it necessary to deploy his formidable and imaginative powers on the Bill, which may well be complete before we have come to a final conclusion on what the proper treatment of the other Acts should be, and that he will reserve his fire for that more distant occasion.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord the Minister on that point.
Lord Elton: My Lords. I am sure the House will share my grateful acknowledgement of that assurance. I can now assure—rather sooner than I expected—the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that Clause 27(10) has to be interpreted as meaning that "words" means pictures. The noble Lord may ask me to justify that statement later; I could not do so now.
In drawing to a conclusion, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, that the authority will be able to consider any complaints from the public relating to the conditions in the operators'licences—for example, complaints about programme standards. In addition, the authority will under Clause 14 he able to deal with complaints about unfair or unjust treatment in programmes or infringements of privacy committed during the preparation of programmes. Clause 14 bears a resemblance to some of the powers relating to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, but the Government thought that the balance of advantage rested with not extending the commission's jurisdiction to cable.
Many of the arguments which led to the establishment of an independent commission for broadcasting—and this point interests a number of your Lordships—do not apply to cable, where the cable authority (unlike the BBC and the IBA) will not themselves he providing the services. Complaints may form a significant part of the public feedback to the authority about their licensees and it would not be desirable to hive off one category of them to another body. It will be for the authority to determine their own procedure for handling complaints. Once they have arrived at an adjudication, Clause 14 gives them the power to direct their licensees to publicise their findings in such a way as they—the authority—may specify.
That is as much as the clock and convention permit me. In the New Year we shall be able to examine the Bill in more detail. The House and the Government will consider your Lordships' detailed views with the greatest of care. In that, may I ask of your Lordships one very important piece of co-operation? It will do a great deal to enable the Government to give satisfactory responses to amendments if they are put down in good time. By "good time" I mean time enough to give at least three working days between publication of the amendment in print in the Printed Paper Office and the day on which it is taken in Committee.
The volume of work which I and officials are likely to have to do during Committee stage makes three full working days the minimum, and I do hope that your Lordships will give it to us. Copies of the Notes on Clauses are available in the Printed Paper Office and I believe your Lordships will find large parts of them extremely helpful. I hope that they will assist noble Lords in preparing for further deliberations.
I believe that the proposals in this Bill provide a sensible framework for the development of new cable and satellite services. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have given it a welcome. I regret that, in looking around, I catch the eyes of noble Lords whose names I have not mentioned—both friends and not-so-friends. But I intend no discourtesy; their views will be taken careful account of in our reading tomorrow of Hansard. I am grateful to all your Lordships who have
564
given the Bill a welcome and to the rest of your Lordships as well. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Electronic Residual Circuit Safety Devices
8.34 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to introduce legislation on electronic residual circuit safety devices such as exist in most EEC member states and some Commonwealth countries.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we seem to he having an evening of high technology. In asking this Question, the first thing I had better do is to say what I am talking about. I am quite aware that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, knows more about this subject than I do—and I believe that he is to speak after I have done so—but the rest of your Lordships are owed an explanation.
There are very few houses in this country which do not have an electrical system, and it would be very difficult indeed to imagine a factory or workshop which did not have one. Such systems must be almost universal. The great majority of them are protected from major disaster by fuses; short pieces of metal, either very thin or very soft. If too great a load is put upon the system, the fuses burn or melt through and switch the current off. That is the standard method; and a fuse burns through in something less than half a second.
That system is very satisfactory as far as it goes. The only trouble is that if what is wrong with the circuit is that you are catching hold of a live wire, it takes rather less than half a second to kill you. So the system cannot be said to be totally satisfactory. Strangely enough, something worse than that can happen—that is, fire. Here, I must go into some figures. The number of people killed by direct electrocution in this country every year is around 80. There are also a number of injuries, but I will not go into that aspect. But there are some 30,000 fires a year which the fire brigades believe are due to electrical faults. In those 30,000 fires a further 180 people die every year.
