Lords Sitting of 19 December 1984

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.

Sewers: Maintenance
Lord Molson: 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 will obtain a comprehensive survey of the nation's sewers with a view to action being taken by the authorities responsible to prevent dangerous deterioration likely to result in collapse.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in response to the 1982 report of your Lordships' Committee on Science and Technology, the Government have been encouraging water authorities and their agents to concentrate surveys on sewers in critical areas so that remedial works can be planned in the most cost-effective way. The authorities are using the most up-to-date techniques, developed by the Water Research Centre in collaboration with the construction industry, to further this work.
Lord Molson: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that very encouraging answer. May I ask two relevant supplementary questions? Is he prepared to repeat, in respect of sewage works, the assurance he gave me on 31st October with regard to water supplies—that for those procedures which the water authorities themselves wish to carry out there is sufficient money? Secondly, is it the case, as I have read, that the Government are seeking the repayment of loans that have been made to the water and sewerage authorities? If so, would he represent to the Secretary of State that at a time when capital and current expenditure are being strictly limited, when in every way the expenditure of local authorities is being restricted, and when the grant from the Treasury has been reduced below 50 per cent., this is an inauspicious moment to ask for the repayment of loans?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am prepared to answer my noble friend's first supplementary by giving the same assurance, but in rather different words, as I did a month or so ago. Investment takes account of the needs identified in the water authorities' 1984 corporate plans, and this year investment in sewerage by the water authorities will be £244 million. They themselves plan to increase it to £280 million per annum over the next three years.
In regard to the loans identified in my noble friend's second supplementary question, I should like to say that these are not in fact loans at all; they are borrowings from the sometimes rather inaptly named National Loans Fund, and it is Government policy that they should he repaid. For example, the Thames
642
Water Authority will be repaying £61 million-worth of debt next year.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister not think again, in view of the mauling that the Government got yesterday in another place when they sought to introduce heavy curbs on public expenditure in the public sector? If the Government are really serious about doing something about tackling unemployment, will not the Minister and his colleagues use the excellent opportunity provided by this Question to do something positive about it?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the district and borough councils are, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Graham, well knows, agents for the water authorities. The water authorities provide the money, and so there is no overlap in this Question between events that may or may not have occurred yesterday in another place and the statement my noble friend Lord Avon made yesterday. The Government's policy is to improve employment by creating long-term jobs. We are being very successful at this. Two hundred and fifty thousand new jobs were created this year alone. The Opposition policy, as I understand it, is to massage the figures, to take people for short terms off the dole. In my view, this policy would be a mere flash in the pan.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, if the money for these sewerage works is provided by the water authorities, may I ask my noble friend how it comes that there is such a vast difference in different parts of London, whereby prudent councils such as Westminster have a rolling programme and regular sewerage maintenance while other councils, other local authorities in London, have let their sewers deteriorate to the point of danger?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as I said in answer to an earlier supplementary, the money is found by the water authorities and identified in their annual corporate plans. The sewerage arrangements are such that different contracts exist between different agents. For example, in London, as my noble friend has just mentioned, different contracts exist between the water authority and the different London districts, and I would expect that this is the principal reason behind my noble friend's concern.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the National Water Council, which is the responsible authority in this matter, is in fact far from satisfied with the Government's efforts in this area? Is he aware that the report to which he referred made plain that there are 5,000 sewer failures a year and 3,500 collapses, with repair costs of £100 million a year; that a significant percentage of the country's 210,000 kilometres of sewers are over a hundred years old; and that the council recommends that the Government should show a sense of urgency in the matter? Will the noble Lord say what percentage increase of investment the Government will be making in order to avoid a very serious development indeed?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am afraid that my mind is not quick enough to translate into percentages the figures that I gave in answer to an earlier

643
supplementary question, but my information from the water authorities is that only a very small proportion—that is, less than 20 per cent.—of our sewer system was built before 1915 and that the major part of that is in reasonably good condition. More than half the system is less than 40 years old, and it will be very many years before major works of repair or renewal will be needed.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain the difference between borrowing money, with the intention of returning it, from the Public Loans Board as a borrowing, and borrowing money, with the intention of returning it, from the Public Loans Board as a loan?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I should have thought that a debt, which this money is (although it is a debt owing to the National Loans Board), could never be described as a loan.
Lord Roberthall: My Lords, is the Minister able to tell us whether the increase between this year and the next few years will be in real terms? In other words, will there be more, or will it merely be keeping up with inflation?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords. It is in cash terms, but it is actually more money in real terms.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that 210,000 kilometres of sewers are over 100 years old?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, I am afraid I cannot do that. What I can tell the House is that there are about 140,000 miles of public sewers in England and Wales, and some 2,000 collapses a year. Put another way, there is one collapse for every 70 miles of sewer. This means that the average urban street might suffer a sewer collapse once in 180 years.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend will agree that this is at least the season of goodwill. Will he be frank with us and say whether what he has already told us has in fact happened, or whether he merely believes that it has happened, or whether he would like it to have happened, or whether he wanted others to believe that it has happened, or whether he wanted others to believe that he believed that it had happend?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the answer is none of them. I can give the assurance that it will happen.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there is scope in this matter for the provision of thousands of unskilled jobs throughout the country? It is not just a question of the decaying old sewers which noble Lords have mentioned, and which are serious enough. Does the noble Lord not appreciate that there are thousands of villages throughout Britain which have no sewerage system at all? Does the noble Lord appreciate that the whole of their sewage is disposed of by means of septic tanks? If the Government really wanted to provide jobs they could
644
provide thousands of jobs throughout the country in this connection, and that, surely, is preferable to paying dole.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if we were to provide the thousands of jobs for which the noble Lord has asked in this respect, it would mean digging up vast amounts of our roads—both country roads and those in our conurbations. In my view the traffic and pedestrian upset that that would cause would prove to be totally unacceptable.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that those of us who are privileged to have septic tanks are very happy to be left that way and hope that the Government will not start to give us main drains at vast expense to themselves and ourselves?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have just spent a small amount of money cleaning out my own septic tank, and I am very happy with this example of Government philosophy.
Lord Soames: My Lords, will my noble friend inform the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that 140,000 miles, which he says is the total length of the sewerage system in this country, is less than the 210,000 kilometres which Lord Cledwyn reckons are over 100 years old?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Soames.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the Government get away from this septic tank philosophy?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Question is not about septic tanks, but about the sewerage system.
Lord Molson: My Lords, as the Minister has confirmed that under the present plans there will be £61 million less available to the Thames Water Authority this year, will he represent to his right honourable friend that this is not an auspicious moment for carrying out that particular economy?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, I do not think I can do that, because the Thames Water Authority's outstanding borrowing is extremely low and its interest charges are correspondingly small. It will be able to undertake not only the repayment of £61 million of debt but also a capital programme of £109 million in 1985–86.

North Sea Gas: Purchase and Export
2.49 p.m.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what information they have received from the British Gas Corporation regarding the price at which they propose to purchase gas from the Sleipner field; and what plans they have to enable United Kingdom North Sea licence-holders to export gas.
Viscount Long: My Lords, the Sleipner project is still under negotiation and the proposed terms remain commercially confidential. The question of gas exports is one for consideration if our known gas resources increase significantly relative to home demand.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Will he bear in mind in considering the whole project that in the eyes of some of us Sir Denis Rooke, the chairman of the British Gas Corporation, is an over-mighty subject who badly needs watching? Will my noble freind bear in mind that the last deal that the British Gas Corporation concluded on the Frigg Field resulted in forcing successive British Governments to charge a tax rate on diesel and heavy oil fuels vastly out of comparison with that which is charged throughout the rest of the Community? Is this not an example of the folly of allowing this corporation to go its own wild way? Will my noble friend not agree that so long as it becomes apparent to the markets that British Gas is prepared to offer the Norwegians 34p a therm for gas for which they are only prepared to pay 23p a therm on comparable terms to North Sea gas licensees, it must call into question the whole logic and sense of any such deal?
Viscount Long: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his supplementary question, but I think that the British Gas Corporation does an extremely good job anyway. As my noble friend is discussing the price, and as at this moment of time I must be very careful because negotiations are at a very sensitive stage and will continue for a few months yet, I can assure my noble friend that the price of Sleipner gas relative to United Kingdom Continental Shelf supplies is one of the factors which the Government will have to consider in coming to a decision on Sleipner. In addition, in another place my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is keeping a watchful eye on negotiations that are taking place. Furthermore, as regards exports, the British Gas Corporation no longer has the monopoly; other companies can export gas if they wish.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Viscount agree that Sir Denis Rooke is a fine and dedicated public servant, and furthermore that the British Gas Corporation is one of the most successful nationalised industries that we have, making great profits for the Exchequer at the present time? With regard to the Sleipner field, will the noble Viscount agree that supplies to Great Britain will be no more than adequate even with supplies from Sleipner? If we do not get those supplies, it may very well be that the British Gas Corporation will be unable to plan its long-term markets.
On the second point about exports, will the noble Viscount confirm that if gas exports are allowed this would raise United Kingdom gas prices to international levels, which are roughly 40 per cent. above the present United Kingdom levels, and that this would hit not only domestic consumers but also industrial and commercial consumers, thus putting up production costs and injuring their competitive
646
position in the world markets? Is not that the fact about exports?
Viscount Long: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for paying tribute to the chairman of the British Gas Corporation. Indeed, he has worked very hard and it is a very technical area. As I have already said, the British Gas Corporation is doing a very fine job. Perhaps I might go one step further and say that the British Gas Corporation proposes to import gas from the Norwegian Sleipner field at a cost in excess of £20 billion. But as we are looking to the latter part of this century, the negotiations will not apply to the present but to the future.
The noble Lord also asked about gas exports and the price to consumers. As the noble Lord knows, the price to the consumer and in the international world fluctuates, so I cannot give him a great deal of information on the prices of gas.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, perhaps I may press my noble friend to go one stage further on the matter of exports. Is not the fact of the matter that under existing rules British North Sea licensees are obliged to land all gas from the North Sea in the United Kingdom and therefore it is totally uneconomic to export it to third customers and hence the British Gas Corporation, which does this marvellous job as a monopoly purchaser for a commodity for which, effectively by law, there is no other customer? Therefore, can my noble friend assure the House, first, that there is good news to the effect that this deal is on the point of abandonment; and, secondly, that if by any chance it were to go through, the restrictions obliging the North Sea licensees to land their gas on the coast of the United Kingdom would also be lifted?
Viscount Long: My Lords, yes, they are allowed to bring the gas to the United Kingdom coast.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, will the noble Viscount stop his Back-Benchers from praising nationalised industries?.

Lear Fan Ltd.: Financing
2.55 p.m.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals they have recently received for additional taxpayer finance for Lear Fan Ltd.; and what response they have given.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, the company's current plans for the future financing of the project do not include any further provision to commit additional taxpayers' funds beyond those already committed under the September 1982 financing agreement. When that agreement was negotiated Her

647
Majesty's Government made it clear that they would provide no further funds beyond those committed by the agreement. This remains the position.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that information. Nevertheless, can he confirm that, under the terms of that agreement, the British taxpayers are still exposed to the tune of some £20 million of taxpayers' money for this new second gullwing Northern Ireland project; that it still has not obtained and shows no sign of obtaining a United States' certificate of airworthiness, which is absolutely essential to its success; and now that the operators have scaled down the level of employment that they expect, the likely cost to the British taxpayer of every job created on this second gullwing project could amount to over £30,000 a job? Is that money really well spent?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the answer to my noble friend's first question is, yes. Indeed, the Government are still committed to the sum of 24 million dollars—I shall leave it to my noble friend's arithmetic to convert the currency. To turn to the gullwing of this aircraft—and perhaps my noble friend is an engineer—I understood that it was anhedral and dihedral as regards the wings. My noble friend asked about certification. On 12th October this year the Federal Aviation Administration granted what it called "Type inspection authorisation" to a Lear Fan 2,100 aircraft. I understand that the current forecast is that the basic type certificate for an unpressurised aircraft will be obtained by 1st March next year, and the hopes are that a full type certificate for a pressurised aircraft will be obtained by early 1986.
My noble friend's third supplementary question covered the arithmetic of the total cost per job. Of course my noble friend will be aware that the amount of employment of 1,100 new jobs is an estimate, but we hope that it will be fulfilled.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, can the noble Lord give an assurance that if this aircraft receives a certificate and goes into production, there will be employment on its production in Northern Ireland and not elsewhere? Whatever may be the events concerning Lear Fan, will he not confirm the importance of public investment in Northern Ireland? Does he recall what was said last night on the appropriation debate, that some 45.8 per cent. of total employment in Northern Ireland is in public sector employment?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for drawing attention to our interesting debate last night. I could not confirm or quibble with his arithmetic; I might look into that later. However, your Lordships will want to know that this new revised agreement provides a realistic figure of 1,100 jobs in Northern Ireland, and the revised agreement is more specific in terms of the manufacturing work on this aircraft which is to be carried out in Northern Ireland. The effect of this agreement is that 80 per cent. of the manufacturing work will be done in Northern Ireland.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, before we leave this subject, may I suggest to my noble friend that all
648
experience shows that it is usually cheaper to pay compensation for the abandonment of an agreement entered into than to squander further good money after bad in fulfilment of an agreement which should never have been entered into in the first place?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, at the outset I gave an undertaking that the total exposure of the Government is, I think, 9.14 million dollars, and 15 million dollars as a guarantee to a loan. I think in my first statement I said that no further funds would be committed beyond those already outlined in the agreement of September 1982, and this remains the position.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, when the Minister gives us these figures on costs in terms of dollars can he translate them into pounds? We are not an American colony yet.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, even I was aware that we are not an American colony yet, but the contract is drawn up in terms of dollars. Perhaps if the noble Lord would care to read with me the financial papers, we might note the constantly fluctuating exchange rate, but the contract to which I have referred is drawn up in dollars.

Mr. Ian MacGregor: Payments for Services
3.1 p.m.
Lord 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 are the amounts of the two payments still to be paid to Lazard Frères, in addition to the £675,000 already paid, in respect of Mr. Ian MacGregor's service with BSC; what were the criteria by which the amounts were determined; and whether similar criteria applied to the payment of £1,500,000 in respect of Mr. MacGregor's service with the National Coal Board.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, the amounts of the performance payments still to be made to Lazard Frères in respect of Mr. Ian MacGregor's service as chairman of BSC are one of up to £700,000 and one of up to £450,000. The actual amounts of these payments will be determined by a review committee acting in accordance with the agreed criteria, copies of which were placed in the Library of the House on 15th April 1981. The terms of the agreement with Lazard Frères for the release of Mr. MacGregor to serve as chairman of the NCB provided only for an initial payment of £1.5 million and did not include performance-related elements.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. May I make it absolutely clear that nothing I say is a personal criticism of Mr. MacGregor, but of the fact of the appointment. Is it not a fact that this information shows that the appointment is one