Those are not vast figures compared with road casualties or compared with the number who die by smoking cigarettes. But if they were caused by something like fireworks, we would all be shrieking our heads off. They are serious figures, and if there is any reasonable way of reducing them we should do so.
I want to return to the subject of fires because they are one of the major causes of death. We have a habit of burying wires inside walls, under floors and behind skirting boards—particularly in positions where there is a lot of dust, which is also a fire hazard. As long as the circuit is healthy, nothing goes wrong. But if wires become old, overloaded or badly damaged, one can get a leak of current into the surrounding material. In these days, there are a number of very old circuits, simply because of the financial stringency we have been going through. Also, technology is advancing fast. We have heard about an example of that this very

565
evening in this House. More electrical appliances are being attached in electrical circuits every day—circuits which were never designed to have any such thing done to them—and so the danger is increasing.
If it is possible to prevent some of the deaths and some of the fires which occur, we should do all that we can to make sure that happens. I became involved in this subject because I am the chairman of a very new body—the Electric Boat Users. We have a habit of attaching our boats periodically to a source of electricity to recharge our batteries. It means that we put power cables around the scenery, out in the rain, close to water. We were advised by the electricity board that we were under high risk. We were not the only people under high risk, but we were in the high risk category. Other people under high risk were those who operated any kind of electrical equipment out of doors—such as hedge cutters or lawn mowers; any tools attached to an electric cable.
We were advised that what we ought to have were electronic safety devices, which work in a rather interesting manner. They are in fact electronic seesaws. They are balanced between the positive and negative polarity of a normal electric circuit on the basis that a healthy circuit has the same current flowing both through the positive and the negative. If there is a short to earth anywhere, the current unbalances, the see-saw tips, and the whole thing switches off. It does not take half a second to do that. An electronic residual circuit safety device switches off in between two-thousandths and four-thousandths of a second. That is about 100th of the time of the normal metallic fuse.
It was, I suppose, inevitable that as chairman of this new society I had to get the first machine and test it. I did so and I was delighted. I found that it produced so much more safety that nowadays when my particular machine is not afloat in my boat it has an honoured shelf in my workshop: through it I run all the tools that I use out of doors; our electric lawn mower and anything which needs connecting up to power is run through this machine. I consider that very well worth while. I would have liked to produce one in this House to show your Lordships, but I think it would probably have been out of order. Nevertheless, if your Lordships wish to see one at the end of the debate I have brought mine; it is in my locker, and I am told by Black Rod that I may attach it to the electricity and show how it works. However, since other Members of this House are not present and will not be seeing this machine. I am happy to say that I will be able to show one because we electric boaters have managed to find ourselves a stand, No. L6, at the Boat Show; there we shall have one of these devices on the stand and shall be able to demonstrate it.
If the noble Earl who is going to reply to this debate is unable to give me a satisfactory answer—I am sure he will not be able to because I am sure he has not got an Act of Parliament in his pocket ready to produce at a moment's notice—at least I shall be able to show a number of people how these things increase their safety and save lives. If I can save one or two lives by spending my time here this evening and taking up your Lordships' time, I think I shall have done a worthwhile job. Anyway, there it is: I have such a machine; I have tested it. I think if your Lordships go further into this
566
matter you will find that this is something which should have a wider use.
It is not only, of interest to those with workshops. It is going to spread into the law courts. I can quite imagine that anybody, a customer or an employee, whose health is endangered or whose property is damaged by an electrical fault in going to law is going to ask the defendant, "Were adequate precautions taken to make sure that I myself or my property were not damaged by lack of suitable protection?" If the answer is that it was only done by old metallic fuses the courts might not be very happy about the defendant's answer. So this may well go into the law courts.
There is also going to he the whole question of local authorities. One of the places where electric circuits are likely to be inadequate is in council housing. It is not only likely to get out of date but it is likely to be very considerably overloaded. The great load that goes on the wiring in houses mostly does so in the evening. It is then that the lights go on, the electric fires go on, all the various electrical devices go on, and on circuits which were not built to stand such a strain a very considerable load is built up.
That load can cause a leak of current through inadequate protection, and if that leak occurs in a cupboard space, as it may well do, you get a heating up in that area which can build up until the space is actually on fire. At that moment, no doubt, the fuses will blow, but since it will be late in the evening the family will go to bed. It is very hard to imagine a worse build up for a tragedy than a family going to bed in a house which is actually on fire. That is one of the causes of the many fire casualties.
The local authorities are going to have to install these devices for their own protection and for the protection of their tenants. They should certainly be doing it. In other countries these devices are compulsory, not necessarily nationally but usually by local government, in quite a number of EEC countries and in a number of Commonwealth countries. In this country I cannot see it being done nationally. I believe it is something which should be pressed on local government. Also perhaps it should come into the matter of health and safety at work.
However, it is quite obvious that now that we have these electronic safety sockets we really must consider installing them more widely and making their existence known. This is the purpose of my Question. Why should we not be putting some legislative force, possibly by lesser legislation, on making sure that these devices are much more widely used?
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down may I ask him one very quick question, to which I think other noble Lords may like to have the answer? The noble Viscount gave a very interesting description of the device he uses himself. Can he give any indication of the cost today of such devices?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the single socket that I have cost £40, which I think is a fair enough price for the lives of my wife and myself. But for a more complicated set which would protect a house or a flat the cost would be somewhat more. On the other

567
hand, you would than have a number of sockets and it would cover completely the safety of the whole House.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I thank the noble Viscount, my Lords.
8.48 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I apologise that my name was not included in the list of speakers; I ask your Lordships to put that down to my inexperience. I am in an invidious position, possibly, because the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, has been helpful to me: on Friday I was so ignorant about this subject that all I knew was vaguely what the matter was about. Since the week-end I have learned much more, and I am afraid I am going to take issue with the noble Viscount on several points.
The Order Paper mentions electronic residual circuit safety devices. It is true that there are such things as electronic residual devices, but I would suggest that the one the noble Viscount has is not electronic—although, as I say, there are such things and it is possible that his may be. In fact, the normal name for this unit is "residual current devices", which are known as RCDs. We find also the "residual current circuit breakers", but in my short speech I shall refer to RCDs.
The National Inspection Council of Electrical Installation Contractors is normally known as NIC. I spoke to them this morning on the telephone and they pointed out, with regard to the electronic aspect, that the RCDs are electro-mechanical in operation.
The noble Viscount said that there were about 80 deaths each year. My information is that last year there were, in fact, 40 deaths; but perhaps the year before there were 80. The noble Viscount also mentioned 30,000 fires which were attributable to electrical faults. The insinuation, therefore, is that if RCDs had been fitted most of the fires would not have occurred, and that the 180 people who died in them would not have done so. My information is that RCDs are not produced to stop fires. They are produced to stop electric shocks. The majority of fires are caused by overloading and the units to take care of overloading are either the standard old-fashioned fuse or miniature circuit breakers.
I agree with the noble Viscount that whether there are 40 or 80 deaths a year that is wicked, and it is appalling that people should die through electric shocks when, if an RCD had been installed, they would not have done so. Unfortunately, it is not death by electric shock that should concern us. For most people who suffer an electric shock one of two things happens. They take hold of a piece of equipment which has shorted and either they are bonded to it and cannot let go, thereby suffering the most appalling burns which can incapacitate them for life, or, if not stuck to the equipment, they are thrown from it, very violently. For example, they can he thrown through a window and suffer the most fearful facial injuries, or thrown against a wall and break their ribs, an arm or their nose. By far the biggest trouble with any kind of electric shock is not death but damage to the hands or face from either being stuck to the equipment or thrown from it.