649
completely without precedent in our public life? Was it not absolutely clear to anybody who wished to see that this appointment would lead to inevitable conflict? Now at a time when we have had an expenditure of between £1,000 million and £2,000 million, with all the hardship and misery in the mining communities, with deaths of miners and non-miners, would it not be a good thing to admit that this appointment was a mistake and see whether we can all start afresh?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, so far as the noble Lord's first supplementary is concerned, yes, this was a precedent, but Mr. MacGregor was appointed because he was considered to be the best man for the job, and the Government see no reason to alter that view. With regard to his chairmanship of British Steel, when he arrived there was a £667 million loss for the year 1980–81. The preliminary results for that corporation for this first half year show a £27 million profit. That is indeed a success. With regard to the point that the noble Lord makes about this giving rise to conflict, I have to tell him that we do not believe this to be so.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, am I right in understanding the Minister to say that the £1.5 million paid to Lazard Freres when Mr. MacGregor took over the chairmanship of the NCB is not related in any sense to performance? May I ask what is the total cost of Mr. MacGregor's services—the transfer fee of £1.5 million, I assume, plus annual salary?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble Lord understands correctly. There were no performance requirements in this appointment. The £1.5 million to which I referred was a once-and-for-all payment. I understand that the then Secretary of State for Energy did not consider it appropriate that there should be performance criteria added.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that this appointment is going to lead to inevitable conflict, is not a reflection on the chairman of the National Coal Board, but on the gage which had already been thrown down by the president of the National Union of Mineworkers that he intended to carry out the campaign which he is now carrying out? Does not the very large figure which has to be paid to find a man with the heroic qualities and the necessary calibre to take on this job show that very few men anywhere would have been willing to take on such a heroic task? Should we not in fact be grateful to Mr. MacGregor that he is willing to do so, and is still trying to carry out his duties to manage the Coal Board as Parliament has instructed him to do?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford for putting so succintly in a series of questions to me exactly what the position is. This damaging dispute has been sought and provoked by the leadership of the NUM who have imposed their will upon their membership without any ballot. There is no justification whatsoever for the strike. The present chairman of the National Coal Board has supervised
650
one of the very best offers which has ever been made to the industry in terms of wages, jobs, and redundancy, and has in fact presided over the formation of enterprise boards to assist those miners who have wished to leave the industry.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are horses for courses? Is he further aware that the whole House realises that Mr. MacGregor, when dealing with reasonable people with the good of the industry and their members at heart, did a lot of practical good in steel, but that in a political situation he is wholly at a loss and the Government made a grave mistake in transferring him from a job where he did well to one where he was absolutely bound to fail?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord in his reading of the situation. The fact of the matter is that the leadership of the National Union of Mineworkers have said—and they are on record as saying—that they have no intention of coming to the negotiating table. Until such time as they do it would be quite wrong to put on the situation the connotation which the noble Lord does in so far as Mr. MacGregor's leadership of that industry is concerned.
Lord Blyton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this is a colossal sum to pay to a man who crucified the steel industry through many, many closures? Is he also aware that this man. Ian MacGregor, has split the mining community in which families are against families, neighbour against neighbour, and that it will take a decade to reconcile the conflict of interest which has been caused by his attitude towards the mining community? Would it not be better for the Government to give him his transfer fee and send him back from whence he came?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I do not accept for one moment that Mr. Ian MacGregor crucified the steel industry. He brought the steel industry into profit, and even in these difficult times the industry is producing all the steel that our home market requires. So far as splitting mining communities is concerned, it is not Mr. MacGregor but their own leadership who have split those communities.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is the Government who are responsible—and it is them to blame—in that they appointed Mr. MacGregor, a man who had little experience of the industry? Certainly he had no experience of people in our mining areas and, what is more, he issued a challenge to the coal miners and the coalmining union by setting aside established procedures that had gone on for many years. Would the noble Lord not agree that that was the cause of the strike? Furthermore, would he not agree that even just lately when the TUC were meeting the Secretary of State for Energy, Mr. MacGregor undermined those negotiations on the day that they were taking place?
Finally, would the Minister not agree, that conditions exist at this very moment, if the Government will only climb down off their high horse, for a negotiated settlement? Will he not show the spirit of Christmas by undertaking such negotiations?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, on the number of supplementary questions which the noble Lord addressed to me, may I remind him that successive Select Committees in another place have accepted that there had to be a 4 per cent. reduction in coal output. Mr. MacGregor was appointed to bring the industry into long-term future viability. His plans for so doing would have given that opportunity. The miners have had an extraordinary and unprecedented offer, as I have said, in terms of wages, conditions, redundancy, and so on. There has been no challenge whatsoever by Mr. MacGregor to the procedures. The challenge, of course, was through the leadership of the National Union of Mineworkers in that they did not ballot their members before declaring this strike. That was the breach of procedure. There is no truth whatsoever that Mr. MacGregor undermined the potential negotiations which took place on 14th December when the Trades Union Congress met my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy. There is no question either of the Government being on any high horse. The Government remain—
A Noble Lord: Speech!
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am in fact answering four questions. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State remains available to take part in any talks when the leadership of the National Union of Mineworkers come to the table with the realistic prospect of a successful negotiation, and not the total denial which they have shown hitherto.
Lord George-Brown: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that in 1926 those of us who are old enough to remember went through exactly the same situation? There was no Mr. MacGregor; there was a "Scargill" then called A. J. Cook. Exactly the same problem arose. Is he aware that it took nine months to solve it? Is he aware that it was solved only because the TUC then had a man called Ernest Bevin who was willing to face them down, and did?
Secondly, would the noble Lord the Minister remind the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, there there is nothing wrong in radicals creating precedents? That is why we are radicals. There is nothing wrong—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord George-Brown: My Lords, is the Minister willing to remind the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and I were once radicals?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: He still is.
Lord George-Brown: We were set upon creating precedents. Finally, is the Minister aware that, whether the MacGregor appointment was right or wrong at the time, whether the terms were right or wrong at the time, our business now is to do as Bevin did in 1926—we have to face Scargill down as Bevin faced Cook down?
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will
652
feel that he has had his say to the House. I think that even in this season of goodwill I have to point out to the House, amid some very controversial questions, that it is 38 minutes since we started on Questions and we are much over our time. I gave the noble Lord his chance to have his say. Having had it, I hope that the House will feel we have had enough of Questions for one day.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I say a word at this point about the arrangements for this afternoon's short debates standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Houghton of Sowerby and Lord Lloyd of Hampstead. It is customary in short debates for the mover to be allowed approximately 15 minutes and for the Minister to rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate. This means that in the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, all other speakers should be limited to a maximum of 10 minutes; and in that of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, to 12 minutes. If any noble Lord were to speak at greater length it would be at the expense of subsequent speakers in that particular debate.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, on a point of order, may I suggest to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House that, if he wants to curtail Questions it might be just as well to start curtailing them a little earlier?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I stand corrected. I thought of doing that but I have to tell noble Lords that I would have had just as much difficulty in trying to curtail some of the earlier ones as I did in curtailing the last one. I try to give as much latitude as is at all possible to the House. but when we have taken 38 minutes I am sure that the noble Lord, who, after all, had considerable responsiblity in these matters at one time, will realise that enough can be enough, and if the House feels it, it is my job so to interpret it.

Administration of Justice Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make further provision with respect to the administration of justice and matters connected therewith; to amend the Solicitors Act 1974; to regulate the provision of conveyancing services for reward by persons practising as licensed conveyancers; to make further provision with respect to complaints relating to the provision of legal aid services; to amend the law relating to time limits for actions for libel and slander; and to make further provision with respect to arbitrations and proceedings in connection with European patents.
My Lords, 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.

Business of the House
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, unfortunately there is an error in the terms of the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It provides for Standing Order 44 be dispensed with today for the purposes of taking the Consolidated Fund Bill through all its stages, when in fact it is proposed that the Bill should be taken through all its stages tomorrow. With the leave of the House, I beg to move the Motion with the substitution of "tomorrow" for "this day".
Moved, That, if the Consolidated Fund Bill is brought from the Commons, Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a bill to he taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Bill to be taken through all its stages tomorrow.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords Offices: First Report of Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that the First Report from the House of Lords Offices Select Committee be agreed to.
I think the only item to which I should draw your Lordships' special attention is the third item in the report, which reads as follows:
"The Committee agreed that additional cloakroom facilities be provided for women peers and recommend the re-allocation of the small cloakroom next to the Printed Paper Office for this purpose".
I beg to move.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(Lord Aberdare.)
The report read as follows:
1. Appointment of Sub-Committees
The following members of the Committee were appointd to the Sub-Committees:
(a) Library Sub-Committee

B. David

V. Eccles

E. Ferrers (Chairman)

L. Kilmarnock

L. McIntosh of Haringey

E. Minto

L. Molloy

L. Mowbray and Stourton

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords.
(b) Refreshment Sub-Committee

L. Ampthill (Chairman)

L. Denham

L. Greenway

B. Hylton-Foster

B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe

L. Nugent of Guildford

L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede

E. St. Aldwyn

L. Tordoff

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords.
(c) Works of Art Sub-Committee

B. Birk

M. Cholmondeley

L. Gibson (Chairman)

E. Listowel

L. Reilly

654

L. Strabolgi

B. Trumpington

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords.
(d) Computer Sub-Committee

L. Darling of Hillsborough

E. Ferrers

E. Minto

L. McIntosh of Haringey (Chairman)

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords.
(e) Staff of the House Sub-Committee

L. Aberdare (Chairman)

L. Nugent of Guildford

B. Seear

B. White

V. Whitelaw (L. President)

With the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.
With power to co-opt further Lords.
(f) Finance Sub-Committee

L. Aberdare (Chairman)

L. Ampthill

L. Denham

E. Ferrers

L. Kilmarnock

L. McIntosh of Haringey

L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede

L. Tordoff

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords.
(g) Administration Committee

L. Aberdare (Chairman)

L. Ampthill

L. Denham

E. Ferrers

L. Gibson

B. Hylton-Foster

L. Kilmarnock

B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe

L. McIntosh of Haringey

L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede

L. Sandys

L. Tordoff

With the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.
With power to co-opt further Lords.
The Committee wish to record, on the occasion of the retirement of Viscount Eccles and Lord Darling of Hillsborough as Chairman of the Library Sub-Committee and Computer Sub-Committee respectively, their gratitude for the services they have rendered.
2. Black Rod
The Committee were informed that the Queen has approved the appointment of Air Chief Marshal Sir John Gingell to succeed Sir David House as Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod and Serjeant-at-Arms with effect from 14th January 1985.
The Committee agreed that Sir John Gingell be appointed additionally as Agent to the Administration Sub-Committee to carry out, on their behalf, the control of the accommodation and services in the House of Lords area of the Palace of Westminster.
The Committee wish to record, on the occasion of the retirement of Sir David House, their gratitude for the assistance that they have received from him during the seven years he has served as Agent to the Administration Sub-Committee.
3. Accommodation and Amenities
The Committee agreed that additional cloakroom facilities be provided for women peers and recommend the re-allocation of the small cloakroom next to the Printed Paper Office for this purpose.
4. Access to Steps of the Throne
The Committee recommend that those eligible to sit on the Steps of the Throne when the House sits should include the eldest daughters and granddaughters of Peers of Parliament who are heiresses presumptive to such Peers and grandsons of such Peers who are heirs apparent to their Peerages.
5. Parliament Office
The Committee were informed of the impending retirement of the Principal Clerk of Private Bills and instructed the Clerk of the Parliaments to convey to Mr. Euan Graham their warm appreciation of his long and valuable service to the House.
The Committee were also informed of the consequential staff changes that will follow Mr. Graham's retirement noting that Mr. J. M. Davies would succeed as Principal Clerk, Private Bill Office, and that Mr. P. D. G. Hayter would be appointed Principal Clerk of Committees.
The Committee also noted that Mr. A. Makower had been appointed Clerk to fill the post vacated by Mr. P. M. Rees.
6. Telephones
The Committee approved the current arrangements for replacing the Palace of Westminster telephone exchange and authorised provision to meet a proportion of the cost of installation and equipment.
7. Revised Scales of Pay and Allowances
The Committee confirmed the application of the following memoranda to applicable staff of the House of Lords:

CM/651

Revised rates of pay from 1st April 1984 affecting grades up to the rank of Chief Clerk.

CM/659

Revised rates of London Weighting from 1st

IM 84/6

October 1984.

IM 84/8

Revised rates of pay from 1st July 1984 affecting industrial grades in the Refreshment Department.

CM/652

Revised typing etc. proficiency payments from 1st April 1984.

CM/653

Revised responsibility allowances from 1st April 1984.

CM/655

Revised subsistence payments for meals and overnight accommodation payable to certain officials.

8. Uniform Allowances
The Committee approved revisions in the allowances paid to Clerks at the Table, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod and the Yeoman Usher for the provision of items of court dress and in the uniform allowances paid to Doorkeepers.
10. Superannuation
The Committee were notified of the following awards made under the House of Lords' Staff Pension Scheme:

(a) Revised preserved pension, lump sum and compensation for premature retirement to Mr. R. A. Devin, Assistant Accountant, who retired on 1st September 1984.

(b) Revised pension and lump sum to Mr. A. F. Fryers, M.B.E., Higher Executive Officer, who retired on 31st July 1984.

(c) Revised short service payment to Mrs. G. E. Armour, Personal Secretary, who resigned on 29th June 1984.

(d) Revised short service payment to Mrs. S. Cooper, Personal Secretary, who resigned on 27th April 1984.

(e) Revised short service payment to Mrs. D. A. Russell, Plate Room Assistant, who retired on grounds of ill-health on 7th July 1984.

(f) Pension and lump sum to Mr. P. M. Rees, Committee Clerk, who retired on 1st October 1984.

(g) Revised pension and lump sum to Mrs. C. Sampson, Housemaid, who retired, after re-employed service, on 14th October 1984.

(h) Revised pension and lump sum to Mrs. J. Williams, Housemaid, who retired, after re-employed service, on 20th October 1984.

(i) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. G. Reid, Plate Room Assistant, who retired on 8th September 1984.

(j) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. R. A. Cameron, Pot Washer, who retired on grounds of ill-health on 28th November 1984.

(k) Short service payment to Mrs. E. C. Botting, Personal Secretary, who resigned on 2nd November 1984.

(l) Short service payment to Miss J. L. Coxall, Personal Secretary, who resigned on 16th November 1984.

(m) Short service payment to Miss P. C. David, Personal Secretary, who resigned on 30th November 1984.

(n) Supplementary death benefit to widower of Mrs. R. Russell, former Housemaid, who died on 9th September 1984.

On Question, Motion agreed to

Parliamentary Role of the House of Lords
3.20 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby rose to call attention to the parliamentary role of the House of Lords; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, until last evening I was feeling a little guilty about introducing this rather ponderous subject so close to Christmas. It does not usually fit in with the spirit of peace and goodwill towards men. But last night something happened which gave this subject a new topicality. The tape told us that the Whip had been withdrawn from a highly respected noble Lord on the Benches opposite, which came as something of a shock. It looked as if the Chief Whip had given a short sharp crack over the Benches opposite as a warning that there must be a greater measure of discipline on the Government side of the House.
It seems to me that this incident suggests that there is to be a new regime of harsh discipline imposed on the Benches opposite. I believe that is contrary to the general direction in which a large section of the House would wish to go. Certainly it is the direct opposite of what I submit to the House is in keeping with the constitutional role of Members of your Lordships' House. What has happened may have been the sound and fury muffled behind the genial observations and cautions uttered by the noble Viscount, the Lord President, in his speech on 17th November when he told the House that if we pushed our view too far and too often we might on occasion be in danger of causing resentment to the elected Chamber. I think that we ought to consider now where we stand in relation to this very rare occurrence, and in general to where we think our duty lies in present circumstances in Parliament.
For 70 years, within my living memory, there has been talk about reforming the House of Lords. Nothing has been done since 1911 which makes any substantial difference to the constitutional position of the House of Lords, though the Life Peerages Act made a very great difference indeed to its composition. But now studies for the reform of the House of Lords have gone into limbo. The Labour Party has hardened its view towards abolition, much to the misgivings of a considerable section of the party.
Why has reform of the House of Lords become a non-subject? I think that it is because the experience of 1968, when an attempt was made at reform, proved that nothing is likely to get done without a large measure of all-party agreement, and there appears to be little hope of that. We have now to consider whether there is any point in reviewing our role in Parliament, contemplating any reforms coming our way. We are good at adapting old institutions to modern and different requirements, and that can apply to the House of Lords as well as to others. So I think that we should leave it alone and get on with what we conceive to be our position in the parliamentary system on the assumption that we shall continue as we are for some time to come.
I think we should stop talking about reform; we should firmly reject abolition; we should brush off our detractors and get on with the job. Our job is to work

657
out an up-to-date role for ourselves in dramatically changing conditions. We have had to put up with disparagement, snide remarks, abuse, cruel jokes and threats for far too long. We have let the kettle call the saucepan black in dignified silence. The accusation that the existence of this House cannot be defended in a democratic society ignores the complexities and the many-sidedness of the democratic process. Democracy is not fulfilled merely by giving one man one vote. There is a great deal more to it than that. It is no good saying that the people can express their will through the ballot box when the voting system puts the minority on top. Our elected Parliament is unrepresentative of the electors as a whole. Our Government are a minority government; but they are not the only minority government, for nearly all of them are.
One of the first conditions of any Parliamentary system, that of representing the will of the people, is falsified at Westminster under the existing system. The so-called mandate is a political legend called in aid of doing the wrong thing at the wrong time. The House of Commons, as at present elected, is unrepresentative. Out of it is created an unrepresentative Government, and taken together they are not competent to claim the sovereignty of Parliament and rule alone.
Your Lordships' House is the only restraint in Parliament to the arrogance of an elective dictatorship. For myself, I see no need for more power. What we do is solely by persuasion and not by veto. The final authority rests, as it should, with the elected House. The Commons are accountable and they take the responsibility. Our job is to help them do it.
In his remarks on 17th November (in col. 17 of Hansard) the noble Viscount described our role in agreeable terms. However, his caution to us as to the possible resentment among elected Members of the House of Commons if we pressed our views too far and too often is—that was a note that we should not allow to move us or deviate us from our task. Resentment may be justifiably felt against misconduct, disrespect, behaviour or actions which are in some degree offensive, but not against your Lordships acting in good faith and guided by knowledge, which may be considerable; experience, which may be extensive; and wisdom, which may ripen with age.
The composition of this House has changed out of all recognition in recent years. The Life Peerages Act has widened the source of recruitment and has brought about a better balance politically and in every other way. The traditional built-in Tory majority has ceased to exist. Members of your Lordships' House having no declared political allegiance now occupy more than one quarter of the total of our voting membership. The Official Opposition represents 15½ per cent. The Alliance represents 9 per cent. But Members having no party allegiance total 227—altogether 27 per cent. The Conservative Peers taking the Whip now number fewer than half the total number of noble Lords entitled to vote, and obviously that number will gradually get smaller as the further course of expulsions takes effect!
I wish to move away from party political allegiances in this House. I am not in favour of an elected House of Lords, nor one whose voting strength is adjusted
658
from time to time to match the state of the parties in the Commons. We are not a duplicate of the House of Commons. Elected Members of Parliament have no reasonable grounds to resent what we believe to be our own duties, and we should take no notice if they do so. We are constitutionally part of Parliament assembled, without which no law can be made except as provided under the Parliament Act 1911. Our limited powers are laid down by law, and we are entitled to fufil them as we think fit. We are not Mrs. Thatcher's poodles. The struggle for power is going on in the elected Chamber and in the country all the time, and I do not think we should have any part in that.
We are here to tell the Commons, for the sake of the public good, what they should not do, and to ask them to think again. We should be more magisterial than political. We should not criticise or amend the work of another place simply because we do not like it or because we do not like the politics of the majority party. We should correct what we believe to be wrong, unjust, objectionable or impractical. No claim to a mandate in another place should rule our thoughts. This is an indispensable part of the process of Parliament, and the Commons should accept that and make provision for it in its own timetable of business.
There is a lot that we can do to make Parliament a better place in the public estimation and a better place even in our own. Our role is what we have been doing, and we should get bolder and not more nervous in doing it. There is room for the expansion of our study of current affairs. All in all, this is the best second Chamber that we have; we are sticking to it, and we should stick up for it. No single party can get rid of us or carry their resentment too far. There is common sense as well as politics in Parliament, and this House should provide more reasoned argument and less noise than another place. That is what a large section of the public want to hear. My Lords, this is the place where wiser counsels should prevail. I beg to move for Papers.
3.33 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, in the Conservative Party manifesto at the General Election it was written:
"we will ensure that the House of Lords has a secure and effective future. A strong second Chamber is necessary for democratic government".
I draw attention to the word "effective", because that raises the question of power. What power should your Lordships exercise, in particular vis-à-vis the Government and the other place? That is the question that was raised by the noble Lord's Motion, which he moved—and I hope that I may say this—in such admirable and robust terms.
The Alliance document on constitutional reform made much the same point as was made in the passage that I have summarised from the manifesto. At the back is the fear to which the noble Lord referred of an "elective dictatorship" which was identified in a most notable speech by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, indicated, what we are concerned with is the present constitution, not a reformed constitution, still less an ideal constitution, if there were such a thing.