568
The noble Viscount also said that with this equipment the tripping time was between a two-thousandth and a four thousandth of a second. My information, which may be wrong—but certainly I have read this in the catalogues—is that for RCDs which are fixed to socket outlets the reaction time is in the region of thirty thousandths of a second. That is still sufficient time to avoid death. I am not sure that I agree with the noble Viscount on how an RCD works. Basically, there is a primary and a secondary winding in the RCD, and in a healthy circuit there is a balance. If there is a leak to earth the current will be switched off and the amount of current leaked to earth is between 25 and 30 milliamps. One can get RCDs which are more sensitive, but the trouble is that in many systems—particularly the older ones—one gets a small amount of leakage and if one makes the system too delicate it will keep on switching out.
The NIC works to what are known as the wiring regulations and at present it is working to the 14th and 15th editions. From 1st January 1984 it will be working only to the 15th edition. It is most interesting that in the 15th edition there are at least three very important recommendations, In fact. I am not sure whether these are recommendations or rules which installers have to abide by. The first is that from 1st January all sockets which are for plugging-in equipment which will be used outside the home must be protected by an RCD. Secondly, where the supply authority has no metallic earth return to the transformer—in other words, where from the mains the earth return merely goes down into the ground and not back to the transformer—all socket outlets must be fitted with an RCD. Thirdly, on caravan sites all sockets—presumably all output sockets feeding power and electricity into caravans—must also be protected by RCDs. In other words, whether this is the power of law or not, by next year we shall be reaching a situation where such protection is coming.
The final words of the NIC to me were that in its view the fitting of RCDs would be the greatest single measure for the reduction of accidents and deaths through electric shock. I realise that I seem to have spent my time, if not knocking the noble Viscount at least saying that I did not agree with what he said. In fact, we are only talking technicalities because we both feel that if these RCDs are fitted many lives would be saved.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, this has so far been a most interesting and informative debate. I have listened with great fascination to both the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, and the noble Earl. Lord Attlee, and have heard their explanation of these circuit breakers with the greatest of interest. As I understand it, the correct term for them is residual current operated circuit breakers, and they are not in any sense electronic in operation.
As the noble Viscount told us, a large number of people are killed every year. The noble Earl says 40 and the noble Viscount says 80, but whichever is the correct figure it is too many, particularly if people can be protected by better equipment. Of course, the situation in which the noble Viscount used his residual current operated circuit breaker was exactly the sort of

569
situation which is the most dangerous and where such a circuit breaker would be most useful.
As the noble Viscount said, the normal nature of protection is through a fuse or, increasingly in modern electrical installations, by means of miniature circuit breakers which are themselves an improvement on a fuse which merely melts and takes a certain amount of time to do it.
The residual circuit breakers detect an earth leak. The normal fuse of the minature circuit breaker detects a short circuit and immedately trips out. These particular circuit breakers detect an earth leak, and as the noble Earl said, it then goes through a toroid and by means of, I suppose, a transforming type of operation increases the current and thereby trips a switch. The main protection that is received is by the person concerned, who is less likely to get an electric shock.
But I have to say that people who suffer electric shock do not sustain injury only through being attracted to the supply, to the wire, or through being thrown away. They also sustain injury because the heart stops beating. I think I ought to emphasise that that is usually what happens to a person when he is electrocuted.
The best form of protection is given by these particular appliances out of doors. I would certainly recommend people, if they can afford it, to fit such a switch, or whatever it may be, of this type if they are going to use appliances out of doors. But at £40 such a switch is very expensive. At most houses switches are not usually fitted out of doors, and it is unlikely that many people, in particular those without great sources of income will be persuaded themselves to fit them out of doors.
We must also bear in mind that modern outdoor garden equipment is much better protected than such equipment has been in the past. For example, today most motor mowers are protected by double insulation. They also run on nylon bearings, rather than metal bearings. There is a great degree of protection to the public due to progress made in the design of the equipment. But of course if when using a motor mower someone runs over a wire and is then silly enough to pick up the wire, he will get an electric shock. In those circumstances, the residual current operated circuit breaker will probably prevent him from being killed.