659
There must be a good deal of common ground in this debate. The legal position is, I think, clear. Subject to the Parliament Acts; your Lordships have full and equal power as a House of Parliament whose concurrent advice and consent is necessary for effective legislation. The Parliament Acts preclude your Lordships from considering money Bills and also allow only a limited delay. That delay can be very important, particularly in the last Session of a Parliament; because, if the delaying power is exercised, it means that the measure in question has to be submitted for the consideration of the electorate. Moreover, even the ordinary power of delay, the power to ask another place to think again about some matter, can be very effective. Your Lordships saw it in the last Session in relation to the Housing Bill where obviously the Minister did not want to lose his Bill for that Session and concessions were made in deference to your Lordships' views—concessions which, I am bound to say, I think quite rightly were made.
In addition to that legal position there is a convention, having, I think, the force of law, that the House of Lords does not interfere with or withhold supply. It is the power to withhold supply that gives the other place its effective control over the Executive; not the vote of censure, but the threat, if the vote of censure is carried, that supply will be withheld. I think that the convention that your Lordships do not interfere with supply is now equal in force to law; it is a convention of the constitution having the force of law. But that means (does it not?) that there need be no inhibition to your Lordships carrying a vote of censure against the Government. It does not necessarily involve resignation because it does not have behind it the threat to withhold supply. It marks, if carried, your Lordships' sense of disapprobation; and I entirely agree with what the noble Lord has said, that is peculiarly within the province of your Lordships' House. The Alliance manifesto uses the words "scrutinise, revise or delay", and that seems to me to be entirely correct so far as the role of your Lordships is concerned, and I see no reason why it should not be carried out with the robustness which was recommended by the noble Lord who moved the Motion.
There are a number of difficult considerations which have to be weighed, a number countervailing. We live, and intend to continue to live, in a system of representative government, of parliamentary democracy. Society is democratic in so far as the bulk of the population have power to influence the decisions which affect themselves. That, on the face of it, immediately gives a superior title to the House of Commons. They are the elected body, as the noble Viscount pointed out in the debate on the Address, although I am bound to say that I thought his minatory observations were not really justified by anything that happened last Session. On the other hand, as against the legitimacy that is conferred by election, your Lordships' House in the main is hereditary and nominated. There is much to be said, it seems to me, for both systems and particularly for both systems together; but this is not the occasion to say it.
It is sufficient to note that those two elements leave your Lordships' House open to demagogic contumely,
660
and your Lordships have to bear that in consideration when it comes to a conflict of opinion between the two Houses. It is a political inhibition which your Lordships would wish to bear in mind. On the other hand, owing to the vagaries of our electoral system your Lordships' House is in fact, in its composition, more representative of political society at large than any other institution, and it seems to me that your Lordships are fully entitled to take that into account in the vindication of your views.
So far as the doctrine of the mandate is concerned, the noble Lord has really said all I wished to say. It is a pure fiction. Among the many reasons for voting for a party at an election, the contents of the manifesto, even if known, must be one of the very least. Successive Governments, of course, use it to get their way. However, one must make, I think, a political discrimination. Some items in the manifesto are referred to generally and vaguely. I felt that in regard to the sale of houses particularly suited to the elderly, which we discussed last Session. On the other hand, the proposals for reform of local government, with which your Lordships will be concerned this Session, are very much more specifically dealt with. Certainly I should have thought that Members of another place would feel a moral obligation in respect of that commitment.
May I just say this. All those considerations have to be weighed, and it is a political judgment. But there are two final considerations. The first is that Her Majesty's Government must be carried on consistently from election to election. The other is that representative democracy does mean that measures should not be forced through (again to adopt the Alliance terminology). Representative democracy—Parliament itself—does mean government by discussion, and each measure has to be justified on its merits. Apart from those observations I find that what I had to say was said far better than I could have said it by the noble Lord.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that I was unable to hear the earlier part of his speech, but I congratulate him on his robust defence of your Lordships' House. How we have all changed! On these Benches we believe that an effective second Chamber has a vitally important role to play in the preservation and development of democracy. Your Lordships' House, defective though it is in many respects, is, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said, the best second Chamber that we have. It is only effective, though, when it exerts its power and influence to the maximum extent possible in a responsible, mature and non-partisan way.
We entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, when he refers to the view of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. We subscribe to the view, eloquently developed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his writings, that,
"we live in an elective dictatorship, absolute in theory if hitherto thought tolerable in practice".
But I do not think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had envisaged the present situation, when the House of Lords has assumed a crucial

661
importance not ascribed to it in his writings. Indeed, we would subscribe to the view which was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in 1975, when he pointed out that, because there had been a failure to reform the House of Lords, the House of Lords had to perform its functions and its powers as a second Chamber and pay attention to the fact that the other House, or Parliament itself, had failed to reform us.
We on these Benches believe that the House of Lords should be reformed and reconstituted, but while we are in an unreformed state we should perform our duty as a second Chamber and refuse to be used as a mere rubber stamp. The country expects it of us, and is turning more and more to this House to bring a sense of detached, non-partisan responsibility to our affairs.
I want to consider in particular today our powers and responsibilities in relation to the increasing use by Government of delegated legislation to achieve their political ends. It seems to me that the scope and quality of powers reserved to Ministers in vital Bills for changing the state of things by means of statutory instruments indicates a fairly determined effort to bypass effective parliamentary scrutiny, particularly in your Lordships' House. Thus we find in the published Local Government Bill which we shall have to deal with later in this Session the most astonishing and sweeping provisions to enable Ministers to amplify, change or vary the distribution of functions, powers and property set out in the Bill proper. It will be impossible to deduce from the face of the Bill which successor authorities will obtain what powers. Clauses 21, 40, 61, 80 and 92 of that Bill all contain huge enabling powers to enable a Minister to change functions and structures of London and metropolitan local government, without any further primary legislation.
In these and similar situations, what forms of safeguard does your Lordships' House possess? In theory we have the same powers as are enjoyed by the House of Commons, for the Parliament Acts in no way curtail the powers of the House of Lords over delegated legislation. Therefore, these powers are open to us to use in the national interest if we conclude that we should use them.
However, it is said that there is a well-established convention which has been developed which effectively precludes your Lordships' House from using its theoretical veto over either affirmative or negative instruments. Even as recently as 14th May 1984 the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, who takes a great interest in these matters and who had expressed deep disquiet over the powers taken by the Government in Part II of the Rates Act 1984, put down a Question for Written Answer to which the Leader of the House replied, at col. 1268:
"There is a well established convention that the House of Lords does not vote against the Second Reading of a mandated Government Bill. Since the House has always exercised restraint in the use of its powers in relation to subordinate legislation, it might be regarded as inconsistent with this convention if the House were to reject an affirmative instrument to implement Part II of the Rates Bill, for which the Government have a specific electoral mandate.".
Yet only six days earlier, on 8th May 1984, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said this in relation to the very same piece of legislation, at col. 819:
662
"Of course, some subordinate legislation is of greater importance. For that we have the procedure of affirmative orders so that the proper scrutiny necessary can be given to legislation at the appropriate time.
"Need I say again that an order under Clause 9 must be approved separately by both Houses of Parliament, and that I feel that that is a great safeguard?"
Therefore, what is the position? If there is a binding convention that, come what may, this House does not vote against the approval of an affirmative order or to annul a negative order, there is no great safeguard at all. It is a mere sham! Nor does the procedure on affirmative orders afford the proper scrutiny necessary to be given to legislation at the appropriate time.
We have no power to amend and in practice we do not exercise our power to vote against. All we do in practice if disturbed by a piece of delegated legislation is to create a fuss in the hope that something can be done and will be done behind the scenes. For example, in 1983 the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, my Leader, tabled a Motion declining to approve the highly unsatisfactory equal pay regulations. So taken aback were the Government that they withdrew the order before the Order Paper could be printed with the damning words on it. It was then reintroduced in a not much changed form and this House passed it with a rider to the Motion to approve which took the Government to task for not complying with the spirit of the Equal Pay Directive, which rider was passed by, I think, about 40 votes. But the whole matter is unsatisfactory.
In debate on Part II of the Rates Bill, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, with his great wealth of experience, tried to bring about a compromise on Clause 9 which would enable this House through a procedure to consider various forms of a draft order which could be amended without going to the formal presentation of the formal order. This was I think turned down, too.
On these Benches we would conclude that, with the insidious increase in the way Parliament is now being by-passed by the device of providing (for what should be primary legislation) ends to be achieved by means of statutory instruments, surely the time has come to reconsider our practice in relation to the control and the review of statutory instruments.
We would add that the Joint Select Committee procedure is perfectly adequate to provide the technical scrutiny to ensure that the instrument does no more than is authorised by the parent Act, and that it does so only in the manner and subject to the conditions authorised in that Act. But it does not begin to repair the damage done to our system of parliamentary control of legislation by the change in the nature and quality of the delegated powers given to Ministers in recent Acts and proposed in current Bills.
The problem that this House faces will be highlighted in the next few months by the various provisions of the Local Government Bill and other Bills. In the former, a hurried and ill-prepared Bill is to be held together with vast and unprecedented enabling powers. Whatever your Lordships' views on the basic merits of the proposals in the Bill to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan authorities, this House will surely not find this method of proceeding satisfactory.

663
It is my view that any justification of the so-called convention of your Lordships' House not using its actual powers on statutory instruments is no longer valid. It is said to depend basically on the anxiety of the Labour Party that when in power it should not have its secondary legislation thwarted by a mischievous majority of Tory Peers in this House. That majority is not so obvious as it was! The Cross-Benchers, the Alliance parties, the Lords Spiritual, and Back-Benches of all parties, should not I believe consider themselves bound by a former cosy arrangement between the Conservative and Labour Front Benches entered into in a particular circumstance that obtained at the time.
Either the Government should amend, or attempt to amend, the Parliament Act 1949 to take away the unfettered powers of this House over secondary legislation or they should not be allowed to get away with bringing in major changes in the law of the land by the expedient of statutory instruments. The intense disquiet that has been expressed in this House in recent times by many noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, to mention but two, on certain provisions—not only on the Rates Bill but on the London Regional Transport Bill and other Bills—should make us all think about this matter.
Surely, the observation of one convention so often depends on the equal observation of another. The Government, for their part are radically changing the convention of the type and quality of power which can be reserved for secondary legislation. We in this House must be equally prepared to change radically our convention to meet this new challenge.
3.55 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I join in the gratitude expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for introducing this interesting topic. As the years pass he seems to me to become more and more eloquent, which is a very encouraging factor for some of us who have also entered later years.
In the time permitted, I shall not become involved in the question of powers. I shall deal entirely with the composition of the House. I should like to say one word of sympathy and respect for the noble Lord, Lord Alport. He seems to have found the Conservative Party in one of its less liberal phases. Fifty years ago I resigned from the Carlton Club. I remember going to see the chairman, as he then was, Lord Clanwilliam. No-one could be more genial than he was: "Have a glass of port" and all that sort of thing. He asked me what the trouble was and treated the matter as a medical complaint. I said that I had written a book which I thought might cause anxiety in some Conservative circles. He said, "My dear boy, if all the members of this Club who had written damned silly books resigned, there would not be a member left!" That was the old Conservative Party of half a century ago. It is not for me to say; it is for the present leaders to inform us whether they think there has been any progress since.
I turn to the composition of the House. This is a very peculiar place. I want to say in advance that I take for
664
granted that we ought to have a second Chamber, so I shall not bother with that. In the second Chambers of the world we find elected members, we find appointed members and we find conbinations. Although some years ago there was some reference to the Nigerian chiefs—I do not know what has happened there—we can take it that this is the only place where there is a large, and indeed a predominant, hereditary element. That is a fact about the House which we all love so much.
The figures that have been supplied show that nearly two-thirds of the Members are hereditary, so despite all these changes that is what we are—predominantly a hereditary Chamber. We have to ask ourselves whether that can be justified. Can anybody justify the hereditary principle applied to a Chamber of Parliament in these democratic days? Is it in any way consistent with democratic principles?
I can think of only one argument, a quite fundamental argument, that could be used in favour of the hereditary principle. It can be said that when one family acquires the right to come here that should be handed on in the same way as one's property is handed on; and that it would be as contrary to natural justice to eliminate the noble Duke the Duke of Devonshire from the House of Lords as it would be to take over Chatsworth, with or without compensation. That is one point with which I dare say many agree.
If one walks along the corridor one will see two pictures of the same event. In 1893, the House of Lords were defeating by 419 votes to 41-a staggering vote when one comes to think of what the composition of the Chamber was; it was in fact half its present size—a Bill which had been passed in the House of Commons. It was a terrific vote. I am sure that those gentlemen included (I say it without surprise) a grandfather in my family—my mother's father. Noble Lords of that time would undoubtedly have felt that what I have said is true; that Peers have acquired a place here and are entitled to come here. If one leaves out that argument, it is very hard to see any argument that would justify a large hereditary—and certainly a predominantly hereditary—element. That is the principle of it.
One then comes to the practice. Am I saying that the hereditary element should be eliminated immediately, tomorrow? I am not saying that, for two connected reasons. On the one hand, as some kind of Christian (or, at any rate, from whatever point of view, because it is not a theological argument), and as some kind of moderate Christian Socialist, I believe in some principle of continuity of the state.
For example, I cannot believe that if this Chamber were to be abolished tomorrow and its discussions moved across the river, or wherever, we would possess any prestige for many years to come. In fact, perhaps we would never possess any prestige—and as I believe that this House has a beneficent influence, one would be destroying something of much value. So I am not saying that there should be any revolutionary change.
I am bound to say—although this I qualify—that I believe it is highly desirable that any large constitutional change should be carried out with the

665
consent of all the parties. I say I qualify that, because if that principle were to apply, then the House of Lords would still be where it was in 1893, and the House of Commons where it was before 1832. So one cannot apply that principle absolutely, but it is a desirable principle to bring about fundamental change by agreement. if it can be done.
So we come to the plan that was accepted by the leaders of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties in 1967 and 1968. The principle of that plan was accepted in both Houses of Parliament. To cut a long story short (in case my time runs out before I develop my case at length) it was the best and only available solution. In case people do not remember, I should say that it was based on the idea that one had two writs. One kind of writ would enable a Peer both to speak and vote in this House. That type of writ would accrue to anybody who had been awarded a Peerage—
Lord Shackleton: And he would get paid, too, my Lords. The second category of Peer would not.
The Earl of Longford: Well, my Lords, that is a point of detail, and it is not one in which I shall get involved; I shall not get involved with the question of being paid. I am dealing entirely with the principle. The principle was that those awarded a Peerage would be permitted both to speak and vote in this House, whereas those who had only inherited a Peerage would be allowed to attend and to speak, but not to vote.
That plan was originally unfolded to me at great length on Rye golf course, which I am sure is very well known to the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw. It was explained to me by the late Commander Burrows, who was a high official of this House for many years. At the crucial moment, when I was about to miss a putt, he would suddenly lean across to me and ask, "You do believe in the two-writ plan, don't you?". He was fanatically in favour of that proposal.
When the time came, I suggested that plan. It was adopted, and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, worked harder than anybody else to ensure the propagation of that plan, although the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and Mr. Crossman in another place, and also the late Lord Byers, made notable contributions in that respect. That plan was agreed, and nothing else has been agreed or is likely to be agreed for many years. But it was sabotaged by some no doubt sincere but rather misguided young people—extremists in the House of Commons on both the Left and the Right. The plan was sabotaged there, but it was an agreed plan. I submit to the House in the few minutes available to me that there is no sign of anybody improving upon that plan, and therefore it is the best plan to cherish and eventually make law.
In the 40 years I have been in this House—and there are other Peers, such as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who have been here longer—it has changed in many respects. There has been an enormous increase in numbers and in the attendance; and the pay was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. But in its essentials it has remained the same—in its courtesy, its tolerance, its kindness, and in all its other qualities. Those have not been altered. Also, the introduction of Lady Peers—as exemplified by the noble Baroness,
666
Lady Trumpington—has enabled the high standards of this House to become still higher. That is a great advance. When one remembers that for 40 years after the House of Commons this House would not even receive women, it can be seen how difficult it is to bring about change in this House.
However, in one respect this House remains a nonsense. Its huge hereditary predominance, with its built-in Conservative majority, is indefensible. However much that figure may be juggled with, the fact remains that there are, I understand, 480 Conservative Peers and only 136 Labour Peers. No self-respecting Labour Leader could ever accept that situation—whether he was Mr. Kinnock, Mr. Foot, Mr. Gaitskell or Mr. Attlee. That situation is quite unacceptable. In time, I hope that this House will be reformed in a way that everyone can agree with. In that respect I can only suggest that the plan of 1968 is by far the best plan available.
Lord Taylor: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down—
Lord Denham: Order! This is a Short Debate, my Lords.
Lord Taylor: I am sorry, my Lords, but may I ask the noble Earl one question? Does he not believe in genetics as a basis of the value of deoxyribonucleic acid?
Lord Denham: Order!
4.7 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, if the noble Earl does not intend to reply, may I join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for providing an opportunity to discuss this far-reaching topic and say once again what a privilege it is to be able to follow the noble Earl, Lord Longford. Indeed, from my point of view, it is a certain relief—although I am not without some apprehension, as there is always the chance that he might intervene to hurl at me verbal abuse in the way he has done before now. The noble Earl is difficult to follow, even so, with his erudition and wit.
Unlike the noble Earl, I am a failed Socialist. It was an aspiration that I harboured in my youth, but I came to realise that I just was not up to it, and now I have to face the fact that I am too old. Having said that, in my youth I had reservations about the position of your Lordships' House because I felt it was undemocratic. I still feel it is undemocratic—but the difference is that whereas I thought at that time it was a disadvantage, I now regard it as being an advantage. This is for the principal reason that noble Lords do not have constituents whom they have to look out for over their shoulder.
Perhaps I am right in saying (I am open to correction) that I am the only Member of your Lordships' House who has parliamentary constituents. But I do not let them worry me. I say what I like, and they can approve or disapprove. Indeed, I have a sneaking suspicion that the electorate think I am mad and vote for me purely out of curiosity, just to see what is going to happen next. Perhaps I am conceited in so saying, but I find that constituents are surprisingly fair.