But there are drawbacks—and very serious drawbacks—to the general installation of these particular circuit breakers inside houses. For example, if they were installed to protect the whole circuit and there was perhaps even only a small leak to earth, it would trip the whole circuit in the house. That might be very inconvenient for the housewife who perhaps had a freezer or a refrigerator, and who had gone away for the weekend. The leak to earth, which might not be serious and which would certainly not cause afire, would trip out the freezer and the refrigerator, and the housewife would return to find great pools of water all over the kitchen or outhouse—wherever the appliances were housed—and all the food spoiled. So it would not be sensible to protect a whole circuit by means of the circuit breakers.
Furthermore, one must say—
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? The circuit breakers can be made with a number of different sensitivities; they can be made more sensitive, or less sensitive. Undoubtedly those which would be put on freezer circuits would be the less sensitive types.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I was talking about protecting the whole of the house circuit with a single circuit breaker. If individual socket outlets were to be protected, the cost would indeed be enormous. At present, house wiring for a power supply is carried out on a ring main basis. If one tried to protect the ring main circuit with a residual circuit breaker, the slightest leak on the total circuit would trip the whole of the ring main. The ring main is designed to fuse when an appliance goes wrong. That is the whole objective of having a fused plug. If one now interposes one of these circuit breakers, one may very well defeat the whole objective of the ring main circuit. To get full protection one would have to have an individual supply from the supply source to the individual socket; and that would be going into the realms of enormous cost. So there are serious drawbacks in a general sense to the installation of these particular circuit breakers.
I do not want to speak for too long, but I believe that there are other things we could do to protect the public from both fire and electrocution. One measure which I believe could be practical and indeed effective would he to ensure that all appliances were properly wired. One of the greatest problems and one of the most serious risks to people arises because their appliances are not properly wired. For example, people will connect an earth wire to a positive terminal. That is absolutely lethal; I repeat, absolutely lethal. It is an odd thing to do, but people certainly do it. Therefore I suggest that if we are to introduce legislation at all, we might consider introducing legislation of a type that would require manufacturers to provide moulded plugs with every appliance they sell.
Another possibility is better education of the public. The public, as I think the noble Viscount mentioned, believes that it can just pile electrical appliance upon electrical appliance and nothing will happen. But, of course, it overloads the system. I believe that improved education by the Government and perhaps, even better, by the electricity boards themselves would help in this situation. People do the most peculiar things. They have too little respect for electricity. If one has worked in a power station, one has considerably greater respect, although even then, there are highly trained people who do ridiculous things. I may perhaps tell noble Lords of one incident which happened at a power station to show how foolish people can be. This was the case of a charge engineer, a properly qualified engineer, who found that something had gone wrong in his control room. He went out to the compound and climbed on to a circuit breaker into which 30,000 volts were flowing. Naturally, the whole system arc-ed and he was electrocuted. So even the best of us can make mistakes and do foolish things when dealing with electricity. It is necessary for the public to be educated in the proper handling of electricity and to have proper respect for it.
Another step that we might consider is to have proper and perhaps compulsory periodic inspections

571
of all household wiring. In some of our older houses, the electrical wiring will be in a bad state, particularly if it is rubber-covered rather than PVC. covered. The Minister may care to think about this. I am not asking for legislation, but he might certainly consider whether the Government should be discussing with the electricity hoards the possibility of more frequent inspections and perhaps even compulsory inspections of houses and other buildings. I am sure that this would help, although I am also confident that I will not be given a favourable reply in present financial circumstances. I think that we should, at some time, consider whether to extend the improvement grant system so that the owners of older houses can receive some assistance in rewiring.
I believe that all these measures would probably contribute far more to electrical safety than the installation, at high cost, of these residual current operated circuit breakers. I have very much enjoyed the debate. I think that we are all grateful to the noble Viscount for raising it and to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for helping us with his technical knowledge.