667
On several occasions, my constituents have said to me, "I am not alone in taking exception to what you said last week, but for all that, I respect you for having said it because we know that you speak your mind rather than say what you reckon people want to hear". I find that encouraging. But then, in Northern Ireland, we have the advantage of proportional representation on the single transferable vote system. After 11 years' experience of that, I sincerely commend it to your Lordships' House.
There were reservations at the start in Northern Ireland. It was said that the electorate would not understand it, that it would not work, and that the electorate would become confused. In the event, it has worked perfectly well, and my party, being the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland, would not have 10 seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly were it not for proportional representation. Our 10 seats often enable us to hold the balance of power. I consider it regrettable that the Liberal Party does not find itself in a position to translate its substantial number of votes throughout the country into seats in another place. I therefore consider it would be an advantage in Great Britain if the single transferable vote were to be introduced.
Having said that, I can well understand that a Member in another place in a marginal constituency is in a delicate position—and not only Members in marginal constituencies but also those with strong majorities. To take an example at random, the Conservative Member for a safe seat could well find himself being ditched by the retired colonels of Cheltenham if he were to allow freedom of thought to find uninhibited expression. Therefore, there is not the same latitude in another place to say what one really thinks as there is in your Lordships' House.
Moreover—and I have said this before—we have a wealth of expertise in all fields which is not always found in an elected Chamber. Therefore, I consider the lack of democracy to be an advantage and a strength, coupled with the strength of the Cross-Benches and the Alliance, because it means that Her Majesty's Government are not so easily able to bulldoze here as they can with a three-line whip in another place. I think that that is of tremendous value.
Having come round to that point of view, I still find it difficult to justify the logic of hereditary Peers. However, I was given cause to think again when I had an interview with a prominent journalist of international repute who was gathering material to write a book on the peerage. I am not sure whether it has yet been published. I said to him that I could not justify hereditary peerages. He said that he had not been able to, either, but the more he looked into it the more justification he found. First, he said, if one were to abolish hereditary Peers—and I mean no disrespect; these are his words, not mine—one would overnight just about double the age of the memberhip in the Upper House because (again his words, not mine) hereditary peerages are a natural sequnce whereas life peerages are all too often long service or good conduct awards, or a convenient means of getting rid of a troublesome politician from the other place. That is uncharitable, perhaps, but that is what he said, and it caused me to think again.
668
He made the further point: how better could one do it? After all, our monarchy has been run on the hereditary principle for centuries, and, by and large. it has worked out all right—touch wood! Therefore, it is difficult to suggest a better alternative. That made me think. Therefore, I support the status quo in your Lordships' House, with the combination of the vast experience and expertise of the Life Peers, coupled with the stimulus of the lively minds of the heriditary Peers—the young, lively minds, such as that of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and myself, which provide a good balance. The main point is that there is no incentive to speak in your Lordships' House unless one has something to say. One is not trying to get headlines in the local press for the benefit of the constituents, myself excluded.
Noble Lords may ask why I am speaking today. The answer is that I have been disturbed by some of the reported suggestions that this House should be reformed. Suggestions have come from quarters from which I would not have expected them. I find that disturbing. Therefore, I have risen to add my feeble voice to those who say. "Let us not disturb what is a well-established, well-proven institution" Without it I believe our British democracy would not be the same.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, the noble Lord can well regard himself as an admirable justification of the hereditary principle. The fact that he is a failed Socialist is a matter for some sorrow, although no doubt his father who once rebuked me for lighting a cigarette while the port was passing might have been happy that he has failed. Nonetheless, I thank the noble Lord for an admirable speech, with nearly all of which I agree.
In particular, I should like to pick up what I can only describe as the admirable speech of my former Leader, my noble friend Lord Longford. If there is one Member of your Lordships' House who contributed most to, alas our abortive attempt at reform, it was my noble friend Lord Longford. I remember saying to him that it was an absolute waste of time but he managed to convert me. We nearly brought it off. It was, in fact, the creation by the noble Earl, Lord Stockton of Life Peers—I was one of the first Macmillan Life Peers—that produced the great reform and indeed created the formula which we had hoped would apply during the reform of 1967–68. We were, of course, defeated by a filibuster on the part of Mr. Enoch Powell, who did not want the House of Lords to be altered, and Mr. Michael Foot, who wished to abolish the House of Lords, together with a certain amount of weakness on the part of the Government. I shall not go over the story beyond saying that I believe, like my noble friend Lord Longford, that that report and set of proposals was the most workable solution.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, who was in another place, that in those proposals we dealt with this difficult question of subordinate legislation, and I can give him the reference; it is on page 22 of the White Paper published in 1968.
I make only one further comment on the subject of hereditary Peers. The analogy with the Dukes of Devonshire and Chatsworth is a little unfortunate and does not give credit to the ingenuity of the Devonshire

669
family when an early death put the whole affair at risk. They deserve some credit for their achievement. The Government very nearly came to confiscating Chatsworth. The best argument in favour of hereditary Peers came from the noble Lord, Lord Denham, who was then a Back-Bencher. He asked that I should not misquote him, but I have not been able to check. He said that the argument in favour of hereditary Peers is that one gets ordinary blokes into Parliament. I am very grateful that we have the noble Lord, Lord Denham, but I would never call him an ordinary bloke. His power and his tact are well known in your Lordships' House. They contribute to the excellent communications that exist and make this House work where other Houses could not do so.
I mention that because I have some criticisms which, I am sorry to say, are directed at the Leader of the House. We are all devoted to the noble Viscount. He is one of the nicest, most intelligent, wisest and friendliest of men, but he really should not allow the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, to rise and say, "May I suggest". The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, recently raised the issue of a Member of your Lordships' House asking a Question, saying, "Do the Government agree". I had some difficult people to handle in the past, but I shall not mention their names. I beg the noble Viscount, perhaps in co-operation with others, to deal with this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, may have to share some blame. The degree to which noble Lords are abusing their freedom in this House is getting out of hand.
The situation is much worse than in the days when there was only a very small attendance. We now sit for 178 days in a year, as opposed to 101. The number of late sittings after 10 p.m. is 93, as opposed to two. The figures are formidable. We are overcrowded, and we must have a degree of self-discipline and firm leadership, if I may say so. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, has left the Chamber. I am not sure whether she would not be better at disciplining the House than the noble Viscount. I have always thought that she would do so well. I have seen her in action. We need that sort of thing. I put these questions in a kindly and light way, because we are all fond of the noble Viscount, but the way in which the House abuses its freedom really is unsatisfactory. It can survive only if noble Lords exercise discipline and we do not allow questions to go on endlessly, many in an improper form.
I have been a Leader of your Lordships' House, and, like the noble Earl, Lord Longford, am aware of the difficulties of intervening. Today was a bad example. Some noble Lords may have thought that it was deliberate on the part of the Government in order not to have enough time for the last Question. I do not accuse them of that, but that is the danger if we do not stick rigorously to the procedures.
There is still an imbalance in your Lordships' House, but I do not believe that in practice we shall be able to get reform. I also beg for tolerance. I do not know the reasons for the recent withdrawal of a Whip. This is an internal matter and I do not think I can comment on it. But one of the strengths of your Lordships' House is that we have been able to speak freely. On a major issue of Government policy it is certain that the Government of the day and the Whips
670
will insist on party discipline: on other occasions we are free successfully to defeat the Government. There are Members on the other side of the House—and I can see some in the Chamber now—on whom one can rely to listen to our arguments, as I would listen to theirs, and we put our views freely.
Nonetheless, it would be sad if we became as disciplined as they have to be in another place. I do not expect the Government necessarily to comment on the expulsion. But I remember when the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was Leader of the Opposition, or Leader of the House—I cannot remember which—he used to come to me to beg me to take people from his'side and have them on mine. I said that I was perfectly prepared to arrange a swap if that was what he wanted. It is one of the advantages of your Lordships' House that we can introduce a degree of freedom of expression. We do not get too much publicity, but in certain areas your Lordships now enjoy a reputation, not only in this country, but throughout the world, which is not enjoyed by any other parliamentary chamber.
That is particularly so in our committee work. I refer particularly to the work of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. There are other achievements in other committees. There is no such capacity in any other parliamentary assembly. We have many Fellows of the Royal Society. We debate engineering and we have more engineers than they have in another place. We have this strength, all of which arises from what I call the Macmillan reforms and the introduction of the Life Peerage.
I do not think that we can accommodate many more Peers. We are crowded. I hope that we shall be rather more discreet and that the numbers will not go up any more. When we introduced the 1968 reforms we used the phrase "occasional excellence"—relating to the individuals who are possibly the greatest experts in the country or the world who will take part in some of our discussions and serve on committees. That is why your Lordships have led in a number of subjects, both social and certainly scientific. As the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, will know, the first debate on space took place in your Lordships' House.
We ought not to be ashamed, but we must realise that we shall continue to be open to criticism on the hereditary side. I do not know whether any Member of the Labour Party or of your Lordships' House overall takes seriously the threat that the Labour Party has uttered for years that it will abolish the House, but I believe that to be impossible. The House of Lords has a basic constitutional role. That has been made apparent. We could have an extremist House of Commons, either Right-wing or Left-wing. In those circumstances, unless we move to a written constitution, there is little doubt that it would be able to pass legislation which, as of now, I think, the judges would be bound to uphold. I therefore think that the House of Lords has an important role.
I would urge only that we are more discreet in our discussions; that we take less advantage at Question Time; and that the noble Viscount will have a good talk with his noble friend Lady Trumpington on how to keep the House in order.
4.25 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, if I state my conclusions and then recite as many of my reasons for reaching them as I can, the guillotine can come down in the middle of a sentence without your Lordships losing anything that matters. The portrait that I have of this House in the future—and it is a portrait and not a photograph with fuzzy edges—is that of a non-ideological life senate of the professional classes, with an increasingly characteristic Cross-Bench flavour. I penned that phrase before I heard what the noble Lord. Lord Houghton of Sowerby, was going to say, but it appears that he and I are reaching very much the same conclusion.
I think that discharging the hereditary element in our composition is not the most urgent task, nor, if we decided to do it, need it be the most difficult one. But I do not think that we shall reach it. The most important and the most difficult task is to reach agreement with the other place, first, on what we are each here for, and, secondly, on how we ought to discharge our functions as co-operative elements in a partnership rather than as opponents on a battlefield. I do not think that that kind of agreement will be reached in a hurry. Therefore, once more I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that we should carry on as we are for the time being.
I have spoken of the Cross-Bench flavour that I think will increasingly characterise this House. We on these Benches are not a party. We are a group of individuals who are sometimes in agreement with one another and sometimes not. But I think we have a flavour which perhaps derives from a nucleus of those of us who have been civil or public servants, either whole-time or part-time, paid or unpaid—and I think that I have been through all four combinations at one time or another in my life—and who are not really interested in the Conservative Party, the Labour Party or the Alliance, but who think of the Government of the day as the Queen's Government, which must be carried on and whose programme of legislation must be helped rather than hindered, provided that it represents a responsible attempt to discharge the viable portions of the manifesto. That leaves quite open private opinion as to what is a justifiable element in the Government's programme, and that is where we can, of course, disagree with one another. But the broad programme of helping the Government of the day is one that I have always discharged, irrespective of which side happens to be sitting on the Front Bench.
If one accepts that view of the desirability of that attitude, increasingly the recruitment to this future life senate will be from among those who are from the civil and public service, either whole-time or part-time, who have done public work and who are not insensitive to public affairs. That is why I think the Cross-Bench flavour will tend to increase rather than diminish.
Perhaps I may illustrate what I mean from my personal activities connected with the decimalisation of the currency, which occupied 10 years of my working lifetime. I started the job under the premiership of the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time being Mr. Selwyn Lloyd. I continued it under his successor, the
672
noble Lord, Lord Home. There then came an electoral upset. I worked on undisturbed under the premiership of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, and various Chancellors of the Exchequer and finally finished off the job under Mr. Edward Heath. I could not have been the willing workhorse of all those successive Governments if I had been closely identified on the Floor of this House with any one to them.
My original reasons for sitting on these Cross-Benches were not at all political. I thought that, since I was one of the very few working scientists earning his living at the laboratory bench when I inherited a peerage, it would be to the advantage of this House to have me as a non-party member rather than sitting on one of the party Benches.
Now I come to my second reason for reaching these conclusions. This is again very much linked with what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said. It is concerned with two usages of the word "representative" which are not always recognised in use. Certainly a Member of Parliament represents his constituency in the House of Commons. Equally, counsel, learned in the law, represents his client in court and so on. That is one usage of the word "representative". But there is another usage, as when we talk of a sample being representative of the bulk from which it is drawn. I think this is what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, had in mind when he said the elected Chamber is unrepresentative. He was using this word "representative" in its second sense. I would readily agree that in the first sense of the word of course a Member of Parliament represents his constituents, but in the second sense I believe that we may be the more representative body.
I think there may be a reason for it if we look at the laws of heredity as they are established, and not, as we might use them, on an ex-parte basis, to justify conclusions that we have reached in advance. I refer here to Galton's law of heredity, the law of regression, which states that any exceptional ancestor tends to be succeeded by people who are less and less exceptional, until you reach the level of the man in the street. Each one of us in the hereditary Peerage is descended from somebody who was sufficiently exceptional to get here under his own steam, but I think as the line has progressed we have become more and more representative of the man in the street.
In fact, you could have an almost ideal Chamber in which you had constituency representation in the Lower Chamber and proportional representation in the Upper Chamber: or of course you could go out into the street and capture a representative sample and say, "Right, now you are going to be the constituents of the Second Chamber". But that would not work because the last thing the man in the street would want to do, unless he was preconditioned to it, would be to get up and make speeches, join parties and do things like that. The man in the street is not interested in politics. Granted that the capers of anybody who has got himself into trouble are suitable as a topic for conversation in the local, like the weather, a stranded whale, the latest cricket test score, or whatever it may be. But the man in the street is not dedicated to political activities as are honourable Members in the other place.

673
So it seems to me that one of the unconscious effects of the hereditary principle is that we indoctrinate our young into thinking that participation in public life is a normal thing to do, so that when the call comes to them in due course they respond to it. I think that is quite a happy issue of the matter, though I do not attach very much importance to it.
As I have said, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and I have often disagreed on many topics. That has not stopped us being good friends in private, however much we may have disagreed in public. However, I am glad to say that this is one of the occasions on which I can thank the noble Lord for having introduced this subject and given me an opportunity to ventilate my own thoughts about it. I am most happy to find us in so much agreement with one another on this occasion.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I feel I am in rather starry company today in this debate. It was initiated by a former Cabinet Minister and no fewer than four Leaders of the House are taking part. Moreover, there are two former Prime Minsters who are listening to this debate. I wish they had been taking part in it; I should have loved to hear them discussing the theory of the elective dictatorship—a theory that was formulated by the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, and to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hooson, referred today. I have a feeling that those former Prime Ministers would tell us that government was not as easy as that. I think they would also tell us that they were not bound by the manifesto as closely as is supposed. but that the great difficulty is always to adjust the manifesto—which is written in the white heat of political passion before an election—to the current realities.
I feel diffident about taking part in this debate. However, I spent a good deal of time in the last Session digging up the facts and studying the events of that Session in order to make a contribution to a learned quarterly. The events of last Session which excited public opinion were by no means unique. The Government were defeated a score of times—rather more than the dozen which the noble Lord, Lord Denham, has identified as par for the course. Mr. Heath was defeated no fewer than 26 times in the lifetime of his Administration, and Mrs. Thatcher went down 45 times in her first Administration. However, the defeat that the Government suffered on a vital clause in the paving Bill caused a kind of national sensation, coming (as it did) after a vote in the Commons in which 13 Conservatives voted against the Government and at least 11 abstained.
It is almost true, as the noble Lord, Lord Denham, said, that the Government cannot always be certain of commanding a majority even in this House. They cannot command it on every issue, it is true, but when the Government are faced with a vote of confidence—which was the effect of the reasoned amendment to the Second Reading of the paving Bill—they can do it, though narrowly. They won by 20 votes out of 454, which was the third largest vote on record in the history of this House.
The difference between the parties is that a Labour Government are not just occasionally but are always
674
vulnerable in this House. They are always in a minority. Indeed, we are at a remarkable point in the history of this House when the three opposition parties together are not only a good deal smaller than the Government party, but they command a score of votes fewer than those of the Cross-Benchers. With the greatest respect to the Cross-Benchers, who are all most distinguished people, I sometimes wonder whether the balance is quite right. Perhaps the Leaders or the Chief Whips should try to do some recruiting and bring them over to these Benches.
One of the dangers that this House faces is of too high public expectations. I think that the public are in a new and a strange mood. Many of them have developed a distaste for adversarial politics, particularly as practised in another place. They prefer the milder, more consensual style of this House, and some of them are looking to us to perform miracles to soften the harshness of conviction politics practised elsewhere.
They are expecting too much. We must demolish a flattering but dangerous romantic myth that we can play a heroic part in the frustrations of Government. As the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack has written, we do not have in this House the moral and political authority needed to challenge the will of a representative assembly, chosen by universal suffrage. What we can do is to express our distaste for a measure by occasionally qualifying our approval at the Second Reading by a reasoned amendment. We can from time to time ask the other place to look again at clauses which have passed through it with some strain, or which have passed through it perhaps without any consideration at all.
Even so, I think that we have to take care not to overdo it. It is all very well to be robust, but we do not want to be too robust. We do not want to unite the other place against this place. I sometimes ask my young friends, who regard this House as a great reactionary obstacle to progress, how on earth they think that the Labour Government of 1945 carried through their glorious revolution except with the consent of this House. Yet I do think that the Conservatives overdid it between 1975 and 1976 when they defeated the Labour Government 126 times. It was this, I think, that fortified the flickering will of the Labour Party to abolish this House when the opportunity might come. The House last Session followed I think its best traditions. I should be happy if I could believe that when the party opposite is again in opposition it will use its strength with the traditional moderation.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Kagan: My Lords, may I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for not having been here at the beginning of his speech. It was due to the train arriving late from Yorkshire. I am speaking with diffidence, but as one who was not born in this country and has witnessed and observed parliamentary systems of the Weimar Republic and the Soviet Union, may I say that every European who has lived through the trauma of Hitler and the war is conscious that Hitler came to power absolutely constitutionally in a one-chamber parliament?

675
In regard to democracy and heredity, I think there are some myths about Europe. In the Soviet Union heredity, privilege and caste are much stronger than this county has ever seen. If you are a high-level employee of the Soviet Government you are allocated a flat in a house belonging to that grade. It will be in a district of that grade. That person's children will never mix with the children of somebody who is an ordinary artisan, nor will he socially mix with ordinary people. His chances of getting higher education and better jobs are better. So much for a pursuit of egalitarianism, and so much for questioning whether we are so illogical and wrong in retaining the hereditary principle.
If it be true that the Commons is the Mother of Parliaments, perhaps the House of Lords would qualify as the "School" of Parliaments. To be able to disagree without being disagreeable, to be effective without being offensive, to manage to be forceful without being aggressive, and therefore all the more convincing, is an art which many parliaments would envy and most would try to emulate. If this country could give Europe one single most desired, most coveted, Christmas present perhaps it would be a House like the House of Lords for their country, and they would sleep better at night.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not follow him in his particularly interesting reference to what goes on elsewhere and to what they might like to have elsewhere. I am not going to follow him because I want to pursue one particular point that comes out of Lord Houghton's most interesting introduction, which was taken up again by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury—that is the question of the composition of this House in relation to the composition of the other place, both of them in relation to the popular vote as shown; and to see if, upon a consideration of that, there are any conclusions we can draw.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, dealt very clearly with the inevitable anomalies of first-past-the-post voting in an electorate which has more than two serious contenders for an outright majority. He went so far as to say that democracy was falsified at Westminster. Your Lordships may think that I am going to make a party political speech about PR. I am going to try very hard not to, because it has been a wonderfully un-party discussion. On the other hand, one cannot look at the composition of the House of Commons in relation to the popular vote and then at our composition in relation to the popular vote without seeing that there is a very real difference, however it arose. It certainly did not arise through election. I suppose it arose through luck.
If I may give the figures again, your Lordships will see that they are really rather interesting. At the general election the Tories polled 42.8 per cent. and got 397 seats; Labour got 27.6 per cent. and 209 seats; and the Alliance polled 25.4 per cent. and got 23 seats. Thirty-three thousand votes gave a Tory seat; 40,000 votes gave a Labour seat; and 338,000 votes gave an Alliance seat. If you take this House, you will find that the Tory vote of 42.8 per cent. is represented,
676
according to the House Magazine, by 392 Peers—391 now, I suppose—who take the Tory Whip. The Labour vote of 27.6 per cent. is represented by 130 Peers who take the Labour Whip. In regard to the Alliance vote of 25.4 per cent., the House Magazine says there are 77 Peers, but from direct inspection I can say that there are 85 Alliance Peers.
This is not quite what PR would give us, but, if I may say so, it is an enormous distance nearer to it than is the ludicrous position in the Commons. It is extremely significant that there can virtually never be a Government defeat in the other place. whose composition bears no relationship whatever to the popular voting, while here, where our composition bears quite a reasonable relationship to the popular vote, we can, and do, occasionally defeat the Government. I will come back to that point in a minute.
I should like to turn for a moment to the main point of the noble Lord's opening speech, which was inspired by the off-the-cuff comments of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House at the end of the debate on the gracious Speech. I must say that I think the noble Lord who opened was making rather a mountain out of a molehill here. In spite of our composition being much more in accord with the popular vote than that of the other place, we must never forget that we are in fact not an elected body; and the constitutional relationship between us does not depend, and is not meant to depend, on electoral systems, which I think ought to be changed. But I do not think the constitutional relationship ought to be changed. It is designed—correctly, in my opinion—so that the elected body has the last word.
This means that it is only political common sense not to push our luck too far. I do not share the noble Lord's anxieties. Our very existence here is an anomaly, which is what makes it rather fun being here at all. It was 18 years ago, give a week or two, that I was introduced—one of a bunch of Labour creations made not as a reward for work done but in the hope that some work would be done in the future. I think that most of us have done some real work, but between bouts we do regard this place as a most satisfactory substitute for work. Of course, if there was not a regular attendance the place could not function at all. So even when we do not speak or sit on committees for weeks at a time we still feel that turning up at all and listening to other people speak is fulfilling a useful, though sometimes a rather wearisome, duty, and one which I perform regularly and with some satisfaction.
It is fashionable now to talk about infrastructure. I have to confess that I think that the infrastructure here is a good deal too good for what is above it. The place not only runs smoothly; it runs politely and with good manners. Our assistance from Black Rod through all the administrative levels to our splendid and omniscient clerks, our admirable attendants, doorkeepers and policemen, not excluding our restaurants and bars and their charming servers and the tireless cleaning ladies, are not only friendly but actually friends. I feel that our tiny influence in the country hardly does them justice. But we are lucky to be here and to be so served, and we know it. There may be three or four Peers who think that we should not

677
exist at all, but in spite of party pronouncements I do not think that there are more.
To sum up: if the official Opposition of the Labour Party agrees with the Alliance in opposing the Government—and, excluding a few major planks of policy such as defence and Northern Ireland and one or two other matters, we agree on a very large number of issues—and if we can carry some of the 227 Cross-Benchers with us and one or two brave dissidents from the other side, we can defeat the Government. Moreover, when we do so we can feel pretty sure that our combined vote is nearer to the majority feeling in the country than the swollen vote across the way. This is a great responsibility and it must be used with circumspection.
Let me pay tribute to the Leader of the House. I think that I speak for all of us when I say that we can trust him, whatever may be his personal views, to represent the majority views of this House strongly and fairly to his colleagues. I spoke earlier of our tiny influence; perhaps with his help it need not be so tiny.
There is one other point that I should like to make here which is slightly off-line and I think that this is not a bad occasion on which to make it. I refer to the creation of Life Peers. Since the Alliance was formed after the formation of the SDP, 72 Life Peers have been created. There were 33 Tory Peers, 21 Labour Peers, 14 Cross-Bench Peers, four Liberal Peers and none for the SDP. The figures show that the Alliance had four out of 54 party political creations. The figures speak for themselves and I shall not rub them in.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how many Members of the Labour Party he has recruited into the Alliance?
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, not without notice. I shall write to the noble Lord!
4.54 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby for raising a subject which I know is of considerable interest to us all. I know that my noble friend has for some considerable time been concerned about the role of this House and the way in which the Government and the other place react to it. I suspect that it was the few remarks of the noble Viscount in his speech in the debate on the Address which stimulated my noble friend to raise the matter today. I have looked again at the noble Viscount's words on 6th November, at col. 17. They read as follows:
"However, I feel that your Lordships will understand me when I say that the views of this House, if they are pushed too far and too often, could on occasion be resented by the elected Members of another place".
I am bound to admit that I have some sympathy with the noble Viscount, as I am sure does my noble friend Lord Houghton. I can visualise the Cabinet scenario when the noble Viscount as Leader of the House seeks to explain why this House—as his Cabinet colleagues see it—behaves so akwardly from time to time and appears to frustrate their objectives. I can imagine the reactions of the Prime Minister as she contemplates this assortment of noble wets and
678
dissidents. It is a scene from which one tends to avert one's gaze with pity and understanding.
As to our constitutional position here, the law is clear and the conventions are perhaps not so well known. The important moment arrived in 1945 with the election of a Labour Government with an overall majority for the first time, while noble Lords opposite were in the position of being a majority Opposition in this House. They concluded very wisely to adopt the explicit convention of self-restraint which provided a precedent for subsequent years. The late Lord Salisbury uttered the following words which I believe to be very important. He said:
"The Conservative Peers came to the conclusion that where something was in the Labour Party Manifesto we would regard it as approved by the country and we would have Second Reading and amend it in Committee stage. If they produced something that was not in the Manifesto we reserved the right to do what we thought best".
That was the view of Lord Salisbury. This gave rise to the doctrine of the mandate; it conceded the primacy of the elected Chamber, provided that Bills were matters promised in the manifesto.
I must say for the record that I believe strongly in the primacy of the other place. We are a second Chamber and one with some deficiencies, and it is by a clear recognition of these that we can come to terms with our position and think of the future. But we must also not forget the exasperated reaction of Labour Cabinets in similar circumstances; the difference is of course that Labour Cabinets expected nothing better, while Conservative Cabinets feel—to quote scripture—that they have been:
"wounded in the house of [their] friends".
My noble friend however regards the matter as having some constitutional implication, and in the broader sense he is quite right. What is our place in the constitution and are we in fact keeping to the rules? You can of course go further and ask whether we perform a useful and necessary function or whether we should, as some believe, be abolished altogether.
Our place in the constitution is defined first by statute—that is, by the two Parliament Acts—and secondly, by convention. We certainly observe the statutes and so there can be no complaint about that. It is on the conventions which have developed over the years that there could be argument, although personally I believe that we keep to them in spite of quite considerable pressure from the outside to breach them on highly contentious issues. I think that this has been the experience of both sides of the House from time to time.
Any detached observer would I think conclude that the rules written and unwritten have been reasonably well kept over the years. The Prime Minister and the great majority of the Cabinet and Government sit in another place; all major contentious legislation starts in the other place, although we must not forget that increasingly important Bills do commence their journey here. The elected Members sit in the other place and, not least in importance, the other place holds the purse strings—it has the power to withhold supply, as was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
Having said that however let it also be remembered that this House has essential functions to

679
perform, and the experience of the last few years has brought these into focus. I believe that the constitution and the country would be much poorer without this place. Its four main functions were summarised in the Bryce Conference of 1917 and the position has remained the same since then with the addition of the important EEC Committee with its subject subcommittees. Finally, but not least in importance, the need for the consent of this House before the other place can extend its five-year tenure is of primary importance.
My noble friend Lord Houghton is a parliamentarian of long experience and of the highest integrity to whom I always listen with great respect. I had the privilege of sitting with him in Cabinet and of following him as chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party. I know my noble friend's mettle. He said:
"I see no reason at all for lowering our standards of diligence or our integrity to placate those who have the power, but not the will, either to reform themselves or to change the arrangements in your Lordships' House".—[Official Report, 8/11/84; col. 177.]
My noble friend has explained his case more fully today in a moderate and well-argued speech. I noted the advice of my noble friend Lord Shackleton to the noble Viscount and indeed suprisingly to me. There is much in what my noble friend said and we must ponder his remarks as time passes, although things have somewhat changed since he was in office some 10 years ago.
I have always believed in the need for a second Chamber and my own personal view about this House during a comparatively short experience here is that we perform a useful and necessary function, and also that we have not exceeded our powers. We have not voted against Government Bills on Second Reading, although we did put down reasoned amendments on the two most contentious Bills. The Government carried the day, as one would expect, given their strength and their ultimate expectation of support from the majority on the Cross-Benches.
We have sought to carry out our duties as a revising Chamber, and I believe that we have done so effectively. By "we" I do not mean the official Opposition alone; I include the Alliance parties, some Cross-Benchers, many right reverend Prelates, and a few notable and courageous noble Lords from the Conservative Party, like the noble Lord, Lord Alport. The fact is that the official Opposition alone cannot defeat the Government in the Division Lobby. When the Government introduce highly contentious and divisive Bills, they must expect to be opposed. They have been defeated several times in Committee, notably during the Telecommunications Bill and of course the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill on 28th June. In the event, the view of this House was accepted, and rightly so, as public opinion in this country made clear.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, has said, there is the tendency for Governments to be sensitive now and to forget completely their own performances when they were in Opposition. If we look at the 1975–76 Session, we see that the then Conservative Opposition defeated the Labour Government 126 times and killed
680
two Bills—the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Bill and the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill.
I could go into far greater detail, but I mention this merely in order to get matters into some perspective. I am entitled to ask whether we have at any time in the last five and a half years exceeded our powers or breached a convention. If we have, I should like to know when we did so. We are bound within the limits to oppose the Government as strenuously as we can on matters of principle or where we think legislation is badly drafted or unworkable, and we shall continue to do so. I believe that the noble Viscount understands this well enough and he has, if he will allow me to say so, accepted defeat with good grace, even if some of his colleagues have not.
Time does not allow me to deal with reform in this debate, save to say that I believe it is desirable and that an inquiry along the lines of the Bryce Conference or indeed a Royal Commission is well overdue. I much enjoyed the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, and my noble friend Lord Halsbury on the question of reform, and what they said would be of great interest to a Royal Commission when they, as I am sure they would, give evidence to it. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, made important points about the Government's increasing use of delegated legislation, and a book which was published over 50 years ago called The New Despotism swam back into my consciousness once more. The procedure on the treatment of statutory instruments in this House I believe calls for careful reconsideration and could perhaps be looked at if necessary by the Procedure Committee of this House, although one must not overlook the fact that paragraphs 57 and 58 of the 1968 White Paper make clear that the matter is not without its complications.
Pending some sensible reform therefore as my noble friend Lord Houghton has argued, we should now do our utmost to make this House an effective working legislature and, again within our powers, a check on a Government which, unhappily at this time, are out of touch both with reality and with the nation.
5.4 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I have found my time as Leader of your Lordships' House humiliating, humbling, very instructive and indeed extremely enjoyable, and I am prepared to admit all that. This afternoon has been no exception. I had begun to think that what was described by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, quite rightly as a somewhat off-the-cuff remark that I made before really was unwise. I still think that it was actually unwise and am prepared to admit it; but I am now rather pleased that I made it, even if it was unwise because it enabled the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, to initiate this excellent debate today and enabled some noble Lords to educate me further.
First, it is fair to start by replying to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, about the use of powers, because that was the main point of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. He wishes to leave the composition alone, and I shall return to that matter when I refer to the speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the

681
noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. As to the use of the powers, perhaps in that short speech on the humble Address I did myself less than justice because I think that one should judge someone more by what he does than by what he says. My unwise remarks were certainly no reflection on what I had actually done and tried to do as Leader of your Lordships' House. After all, in the last Session during the proceedings on the Telecommunications Bill your Lordships demanded that legislation should be introduced to regulate the interception of communications. Such legislation will be introduced in this Session of Parliament. That was something which your Lordships achieved.
Then of course the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, referred to the concessions on the Housing Bill in the rural areas and the services for the disabled and the elderly. There was also parliamentary approval for licences for telecommunications operations. Several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, have referred to the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill. The House defeated the Government—I hope that I interpreted the views of this House correctly to my colleagues—and as a result amendments were introduced into the Bill which removed the provision for nominated joint hoards in the period preceding abolition of the GLC and metropolitan county councils.
On the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill the House made amendments regulating the admissibility of improperly obtained evidence and making racially discriminatory behaviour a police disciplinary offence. I think that perhaps my remarks arose from the last of those battles which occurred shortly before we came to that debate, and it was perhaps on that that I made some comments which I hoped would be picked up by others rather than by my immediate audience—a very unwise thing to do! I rather hoped that those words might be picked up in another place by those who were expressing their views on my general behaviour in very forceful terms to some of my colleagues. I am well prepared to take that and well prepared to understand it, but possibly I expressed those remarks in a moment of frustration, and perhaps that was unwise.
However, from what has happened since I have been Leader of this House, I think I can show that I believe this House has the duty to make the Government think again. Since this Government came to power I think I can say that that has been the case, because many amendments have been made which arose from discussion and debate and then from my discussion with my colleagues. All that has happened. That should be our job, and frankly I cannot disagree at all with what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said. The noble Lord referred to the fact that this House was not Mrs. Thatcher's poodle. Alas! in a moment of great frustration I said to my colleagues, "You really must understand that their Lordships are not anybody's poodles". So I have already used that phrase myself. It was justified too! Therefore, there is nothing between us.
The same point arises in connection with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said. He made the point about thinking again being very effective and very important when we considered the Housing Bill. I am very grateful to him because we
682
had some discussions at that time, and in an unguarded moment before the concessions were made I said that frankly I thought he was right and that the Government line which I was studiously supporting was wrong. Subsequently his view prevailed, and I am very glad that it did. Again, that was an important change.
I want to turn to a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, because it is important. It also arises from what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, said about conventions. The conventions are there. They have grown up with time, as I have learned. They are but conventions and it would be possible for this House to change them if it wished to do so, but before it changes them it has to think carefully whether it would be wise to change some of them.
I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, feels that legislation by statutory instrument is being practised too much by this Government and perhaps by previous governments as well. It is a growing trend. If he concludes from that that it would be right to abandon the convention of this House not voting against statutory instruments, then I hope he will appreciate what that will mean. The power belongs to your Lordships to defeat a statutory instrument outright. It was done, but the convention has since been observed.
That runs straight against any question of thinking again. That is not the action of a Chamber asking another House to think again. It is telling the other House, though they may have passed it, that that is the end of the story. That would be a great change. It might be right, and your Lordships have it in your power to decide that it is, but I do not think that it sits easily with Lord Houghton's point about asking the other House to think again, because so far as the statutory instrument is concerned that is not available if the power to defeat the statutory instrument is used on the spot. I hope that will be considered if it is thought that a change should be made. Personally I think it could land us in great difficulty if we went down that road. I should like the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, to think carefully for a moment about where that might lead us in the end.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, would the noble Viscount give way? He is being very helpful. In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has said, I wonder whether the Government would consider a short Bill merely following out the recommendation in 1968 that a statutory instrument—I shall not go into the details at this time—if rejected in this House would then go back to the Commons, and if passed again in the Commons we would let it go. In other words, it would give the opportunity for another House to think again, which at the moment they do not have. This would he a relatively small measure.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, of course I shall pay attention to what the noble Lord. Lord Shackleton, has said, and I shall consider it with my colleagues. The pressure on legislative time is very considerable, but if that were felt in this House, and I could get my colleagues' agreement, and it could be done quickly and sensibly, it might be a way out of the problem. I hope the noble Lord will agree with me that I have