9.12 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that the question raised by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, is an important one, concerning, as it does, the safety of the electricity consumer. The question is also highly technical. Speaking from this Dispatch Box, I should like to say to the Chief Whip opposite that I consider it totally unfair that he has put up as a spokesman for the Opposition yet another expert to talk to me on this subject. I am afraid that I cannot claim any expertise in these matters. I feel, however, that it might help if I set the Question in the context of the present statutory requirements and the measures taken by the electricity supply industry to protect the consumer.
I was fascinated by the persuasive talk of the noble Viscount. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, was, I believe, speaking against him and then, in his conclusion, was rather for him. I was therefore nearly persuaded back again. My only experience is having one of the noble Viscount's electric boats creep up behind me, which I found a most intriguing experience. Not only is the boat quiet; it is also totally unsmelly. On the River Avon it was quite a charming experience. Otherwise, my only problem—it was probably my own fault—was to cut the wire of an electric hedge cutter.
Having said that, I should like to proceed to the more serious topic. Electrical safety depends first and foremost on the premises being wired to a satisfactory standard. The Electricity Supply Regulations 1937 lay down the statutory standard for acceptance by electricity boards of consumers' wiring for connection to the supply system. But the consumer himself is responsible for maintaining his installation. I cannot stress too strongly the importance to the consumer of having his wiring installation and his electricity appliances checked regularly to ensure that they meet recognised safety standards. This should he done by a reputable electrical contractor.
572
A roll of such contractors is maintained by the National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contractors, which is made up of representatives from all sectors of the electrical contracting industry, such as the Electrical Contractors' Association and the electricity supply industry together with representatives of my department and the Health and Safety Executive who attend the council's meetings as observers.
The standards to be observed by electrical contractors in installing wiring systems are in turn laid down by the Institution of Electrical Engineers in their wiring regulations. These are regularly revised in the light of technical developments and. in fact, they are currently in their fifteenth edition. These statutory and other provisions are designed to protect the electricity consumer, his family and his home against accidents arising from faulty wiring or appliances. Further essential protection is provided by a proper earthing connection. It is in this context that the devices referred to by the noble Viscount are, of course, relevant.
Put simply, the proper earthing of an electrical installation ensures that if a breakdown of insulation occurs anywhere in the system the resulting surge of electrical current will flow rapidly to earth, so blowing the fuse and isolating the faulty part of the circuit. The consumer is also responsible for ensuring that his electrical installation is effectively earthed. This, too, can best be achieved by installation and regular inspection by a reputable electrical contractor. I saw the noble Lord on the Woolsack sipping his water just now and I only hope that he was sufficiently earthed. But, knowing that Black Rod is here. I am sure that he was.
In the past installations were earthed by connection to the incoming water main, but increasing use of electricity in the home and the introduction of nonmetallic piping has rendered this practice unreliable. The electricity supply industry has long recognised the problem facing some consumers in obtaining satisfactory earthing and some years ago adopted a policy of providing an earth terminal. This system gives adequate protection against accidents within a house or other premises in which it is installed. Although this facility was at first provided only to new installations, the electricity supply industry started extending it to include all existing consumers some three years ago. This work is well advanced and an earth terminal will be available to all 20 million domestic consumers by the end of the decade. It is of course a major and costly enterprise.
Despite the statutory provisions on electrical safety and improvements in the inherent safety in the design of electrical appliances, there are, as we have said unfortunately a number of fatal accidents each year from the use of electricity in the home. Electricity boards are under statutory obligation to report these to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy. These have averaged—and I am happy to use this figure in the House this evening—about 60 over the past five years. One noble Lord gave the figure of 80 and another gave the figure of 40. The number of fatalities is, of course, relatively small, but I agree that any death is a tragedy. However, it is not a large proportion, and happily their incidence appears to be slowly declining.