683
described correctly the problem as it stands today, and I hope we might consider it against that background.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, discussed composition, as did the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. They regretted the failure of the proposed plan. Alas, I have to admit that at the time when that plan came before another place I was Chief Whip of the Opposition. My standing with my noble friend Lord Carrington fell then—and I think never quite to rise to the same level again—because he said it was my weakness as the Opposition Chief Whip which had allowed the Opposition not fully to support the Government,
There are quite a number of noble Lords now in this House, some in prominent positions, who were unable to follow the Whip that I issued on that occasion in order to try to get those proposals through. I tried, but I have to admit that we were defeated by a powerful combination, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, will know. The last leader of his own party and Mr. Enoch Powell together are powerful debaters. When opposed to something specific they are very good indeed in opposition, and they were exceptionally good in opposition to that proposal, as anyone in the other place at that time knows.
I have to say once more to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that I am sorry. I did not play a very honourable part—I think it was honourable, it was not very clever.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the difficulties on the Opposition side were nothing to the difficulties of the unfortunate Attorney General who was trying to get it through on the Government side.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, we all had our part to play in that particular failure. The noble Lord. Lord Dunleath. said that he was the only Member of your Lordships' House who had a parliamentary constituency. That is not strictly correct. My noble friends Lord O'Hagan, Lord Bethell, and Lady Elles, all of course have parliamentary constituencies in that they are members of the European Parliament. I do not know under what category he would regard my arrival here—whether as a troublesome politician in another place. I do not think it can be quite so. If it had been so I suppose that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister would not actually have kept me in her Cabinet on that basis, so there must have been some other purpose for which she decided to send me here.
I note that the noble Lord says that he is too old now to become a Socialist. Obviously I am always glad to hear good reasons for not becoming a Socialist, and that perhaps is as good a one as any other. The noble Lord. Lord Shackleton, took me to task about Questions. I was grateful to him in one way because he taught me something. I shall certainly do my best; but I have regarded my position—perhaps too much—as trying to interpret the wishes of the House, and trying to move at the speed that the House wanted and not to impose on it too much.
Perhaps I ought to have imposed my will somewhat more; but if I am to do so I must say to noble Lords that I shall need the help and support of noble Lords, and as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has said, noble
684
Lords on the Opposition Front Bench and noble Lords on the Front Benches of the other parties. As the noble Lord, Lord Shackelton, stated, no doubt my noble friend Lady Trumpington would make a far better job of it than I would. I do not doubt that. On the other hand, I do not doubt her capacity for almost anything. But so far as that is concerned, I think she would need the support of the House just as I would.
It is difficult, as I have discovered—and the noble Lord will have known this too when he was Leader—because when you are the Leader of the House and the leader of the Government party as well, something you must not do is try to stop Questions simply because you realise at the time that your noble friends on the Front Bench are having a very difficult time with the House. If you use that moment to stop the Questions you would be rightly thought to be using a very partisan position, and I would be anxious not to do that.
Against that background I shall certainly consider what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, and I shall see how I get on. If I get thoroughly ticked off in the process I shall at least be able to blame the noble Lord—and I most certainly will! Not that that will help me very much when it comes to the moment; but I see the point.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, discussed the question of the change in composition, as other noble Lords have done. As my noble friend Lord Stockton is here today, I should like to say that I do not think that anyone in this House will doubt that the introduction of Life Peers has made the most remarkable change to this House. and without the introduction of Life Peers I doubt whether this House could possibly perform the role that it is performing today. That is an indication of the wisdom of that particular measure.
It also produced of course the ladies. Now we are on the move the whole time. I do not know whether your Lordships realised this afternoon that we not only have the ladies but we actually voted away one of the gentlemen's "loos" for the ladies. That you did in approving the offices' committee report this afternoon. You may not have known it, but you did it. Therefore, we are changing all the time in these ways.
The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, hoped that in the future a Conservative Opposition would use its strength with moderation. As I hope to see the Conservatives not in opposition for the rest of my lifetime I do not expect to be in a position to exercise much influence in that matter. I nevertheless note what he says, and I think that many of the conventions which have grown up have arisen from that particular point of view. If I were to say that possibly those conventions which perhaps help the Government sometimes are right whichever party is in Government or Opposition. I think that may be true.
I was very interested in what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Kagan, about Hitler coming into power constitutionally in a one Chamber system. That is of course a very strong argument for your Lordships' House and for its work. I feel that this afternoon we have had a most interesting debate about your Lordships' House and about its work, and for that we are particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I am very grateful to have been

685
able to share some of my thoughts with the House as a result of his particular initiative, and I should like to thank him and say to the House that I hope they will feel that we have had a useful and successful debate this afternoon.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am more than gratified that I had the good fortune to draw this place in the ballot, and I am much more satisfied than I thought I would be before raising this particular issue. I really was not sure how your Lordships' House would take this subject at this time of the year, and I am very gratified that your Lordships should give such careful attention to it.
There is nothing I can say which would add to the wisdom and the quality of this debate. Moreover, I think it is remarkable how much can come out of a debate in your Lordships' House in two-and-a-half hours. That I think is a model of parliamenatry discussion. The points of view which have been expressed on different sides of the House have added I think to our general appreciation of the position and duites of the House.
I am a comparatively short-term Peer in this House (only 10 years) but I did have 25 years in another place. Out of that long parliamentary experience I have tried to judge the situation as I see the future of our Parliament in a representative democracy and with so many people feeling that in some ways Parliament is not responding as it should.
I am very much obliged to all noble Lords who have spoken. The noble Viscount is so disarming that one can only be thankful that we have such a generous-minded Leader of the House at the present time. What co-operation he requires from us to strengthen his resistance to the Prime Minister will be generously given. I now beg to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, moves the second Motion this afternoon, I think it would be for the convenience of the House if, with the leave of the House, I made a further business Statement. I regret to say that on the printed list of speakers for the debate standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, the name of the noble Lord, Lord Granville of Eye, appeared erroneously when it should have appeared in the list of speakers for the debate we are about to hear standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead.
The consequences of this are two-fold. The first is that the standard for the intermediate speakers in the debate instead of being 12 minutes will, I regret to say, be 11. Secondly, the name of the noble Lord, Lord Granville of Eye, will occupy the position on the list between my noble friend Lord Auckland and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland

Film Policy
5.24 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead Lord Lloyd of Hampstead rose to call attention to the White Paper on Film Policy (Cmnd. 9319); and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the White Paper on policy appeared last July, and this is the first opportunity we have had to consider its proposals and their implications for the future of the film industry. I hope therefore that your Lordships will welcome this chance to explore some of the wider aspects of this important issue.
I should like to begin by quoting very briefly from the White Paper itself. First, I refer to the rather inspirational opening in the first two paragraphs where it is stated that the British film industry has an importance and influence both in our national life and internationally out of all proportion to its size. In the next paragraph it says:
"The year 1983 was one of considerable optimism in the production industry. The signs of renaissance were clear".
Then we turn to the resounding conclusion from which I make a further brief quotation. It is in the concluding paragraph on page 18:
"The film industry can be a matter of great national pride. And through its ability to project the national culture and way of life to a wide audience overseas it can thus enhance a country's international standing. We believe that Britain has already a film industry of which it can be justly proud, and that there is potential for more growth and for greater achievements".
Then we have the last sentences:
"The policies set out in this paper are designed to set free the creative talents and business skills of those involved in the providing of entertainment by way of feature films and to ensure that new talent is encouraged to come forward. They are policies of freedom and challenge. We are sure that the challenge will be successfully taken up."
When one turns to the contents of this White Paper, one is perhaps entitled to expect great boons conferred upon the film industry to warrant such euphoria. I am quite aware that very long consultations took place before the White Paper was issued, but, in substance, most of the advice tendered from leading personalities in the film industry was rejected, as indeed were most to the recommendations of the House of Commons Select Committee on the Arts.
The solutions put forward by this White Paper have been substantially condemned by virtually all sides of the industry, as is exemplified by a rather remarkable expression of view on behalf of practically all the leading associations connected with the film industry which was published only yesterday or the day before, and which represents a dramatic picture of the impact that these proposals have had. Of course from these associations I except the exhibitors, who have been understandably exhilarated by the abolition of the Eady levy.
When one looks at the recommendations of the White Paper one finds that they are largely negative. Perhaps I may take up part of my time by going through some of the main recommendations. First of all, we have the abolition of Eady. If I may say so, I am delighted to see that Lord Wilson of Rievaulx is in his place for this debate, as it was to his ingenious mind that we owed the Eady levy, which served the industry

687
so well for so many years. I think it is universally recognised now—and he, I know, recognises it too—that it has outlived its usefulness. The real gravamen of this point is: what have the Government put in its place? The answer is what they describe as "outline arrangements" with certain film, television and video interests whereby they are to put up between them £1.1 million for three years. We now know, of course, that the interests in question are: Rank Thorn-EMI, Channel 4 and the British Videogram Association. The Government will contribute £1½ million a year for five years to that fund. Much play has been made with the fact that thereby the fund available is doubled from what was derived from the Eady money. But this overlooks the hopelessly inadequate base which ultimately resulted from the reduction of Eady over the years.
Secondly, the White Paper totally rejects the idea of a levy on feature films provided for television or for video tape. This is a matter to which I will return, if time permits, in a few moments. The National Film Finance Corporation—which has made such a long and impressive contribution to the film industry, having supported some 750 feature films over the years and at the same time supported an impressive array of new talents in the industry—is to be wound up and is to be replaced by a rather ill-defined company which is generally referred to at the moment as "Son of NFFC", though I have heard it mentioned in rather more uncomplimentary terms.
This body is to be wholly commercially oriented except that there is to be an independent chairman, and apparently there will be one Government nominee on the board. So all trust is placed for this purpose substantially on Rank and Thorn-EMI—I have nothing to say against those bodies. But the fact remains that no safeguards are being given to ensure that this new company will serve the public interest. After all, to whom is it accountable? It appears to have no duty but to serve its own commercial interests.
If new talent is to be fostered, as we are told by the Government it is, what assurance have we that such a body will give us this benefit? At the same time not only do the Government make over this annual sum of £1½ million for five years, but also the portfolio of rights which was vested in the old NFFC apparently becomes a free gift for it to do with what it will—though no doubt with the intention that it shall be used to serve the film industry.
Next we know that capital allowances have been discontinued. It is true that the White Paper refers to certain arrangements to be made in the tax field to assist the industry, but I think the industry is universally of one mind that those are relative sops, such as the application of the Business Expansion Scheme, compared with the considerable tax incentives which derived from the previous arrangement and which the Government had given promises to continue.
Then, if we turn to the cinemas, of course we can understand the relief that cinema exhibitors feel as a result of the abolition of Eady, because, as we know, there has been a catastrophic decline in the admissions to cinemas. Many important areas throughout the country are now totally bereft of cinemas, but we must
688
ask what will the White Paper do about this? It is true that pious hope is expressed that the removal of Eady will encourage refurbishment. But is this enough? If we compare this with what is being done in other countries—for example, in France, where substantial funds are available (£4 million last year) to assist new cinemas, refurbishment and re-equipment and where admissions have increased by six million—we can see that this is small beer.
The BFI production board is to be put off with a final handout of £125,000 and nothing more in future years. I say that with some feeling as an ex-chairman of the BFI who is fully aware of the admirable work that that body, which owes its inception to no less a personage than Sir Michael Balcon, has done in fostering new talent.
Lastly, I want to refer to the National Film and Television School. Here I must disclose my interest as the chairman of that body. It would be churlish of me not to welcome the glowing tributes that have been paid to the school both by Ministers in this House and another place and in the White Paper. But the school has lost a steady income. One-third of its income has gone with the abolition of Eady and in its place, we are told, there is an arrangement with cinemas, Independent Television and the BBC, to provide £600,000 a year for five years. But all this is shrouded in great vagueness.
We do not really know what this agreement is and how it is to be enforced; in what proportions contributions are to be made; what is to happen if suddenly the parties decide not to go on with it; and there is no safety net. Nor is any statutory sanction given to the school such as was contained in the Films Act 1970. We have a situation where the income of the school is somewhat more precarious than it has been in the past and nothing has been done to improve it. To some extent, its status has been diminished, despite the glowing tributes that have been paid.
On the whole, we have what seems to me to be a rather sad and ironic script for a Government claiming to be so concerned with the future of the film industry. The Government have placed virtually their whole faith in commercial investment. The whole history in the United Kingdom and European countries shows how much more is needed. It is a high cost, high risk industry. Of course market forces have a principal role to play in feature films, but one must remember that this is something which involves losses as well as profits. One flop can be enough to make the commercial money dry up. It is no good comparing the position with America, because America has a vast domestic market quite unlike our own market.
Again the Government say that we must free the industry from Government intervention. They see salvation in this course, but what has harmed the industry is not Government intervention. The industry is not going around begging for relief from interference. It is failure of adequate support, as has been found in other countries such as Australia, France and so forth.
As for talent, we have vast quantities of talent in this country. I have referred to the contribution, which is fully recognised, that the film school has made to the deployment of that talent. but opportunities have to be

689
given and that is where there is a need for funds. There is a great danger that indigenous films of quality will be extinguished in the next few years. It is this situation rather than a renaissance that the Government may be presiding over.
I wanted to say a few words about the levy on films for television and video tapes but, keeping my eye as carefully as I can on the clock, if I were to discuss that I should exceed my time. I shall therefore leave that to others who I am sure will have certain observations to make on the need for something of this sort to create adequate funds.
In conclusion, I shall mention a remark of Mr. Trippier, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, on the Second Reading of the Films Bill now before the Commons. He said: "Everyone says that the film industry is special, and in many ways they are right". The Government can be said to have understood many of the problems of the industry in their White Paper. What they show is a lack of imagination in exploring the solutions. That is why we have this rather sad little Bill. It will be a sad day for the country and the Government if their unimaginative approach leads to their presiding over not a renaissance but a steady decline into an industry which is no more than an ancillary service to American blockbusters, and at the same time is simply filling in gaps on television screens which even the massive flow of United States material may be unable totally to accommodate.
Therefore, I conclude by asking the Government to heed the voices from all informed quarters in the industry which have called for more positive action by the Government if we are to have a film industry that is worthy and capable of doing the great things to which the White Paper hopefully looks forward with a degree of euphoria which, if I may say so, I and many others like me find some difficulty in sharing. I beg to move for Papers.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Layton: My Lords, I must ask your Lordships' indulgence for this, my maiden speech. My only claim to expertise in the field covered by the admirable White Paper on the film industry is my considerable experience in other industries in the effects of restrictions, restraints, private cartels and Government restrictions, and particularly in the area of the effects of restraint on prices, fixing of quotas and the like. I must also confess to having a minor connection with another media item—namely, the printing industry—but I think that this is only a relatively small part of the very important field of communications which we are talking about tonight.
The film industry has gone through a terrific number of revolutionary changes over the period of the post-1950s. It has gone through those changes because basically we have had an enormous revolution in technology of all kinds. When I think how much has changed in the period we are looking at, I look back on a few of the major technological changes that one knows about. It is somewhat interesting to realise that the Eady levy was imposed, I think, in 1950, and that that is now 34 years ago. Yet the first passenger jet flight across the Atlantic was in 1959, 25 years ago and therefore that is much more recent. I think that it was
690
at that time that the first commercial use of a computer came in; and in those days the computer had valves. The revolution which has taken place in communications, however, has been very much affected by the introduction of the computer and now much more recently, even only in the past three or four years, the microchip. We are going through a tremendous technological revolution in the communications industry.
We have had the explosive growth of television and on top of that, we have had the invention of the video, and what in fact is extremely important is that whereas in the 1950s recorded pictures were all recorded pictorially by camera, today pictures are frequently recorded on electronic tape. These are all major changes in the position. We are inclined to forget just how many there are and how frequently. Equally, we also forget that this country has an immense talent for invention. Our invention in these technological areas is remarkably high. The really sad thing is the failure that we have had to implement them and to exploit them. Our level of exploitation is appallingly bad and we are beaten to the push time and again. The record of inventions, patents and so on is high; the record of achievement on them is low. And very often this is due to the extension of ancient restrictive practices of one kind or another—some by Government, some by labour relations and some by sheer inability to appreciate how far these new inventions can be implemented.
As I have said, the communications industry is changing rapidly. It is essential, as I see it, that this great communications market be derestricted in every way possible; in other words, that it be made possible for this country not only to keep abreast but to encourage risk capital, so that it can take over the opportunities that it has undoubtedly partially missed up to date. For this reason we have to take off all possible restraints. The White Paper is admirable in its analysis of that part of this great industry concerned with film production and distribution. It reveals a lot of the changes that I have mentioned. I refer not only to the Eady levy when I talk about restraints and restrictions but I also agree entirely with the White Paper for the need for abolishing the licensing system, the quota system and the various other interferences which have been left hanging around, which are an anachronism today and are long due for abolition.
It is interesting to see what the levy in fact has done. When it was introduced the number of cinema attendances was I think 1·3 billion per annum and the levy per head of attendance was a very important and noble contribution to helping develop the industry in films. In the 1960s, television had had its beginning and its impact and the total volume of attendances had fallen to about 300 million. By 1983, attendances were down to 66 million; and it is quite clear that this had made a catastrophic change in the Eady levy and had left the industry with a lot of rigmarole, a lot of bureaucratic requirements, that were totally ineffective in carrying out the objectives that were required. The volume of the income was clearly inadequate and to a large extent was going in the wrong direction, if the White Paper is correct.
The markets changed radically and the market for films has changed in direction. Television has