573
Noble Lords have mentioned fires. I am informed that it is not possible in very many cases to identify the particular cause. Some are no doubt due to electrical faults, as the noble Viscount said, but the most practical and economic way of preventing them is to have, as I mentioned earlier, the electricity system inspected regularly. The majority of these accidents arise from the misuse of electrical appliances and interference by unqualified persons with electrical installations. I must honestly say—and I think that I agree with the noble Earl—that something like this is unlikely to be changed by legislation. The statistics suggest that the overall standard of electrical safety in the home is high, but I have no doubt that all those working in this field are constantly seeking improvements.
That brings me to the circumstances in which the devices referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, may be appropriate. There seem to me to be two sets of circumstances in which they might be particularly necessary. First where the consumer has no access to either a metallic water pipe or an electricity hoard terminal for effective earthing of his system. But these cases, as I have said, are becoming fewer and with the progress of the supply industry's earthing terminal programme will, I hope, be eliminated by the end of the decade.
The second set of circumstances which the noble Viscount put forward is where electrical appliances are used outside the house or other premises. In these circumstances, the consumer is himself likely to be in more direct contact with earth so that the earthing system inside the house may not adequately protect him if he is using a faulty appliance. This situation applies particularly to the use of electrical appliances in the garage or garden and to other outdoor activities—for example, yachting marinas and caravan sites which have electrical points.
The devices referred to are designed to switch off the electricity supply if there is a small variation between the current entering and leaving the circuit to which it is connected. Its ability to respond rapidly to a small current variation can minimise the risk of a consumer receiving a fatal shock when using a faulty electrical appliance in positions in which he or she may he especially vulnerable. If a consumer frequently or even occasionally uses electrical appliances in these circumstances and is concerned about possible risks, then, of course, he would be well advised to consult a reputable contractor.
The current edition of the wiring regulations of the Institution of Electrical Engineers recommends the use of such devices in these circumstances. These regulations set the standards for installation of electrical systems by reputable electrical contractors in this country and are approved by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy under the statutory Electricity Supply Regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, mentioned some of the suggestions; and if they are considered appropriate, I am sure that this is where they should be incorporated. As I pointed out earlier, the institution's regulations take account of the latest technical developments. These include those in member states of the Community. Indeed, we are attempting to harmonise our requirements with those of the Community
574
wherever they are technically compatible. However, I am advised that there is no common practice or standard in the Community on the use of these residual current safety devices. Such information as is readily available suggests that the situation in most Community countries is similar to that in this country; overall safety of wiring installations is governed by statutory regulations, but the use of such additional safety devices is left to the consumer to decide.
The noble Viscount asked whether the Government intended to legislate on this matter: in point of fact that is the Question he has put to us tonight. For the moment we have no intention of interfering with the present legislation under which the consumer is responsible for the effective earthing of his installation. In spite of the noble Viscount's eloquent speech, we do not believe that the present situation requires that consumers be compelled to install these devices. We believe that installation would he costly; the noble Viscount has mentioned his price. Moreover, I believe that there would he the disadvantage—the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, mentioned one of these—that if sensitive enough to give the level of protection desirable in all parts of the installation, it would tend to he activated by normal operation of other parts of the system. The noble Viscount gave his response to this.
Consequently, we believe that the best way of equipping an installation with these devices would be to locate them so as to control various parts of the system. But this of course would add to the expense. This is not to say that the use of such devices would he other than a sensible precaution in the particular circumstances which I have described. But cannot the decision best be left to the good sense of the consumer? The issue of electrical safety is kept under close and continued review by my department's chief engineering inspector and his colleagues in the Institution of Electrical Engineers.
Their conclusions are reflected in the institution's wiring regulations, which all reputable electrical contractors observe. Should any development suggest the need for more stringent action by the Government, the noble Viscount can rest assured that it would be speedily brought to our attention and, if we were convinced of the case, acted upon by appropriate amendment of the statutory regulations, In the meantime, I reiterate that the best protection for the consumer against any electrical mishap is to have his electricity system installed and regularly checked by a reputable contractor.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past nine o'clock.