691
something like 4 billion viewers per annum, if the figures are to be believed. This is an immense growth in watching but a totally different area of effect; in other words, the cinemas which had been penalised by the levy have been helping private development in the film area which is largely marketed elsewhere. I am not sure whether it is better to see the abolition—and I believe this to be right—of all these restrictions and restraints; to cut them out, to dispose of them and to allow the industry to settle down in a much freer situation. I believe that what the Government have suggested in the Bill which is going through Parliament is sensible and related to the White Paper. It allows for financing some of the admirable objectives that were included under the Eady levy. But it does also open the door to a much greater freedom of action within the industry and it places on those who are in the industry much more responsibility by taking the Government hand off the wheel, if I may use that expression.
My own feeling is that it is vitally important, on the other side, that the Government keep their eye on the business and be prepared and not wait another 25 years before moving. But, if it is found necessary because, for example, of problems arising from the excessive pirating of video tapes or other similar actions, then yes, the Government should take action. However, it is very important that there should be at least a period when the film industry has a chance to find its own feet without this Government restraint.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Willis: My Lords, it falls to me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Layton, on a very eloquent and persuasive maiden speech. I do not think he would expect me to accept all his arguments but I hope we shall hear a great deal more of the noble Lord, not necessarily on films but on other subjects.
I should like to begin by saying that we shall be having the Films Bill before your Lordships' House some time in the New Year and therefore I will confine myself to some rather general remarks about the White Paper and the prospects of the Films Bill. I have to start by declaring an interest. I have had 40 years in the film industry as a film writer. In fact in 1944 I made my debut as a writer for films when I wrote a great romantic drama for the War Office, entitled "How to look after your Bren gun". Four years later I attained my first feature film credit with a film called "Holiday Camp". It is interesting to note that a certain Mr. Jeremy Hanley, who is now the honourable Member for Richmond and Barnes, played a very small part in that film. It had to he small because he was only 18 months old at the time. And now, while your Lordships are relaxing during the Recess, I shall be engaged in writing my 31st screenplay—for, contrary to some notions of the public, even noble Lords have to earn a living. The only sadness I feel about this is that I shall be writing the screenplay for a German company.
At any rate, I think I may lay claim to some experience and inside knowledge of what is loosely, and I think sometimes very inaccurately, called the British film industry. Quite often during the last 40 years I have felt as though I were riding on a giant roller-coaster, as the film industry rose for a while full
692
of hope, only to go down in one of its recurring crises. And I ask myself this question: why in all these years has it proved possible for us to develop what is recognised as some of the finest talent in the world—directors, actors, writers and technicians—and yet we have not been able to establish a stable and crisis-free film industry? Why is that?
The answer—one which, to my mind, a lot of people seem to overlook—lies for the most part across the Atlantic in the United States. Let me stress here that I am not anti-American in any sense. I am a fervent admirer of the marvellous entertainment that has come out of Hollywood over the past years: but over those same years the American film moguls have followed a policy of self-interest and protectionism to the highest degree. When the talking picture arrived in the late 1920s, the American producers were shrewd enough to see that the main international threat to their virtual monopoly of the English-speaking market might come from Britain. Clearly, France or Germany, with their different languages, posed no danger; but Britain did. So the United States and the film industry in Hollywood virtually put up a blockade against the British product. while at the same time they flooded our cinemas with their own films.
I can tell your Lordships—indeed some of you may know this—that the Rank Organisation spent a fortune in the early 1950s in an attempt to set up its own distribution organisation in the States and thus get its films into American cinemas. It was frozen out and had eventually to withdraw, licking its financial wounds. If it had not been for a deal with Xerox, the Rank Organisation would have gone broke. Others, notably the noble Lord, Lord Grade, tried it later, with the same result. The Americans just would not allow the distribution.
The truth is that, in film terms, Britain is a virtual colony of the United States. Hollywood producers are happy to exploit, in the best colonial terms, our talent, our resources and our market; but, like all colonisers, they do not want to see a strong local industry develop and they have been successful over the years in preventing the British industry from developing.
I have no doubt whatsoever that much the same thing would have happened in British television if it were not for the fact that there is an agreement between the unions and the producers which limits the use of overseas programmes to 14 per cent. of the material transmitted: otherwise we should have been flooded with American shows on our networks. And I can tell your Lordships that when satellite and cable come, as they will inevitably, unless we have the same kind of restrictive practice—and I hate restrictive practices—we shall be murdered by the Americans. Satellite and cable will be flooded with the American product. I am not saying that the whole American product is bad: do not get me wrong. But what I am saying is that there will be no market there for the British product.
That the British film industry has survived at all is almost entirely due to certain protective measures which were introduced by successive Governments. In particular, we ought to pay tribute here to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, who was responsible for introducing measures which enabled the British film industry to survive in very critical times. We had

693
the Eady Fund—a levy on the price of each cinema seat sold, the proceeds of which went back in the main to the film producers. We had the Quota, which made it obligatory for cinemas to show a certain number of British-made films each year. We had the National Film Finance Corporation, which invested in production; we had the British Film Institute, with its small but valuable production fund; and we had, until the last Budget, certain capital allowances which made film investment more attractive. That was very, very small protection against the vast force of the Hollywood invaders, but those measures did at least give us a base.
Without the Film Finance Corporation, half the British films of the last 20 years would never have seen the light of day. Without capital allowances, firms like Goldcrest, now one of the most successful film and television companies in our country, would probably never have got off the ground. Certainly, new companies are going to find it tremendously difficult to raise the necessary investment finance.
In the new Bill which is now going through the other place, the Government are proposing to follow up the abolition of capital allowances by abolishing most of the other measures which have helped British films to survive; and what they do not propose to abolish they intend to hand over to private hands. I hope, in parenthesis, that your Lordships will notice that I have avoided that barbaric word "privatisation", which does not exist and which should never be used.
I recognise, as do most of my colleagues in the industry, that things have changed. There is much more home viewing; cinema attendances are down dramatically and they continue to decline. All this is a process that we have to recognise. I think it is right, therefore, that the Eady levy should go and I hope that some, at least, of the money saved by the cinema owners will go towards making our cinemas more welcoming and comfortable. There are many reasons for the decline in cinema attendances, and one of them lies in the standards of the cinemas themselves, many of which have all the warmth of an empty warehouse.
But, while I support the abolition of the Eady levy, I do not like the proposal to transfer the NFFC to private hands. The funding is inadequate; the control is uncertain; and the five-year lease of life merely extends that uncertainty. The point I want to make is that the British film industry must have support from the Government. It cannot stand up against the onslaught from Hollywood unless it has that support. The Americans are quite ruthless about this—absolutely ruthless. If they can take over our cable network, our satellites, and anything else, they will do so. I do not blame them. They are in the game of making money and in the game of business. We have to fight back but we have to fight back on very inadequate ground. The Government are cutting that ground away from us. That is why we must have more support.
I hope to be able to come back in more detail when we discuss the new Films Bill. But for the moment I want to content myself with two final thoughts. I am an optimist and I still hope that some more imaginative use could be made of this new legislative opportunity. For example, as the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, has pointed out many times, responsibility for
694
films is at present spread very thinly over no fewer than five Government departments. That is a nonsense. Why cannot we have one Minister in charge and with him a British Film Authority operating like the Arts Council, at arms length, which has been the recommendation of the working party of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson?
The making of films is a unique operation. I beg those noble Lords who are in business not to make any attempt to compare it with ordinary manufacture or to apply the same rules. Such a course will end in failure. If one manufactures a marvellous sausage according to a certain recipe and it sells well, one will go on making that sausage for the next 10 years according to the recipe and it will sell well. But if the producer makes a good film and it sells well, it is a one-off. There is no way he can repeat that success with the same product. He has to start all over again with something new and take an entirely new risk. Believe me, my Lords, it costs more than making a packet of sausages.
The plea I want to make to the Government is to show some imagination and to understand that the film industry needs to receive special treatment and help if it is to survive, and is not to succumb to an onslaught from overseas. It needs the same sort of help—no more—as they give to our great theatres. The film industry is just as important to this country as the National Theatre, the Royal Shakespeare Theatre and all the other theatres. It is worth it for in every good British film that sells overseas there is a hidden bonus to this country.
For example, a few years ago people thought that Australia was a land inhabited by kangaroos and koala hears. The international success of Australian films in recent years has transformed that outlook and brought enormous benefits to that country. Those are hidden benefits; one cannot measure them; one cannot put them on a balance sheet; but they made an enormous difference. That transformation was made possible by generous Government help and imaginative planning.
The British film industry asks not for a lot but only for similar help and imagination. Give us what the Australian Government have given to the Australian film industry and we shall give you something that will excite the whole world. We have the talent, we have the technicians—all we beg of this Government is the opportunity to do the job.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Marley: My Lords, in congratulating my noble friend on this excellent maiden speech I should like to say that I totally agree with almost everything he said and that he has taken the first part of my speech away from me. That is all right—it does not matter—but times, we all agree, must change. The new technology that is coming into the business must be taken into consideration. To emphasise this point, perhaps I may just read a quotation to your Lordships:
"Times have changed a bit since your mum and dad's day, you know. There's electric light now and the telephones and a little invention called moving pictures. Nobody wants to see the Red Peppers for three bob when they can see Garbo for ninepence".
That was written by Noel Coward in 1933 or 1934 and it shows the beginning of the change into the first stage of the film industry.

695
My experience of the industry over 40 years is totally in the past now because I retired about 10 years ago. I will call it the "steam cinema". We had three main aids in those days. We had the quota film, which was abolished, quite rightly, in 1983. When first introduced it was very helpful but very quickly it became disastrous. It enabled, or maybe I should say forced, British film producers to make cheap, quick films. They were known as the "quota quickies". They were made solely to conform with the law and were mostly distributed by the big American organisations to which the noble Lord, Lord Willis, referred. These films tended to be shown at 10 o'clock in the morning when nobody went to the cinema, and at 11 o'clock at night, long after everybody had left.
The Eady Levy and the NFFC helped enormously over the years the small producers with whom I was mostly concerned. Many of the films with which I was associated could not have been made without such help. Once in the 1930s—long before the Eady Levy and the NFFC—money ran out in the middle of the making of a film with which I was connected. Not until the early 1950s did the American producer, when he finally came back to this country having been deported, pay us in full. This film starred Buster Keaton. A very amusing incident occurred when he came on to the set with a large bunch of feathers in his hand. He solemnly gave one to each of the crew saying, "in lieu of your salary".
Film making was an enormous amount of fun and hard work. I am sure that the hard work still exists but I wonder if there is much fun with the microchip.
6.7 p.m.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, I too should like to begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Layton, on his maiden speech, but like the noble Lord, Lord Willis, I find that I am unable to agree with much contained in it. Many noble Lords will already have studied the Government's White Paper, having followed parliamentary debates and various helpful research papers, and will be familiar with the figures which show such a drastic decline in cinema attendance from an average of 1 billion, at the introduction of the voluntary levy, to 900 million in 1957 when it became statutory, thereafter falling steadily until we are faced now with a figure of 66 million. The reasons for this trend are obvious. With the growth of home television, the introduction of colour television, satellite communications, the development of the video industry and the advent of all the new information and communication technology, it was clear that the film industry would suffer and its income threatened and put out of balance.
This vicious circle of decline has not been hepled by the sharp increase in admission prices to cinemas which have risen in the country over the past 10 years by no less than 312 per cent. in contrast with the United States of America where they have risen by only 70 per cent. It is clear that the complex legislation which has built up around the industry would have to be reconsidered in the light of these drastic changes. Many of those involved in this field have been studying the problems and making recommendations over the
696
past 10 years—which seem not to have made much impression on the present Government when they were gathering their evidence for such reconsideration. This turning of the blind eye and the deaf ear, with which we are becoming painfully familiar, is very evident in the Government's relationship with the film industry. Indeed, the indifference of Her Majesty's Government and of the Opposition over a very long period has added to the demoralisation of the immensely talented film artists working in production, performance and technology with which we are blessed in this country.
Wherever we turn, it is as plain as a pikestaff that this industry has been neglected by governments past and present in a most shameful way and that the persistent success of British films over this long period, while acknowledged, can never be attributed to anything but the stunning and dogged endurance and single-mindedness of members of the film-making industry. We are singularly blessed, but do not deserve to be, by gifted artists in film who are second to none.
This immensely popular art form has deeply influenced, and has been influenced by, our British way of living. Much of this—both art form and life—is deeply admired across most cultures, earning an outstanding export income. There is hardly a household in this country which would not acknowledge its debt of enjoyment, enlightenment and comfort to our film artists—whether performers, producers or technicians. If you speak to anyone, my Lords, anywhere, you will find devoted fans. So what do we do? We take away the foundation of those people. This demolition job is something akin to deliberate uprooting—when what was necessary was expert pruning, grafting, and nurturing.
The dangerous duopoly of exhibitors—namely, Thorn-EMI and Rank, while having served the industry well over a long period—are, it might be fair to say, strangling its development by restricting public access to films of artistic merit. There has been much evidence available that many stalwart supporters of the film industry—many gifted people—have despaired of its organisation and have given up in total disillusionment. This stifling of the independent spirit and talent to experiment and initiate new ideas would seem quite contrary to the stated convictions of the present Government. How are we to reassure the industry and those people in it, when we see that the Government's White Paper proposes handing over the public assets of the Eady Levy income to a private sector company—a consortium of Rank, Thorn-EMI, Channel 4 and The British Videogram Association—with a little help from on high?
Is not the fear expressed in every quarter of the industry and by interested parties, and by the Government's Back-Benchers also (let alone both Oppositions), something to contemplate? With American interests built into such a consortium, is not their suspicion quite understandable? It is plain that, as a nation, we are painfully guilty of ignoring the needs of the arts in this country. We have impoverished them and are ourselves impoverished. But by comparison with the subsidy to the BBC, the theatre, opera, and museums, and with the recent reforms connected with public lending rights, the film industry has been woefully underfunded. This is especially so

697
when one considers its potential for earning export income.
In the four years 1980–83, net overseas earnings of United Kingdom film companies averaged £634 million a year. As well as helping the balance of payments, British films are vital for their ability to project and express British culture and values. Over the years, British films have probably achieved more in terms of good will for this country than all the combined efforts of the Foreign Office. In short, British films are excellent ambassadors.
In this highly-talented but high-risk business, what alternatives are there to handing British business over—lock, stock and barrel—to exclusively commercial "free market" interests, albeit helped along for the next few years by public funds and vague "assurances" that what the Government say they want to happen will happen? That is putting risks on top of risks; playing with fire in a dry forest.
We must retain the mechanism of Government—or, rather, national—"intervention" or investment; call it what you will, my Lords. If this precious British asset is to grow securely, we cannot allow one levy to be removed without a supporting stake. Ordinary consumers do not wish to be swamped by the second rate, and nor do they want their young to be exposed to any more violence or soft pornography—which will most certainly come about if we allow market forces to rule the camera totally.
The solution is plain for all to see, and has been so for 10 years. It is pure common sense. The Government themselves are considering the question of recouping losses to producers, artists and musicians which have been suffered through home-taping and through the explosive growth of the retail and rental video sector, and the application of a levy to restore the balance—to be applied to blank video and audio tapes. This in itself will go a long way to help the situation and is long overdue.
The overwhelming case for a levy on films shown on television is plain to most people. Films are purchased very cheaply compared with the cost of in-house productions by TV companies. We all know that films on television are watched by immense audiences—except when they are televised for the twentieth time, as some will be this Christmas, proving how depleted the old film library has become. Television companies owe the film industry a large debt, and now is the time for all good TV companies to come to the service of their country. A 10 per cent. levy from this source would yield about £10 million on current figures, rising considerably when cable and satellite broadcasting finally gets going.
The Association of Independent Producers, British Film Institute, Federation of Film Unions, Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians, and many well-known individual artists and members of the film industry, endorsed this simple solution to the problem of film finance. If we do not act promptly, we shall lose more talents to other countries who know how to treat creative people. Most of our partners in Europe give substantial support to their film industries by either direct subsidy or tax incentives—or both. Once again, we are very backward in coming forward to use our people's God-given talents.
698
My Lords, 1985 has been chosen as Year of the British Film. What better way to celebrate it than by giving our own film industry a future? Please support the independence of this vital and creative force in our national life; a film industry independent of the state, independent of monopoly finance, independent of overseas interference, and independent of crippling financial constraints. It would be a thoroughly liberating forward leap. Let us make it.
6.18 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, 40 years for my noble friend Lord Marley and 40 years for the noble Lord, Lord Willis. I am quite a stripling and have managed only 28 years, mainly scrubbing around on the cutting-room floor. I must congratulate my noble friend Lord Layton on a quite splendid maiden speech. Once again, I agree with pretty well everything he said. In my hook, there has been altogether too much doom and gloom about the state of the British film industry so far. I certainly welcome the White Paper, in that it is basically a de-restrictive paper. There are necessary subsidies. The NFFC is one, albeit privatised, and there is of course the extremely important film subsidy from I TV's Channel 4 which, if not in the Paper. is in evidence.
I welcome the White Paper because it removes a great paraphernalia of Government controls on film; in particular the Eady Levy, which I believe noble Lords on all sides of the House agree is now outdated. There are of course people who ask for new levies. I want to ask a rather basic question: do we actually need a film policy? This question occurred to me the other day when I asked myself whether we need a book policy. Surely we do not need a book policy. It would be wrong for the Government to intervene in literature, other than in respect of VAT—that is a Treasury matter. It would be wrong for us to have a subsidy for a certain type of book given to a printer or an author, and that sort of thing. I wonder whether the same might not apply to films. I know that it will be argued that films and books are totally different and that books cost a lot less than films. It will also be argued that the British film industry is doomed without extra money. No, I think that both those arguments are wrong and that is what I should like to demonstrate.
The British film industry is not doomed. It is alive and it is thriving. The cutting rooms and the dubbing theatres, the transfer suites and the studios of London are humming with activity; as are the film laboratories that make the film stock and those who supply the tapes, the cameras and the lighting equipment. What is in danger is the quality, big budget British feature film. Some people may feel that that is the British film industry, but I do not. I believe that it is a small part of the British film industry. I happen to work in documentaries. That branch of the industry is thriving, as are commercials. So they should be, because we make the best commercials in the world. I believe that we win 10 times as many awards for our commercials as do the Americans.
The greatest growth area of all, which I have only just come across, is what is called the video promo. This is a pop video tape. We are world leaders in this field, which is expanding very fast. Technology is

699
changing all the time, as my noble friend Lord Layton said. Therefore, I see, by and large, a healthy industry. If we take the whole gamut of film, tape, television, everything, the situation looks healthy. The strength of it comes from our excellence. Let us not be too modest about this. We are very good technicians. We are very good writers. It is true that we do not make multimillion pound epics, as do the Americans, and nor should we. However, what we do which is most profitable is service such epics. For instance, in the great "Star Wars" series the highly sophisticated special effects and model work in those films were done by us. Why?—because we do them better than anyone else. Even more dazzling to me were some extraordinary special effects—I do not know whether any other noble Lords saw them—on a recent German series about a U-boat.
With all due respect, I do not know what is wrong with servicing films. It is good work and it is skilful work for our technicians. It earns us millions of dollars, or Deutschemarks. Your Lordships may notice a curious emblem on my tie. It is, in fact, a Dutch cutter suction dredger. I am often paid nowadays in guilders. I do not see anything wrong in that. It is foreign exchange.
The noble Lord, Lord Willis, used the argument, as I thought someone would, about Big Brother America,—the huge disadvantage we have of sharing a common language with the Americans and, of course, that they will beat us at that game because they have a bigger home market. He also mentioned Australia. Australia has the same language problem and a small population. The Australians created huge tax incentives—I believe it was 150 per cent. in some cases. But what happened? It was good, certainly, but bad, too. Initially they made excellent, inexpensive films, one of which was called "Mad Max" and cost £300,000. But then there seemed to be so much money around that the Australians went on to make "Mad Max II" which was a £15 million film that was truly awful. Therefore. I do not think that huge tax incentives necessarily mean a healthy home film industry.
We are a small country, but I believe that we are a good size to support our own industry as long as we do not overreach. I do not think 15 million dollar epics are for us. We should make low budget films which can gross just as much. The most shining example of the brilliant low budget film must remain "Gregory's Girl". Of course we can dream about the big film and now and again it comes off. "Chariots of Fire" is the obvious example. More power to David Puttnam's elbow for that magnificent achievement; although I would point out that some of the backing money was foreign. However, I believe it was a one-off. David Puttnam has now made another brilliant film called "The Killing Fields". It is not as British as "Chariots of Fire" because it is not about the British. It is about an American and a Cambodian fighting the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. It was shot on the island of Phuket. It was Thailand, to a certain point, that serviced that film.
When we say that the British film industry is in trouble what we actually mean are films made with British money, using British actors and technicians,
700
shot in Britain about Britain. Fair enough, we should make those films, but my point is that we should not make those films expensively. "Gregory's Girl" mark II certainly, but "Chariots of Fire" mark II probably not. There is a witty and perceptive new film by Alan Bennett called "A Private Function". This is halfway between two extremes. It thrives on the peculiarly British brand of humour in the North of England. I wish it luck, but I feel that the humour is extraordinarily British and I have slight fears that this film might not export very well. Incidentally, it is the funniest film I have seen in years.
Another film which is difficult from the box office point of view, but equally brilliant is "The Ploughman's Lunch". The problem with that film is there is not one pleasant character in it. There is no ray of sunshine and no sense of humour. It is a brilliant film hut. I think. an elitist film for film specialists such as myself. I enjoyed it. I am sure your Lordships will feel that that sort of film deserves a subsidy. It is, after all, a very talented film. However, one is now coming down to something extremely basic; subsidising the elitist films. That sort of subsidy is all over the place. I listen to Radio 3 and I am subsidised by Radio 1. When I saw "Nicholas Nickleby" I was subsidised by the Arts Council. We who watch elitist television are subsidised by those who watch "Crossroads" or "Blankety-Blank". Let us at least be frank about what we are doing. We are taking money away from working men, or even pensioners, to subsidise elitist entertainment. I know that this is a big argument. I am a beneficiary. It is argued that the proverbial man on the Clapham omnibus should like, say, Matisse or Michael Tippett, and that it is all in a good cause. It is also argued that he is perhaps enjoying them a little more. I just wonder how realistic all this is. It is the subsidy of the excellent. Perhaps I am going wide of the debate and I shall narrow down my arguments, but may I just finish this section by asking: is Euripides really a starter in Brixton?
However, I hope I have so far painted a more realistic picture of the entirety of the British film industry than have other noble Lords. It is dependent on the excellence of its membership. I mentioned also that a film need not cost more than a book, and I shall explain that. The cheapest films made at the moment are the video promos—only a thousand or two pounds each. They are cheap because they are made outside the confines of my union, the ACTT. Whatever my union's merits, it has, I am afraid, certainly kept film costs up. Therefore, the gauntlet I throw down to it is, "Open your gates. Let anyone who makes a film popular enough for the public, and which the public might like, be allowed to show it to them". I do not throw the gauntlet down to my union direct because I have already done so. On 4th December I wrote to the secretary:
"Dear Sir
I wonder if you could tell me our union's position regarding recent legislation, viz: 1. All elections to union executives to be by direct secret ballot. 2. The closed shop to be sanctioned by at least 80 per cent. of the members voting in a secret ballot.
Yours sincerely,
Richard Mersey, Membership No. 21736".
I have not had a reply to that letter. That is why I took the liberty of quoting it here.
I am saying to the ACTT that it has nothing to lose if it stops the closed shop. I would say, "Open your gates to all-corners. You have nothing to fear". The technicians in our union are so experienced, so talented and so artistic that they will continue to dominate the main international market and the newcomers will come to new jobs. They will not take away old jobs. There will perhaps be new jobs in the new outlets, like cable in the future and DBS, but at the moment, of course, mainly in cassette.
I welcome the White Paper, but I must point out that I do not feel that film is a sacred cow, and I am glad that it is to have only a modicum of Government control. The British film industry is active and thriving. The proof of that is in the numbers. When I joined it, comparatively recently in 1958, there were 16,000 of us, and now there are 75,000.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest in that I enjoy the confidence, but not membership, of the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians. I declare that interest as I shall be speaking in this debate with its approval and support. In view of the earlier remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, I think that we may have a useful discussion after the debate on the points that he raised.
I certainly wish to join with others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Layton, on what I consider to have been, by maiden speech standards, an impressive maiden speech. He said a great deal of interest, some of which I agreed with and some of which I did not. I think that is probably par for the course with maiden speeches. Also, like other noble Lords, I am enjoying very much the opportunity which has been given to the House by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, not only to have the debate but to listen to what I consider was a masterly overview of the problems and dilemmas facing the British film industry at this time. I echo many of the solutions which he posed in questions to the Minister who is to reply.
We have been given many of the basic facts and statistics during the debate. I certainly do not intend to repeat them. In my view, time after time, whenever these matters have been discussed in either House, on any occasion and on any aspect, on a careful reading of the situation the Government have failed to allay people's strong feelings that they cannot view the world of the film as other than a business and an industry. Those it most certainly is, but it is also a major cultural dimension. There can be no other country in the world which so diminishes the national imperatives or fails sufficiently to elevate them.
The ACTT's response to the White Paper, besides making much valuable comment, spent a great deal of time in analysing the support given to film industries in many other countries. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, fairly and impressively illustrated the disparity beween the way that Governments in other parts of the world assist their film industries and take on board as a national imperative their right to support them and what we do. I wonder whether the Minister cares to comment on the disparity between
702
the way in which we collectively—I do not talk of governments—view our national imperative to support our film industry and what happens in other countries.
I wonder whether even now the Government have grasped the fragile nature of the prospects for survival of the British film industry. I take heart from the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey. I, of course, accept completely his optimism which is based on his day-to-day involvement in the industry, but, as I shall retail to the House, and as other noble Lords have, others take a different view, I assume looking at exactly the same facts. The prospects for survival of the British film industry were cogently put by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, in an excellent speech. He not merely pointed out the inhibitions that the British film industry has suffered from under the wing and stewardship of the American industry but foretold—I believe fairly accurately—the catastrophic damage that could be done to our film industry in the future, when DBS, satellite, cable and all the other paraphernalia come along, unless we can retain something like the quotas that now exist.
The British film industry has to reckon on a major share of the American market to be viable, perhaps relying on 35 per cent. of its take coming from the American market. The position is different for the American producer. He plans to recoup his costs internally in America or does not make the film at all. Selling films to the British market provides the icing on the cake at a marginal cost. It provides a bonus and acceptable earnings to boost home sales.
I believe that in this House we all want a film industry which provides British jobs—and I believe that this is the message that the Minister should take on board—hut also one which produces films for showing in Britain and throughout the world, depicting themes, values and aspects of British life, which are all of great interest and satisfaction to British audiences and to a world-wide audience, too.
What message are we to give the Government tonight? It will be heard not only by the British film industry and the British people but by others abroad and foreign film makers. We have been given a depressing catalogue of the Government's abandonment of the industry in a short space of time. Some of the factors have been referred to: the suspension of the quota; the phasing out of capital allowances; the proposed abolition of the Eady levy; a policy of urging private funding for a successor to the NFFC; and cutting further the Eady subvention to a range of other worthwhile bodies. What message should we ask the Government to take from the debate? It is surely that this Government are weakening and diluting the longterm protection for our film industry at a time when it has never been in more need of help, encouragement, hope and financial support.
What is wrong with the White Paper, the subject of this debate? The replacement mechanism for the doomed Eady levy is woefully inadequate. The aspirations for refurbishing our cinemas are laudable but there is a lack of clarity about ability to deliver the promises. The lack of concern for the real renaissance of the British film is worrying. The failure to elevate the saving of our film industry is also worrying. At the same time we know that the Government, with our

703
support, spend large sums of public money on subventions to the live theatre, opera, music and ballet. This week further sums are being given to support authors' public lending rights. All those things are laudable and will have our support, but we are asking for at least comparable support for our film industry.
I am strongly attracted by the prospect of a properly thought out central body to preside over the destiny of a revitalised British film industry. We can call it an authority or whatever else we like, but it should seek to unify the present widely dispersed powers. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, referred to the nonsense of five separate departments of state which in one way or another have a hand in this. Such a body would unify administration, regulation, supervision, monitoring and advice—all functions which are at present scattered throughout Whitehall.
There is a difference—perhaps it is ideological—between the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, and myself. I think that he was indicating not merely deregulation but that the Government should in a large measure remove their control of the film industry, whereas what we say is that the Government should recognise that they have a responsibility to play a greater part in the film industry. In my view, if the Government want these functions carried out at all—and that begs the question—they would join me in wanting to see a film industry which is properly administered, properly supervised and properly provided for, and with the drive, commitment and recognition of its cultural values that we so desperately need.
I keep an eye on the clock. There are other things that I want to say. I want to make a reference to the sad decline in the number of cinemas in the country. Of course, this is borne out by the statistics we have seen. Certainly the maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Layton, pointed out the colossal difference: over 1,000 million viewers in the 1950s down to less than 100 million viewers today. All this has a bearing on the matter.
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, is in his place because I want to refer to the Regal Cinema at Edmonton. Coming from Tottenham and Edmonton, he must well know about it. I have very sad news: in the very near future the Regal Cinema—the Regal site as such—will no longer be. I want to say that the Regal has provided entertainment for more than 50 years for the people in that part of North London. The Regal was the heart of Edmonton entertainment. From the days of the Wurlitzer organ, through to the best in world and British entertainment talent, the Regal fulfilled its functions with distinction and success.
As cinema audiences declined in the 'sixties, the last of the big screen cinema entertainments were shown. Then bingo became the money-spinner of the 'seventies and the Regal lived again, at least fulfilling its role as an entertainment centre of sorts. Now it has been sold by Rank. It has gone to the knacker's yard so far as being an entertainment centre is concerned. It has closed its doors to a paying public for the last time. It will be gutted and transformed into something else—who knows what?—probably offices or a superstore, adding to the depressing column along the
704
North Circular Road, where once there were thriving factories and institutions. They are dying and are being resurrected as do-it-yourself stores and hypermarket operations.
As late as 1974 there were 1,590 cinemas. That number has been reduced to 1,300 in 1984. I happen to believe that it is a good use of taxpayers' money to strive to keep that total from declining even further. When I did a bit of research, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and others will know, I looked around at what has happened where I live, in Enfield, in the last 30 years. Within five miles the Premier Cinema on Freezywater—you know where I mean—has gone to bingo. The Capitol at Winchmore Hill has gone to offices. The Florida in Enfield Town has gone. The Embassy in Enfield Town has gone. Cinemas in Palmers Green have gone, too. One cinema out of a total of 14 is now still operating as a cinema: the Savoy in Southbury Road, which is divided into four. So I raise the question of the future of our cinema industry in that context.
Finally, I want to comment on the reference that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, to the, I think, unique declaration by a number of disparate interests which was publicised yesterday. I have here a copy of it. It is a declaration issued by six separate organizations. They are the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians; the Association of Independent Producers; the British Film Institute; the British Film and Television Producers' Association: the Directors' Guild of Great Britain and the National Film and Television School. What does that declaration declare? I think the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, will be pleased to hear that it says:
"The British film industry is in many respects thriving and contributing to the commercial and cultural life of the nation".
We all say, "amen" to that. Then:
"It also contributes to our exports and our image overseas".
But it then says:
"It is the impending reduction in investment which presents a very serious danger".
What do these people fear? They fear that the Government acknowledge in their White Paper the importance and present achievements of the industry but are removing the institutions and fiscal incentives which have made this success possible.
If the Minister is in any doubt as to what is required and what these bodies are hoping for, it is an appropriate body to replace the existing NFFC; the continuation of a redistributive mechanism to which, if it is appropriate, a levy can be attached at the point of exhibition. They are also hoping for the re-establishment of fiscal incentives for film production and a continuing acknowledgement of the diversity of film culture. They are further hoping for a continuing recognition of the vital importance of training; an appropriate revised statutory definition of "a British film" and consolidation of the present scattered responsibility of Government throughout Whitehall. If debate in this Chamber is to have any purpose, I believe that such poweful expressions, and other expressions so eloquently conveyed by your Lordships, must be listened to by the Minister with

705
both care and concern. There is still time to act to save the British film-making industry: but time is short.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, for initiating this valuable debate whilst the Films Bill itself is going through its stages in the other place. I made my maiden speech at the end of 1957 on the Cinematograph Bill in this House. My noble friend the Minister's late father wound up for the Government on the opposite side of the House. It was a very eloquent speech, too.
As has already been pointed out by those far more qualified than I, since those days there have been many changes in the industry. The White Paer seems to me to be on the whole an agreeable document. It is interesting statistically to note that 101 persons and organisations—film stars, technical organisations and you name it—have given evidence as to the relevance of this particular Bill, and that 35,000 people are employed in the cinematograph industry on the film-making side.
Like everything else, the film industry has become very international. British films now have a greater share of international stars and of course our own actors, actresses and directors are working more overseas. I speak in this debate purely as a consumer, knowing little about the technical side of it because I have never worked in the cinematograph industry, though some years ago I paid two fascinating visits to Pinewood Studios. It is interesting to note that as far back as 1940 there were distinguished British actors well berthed in Hollywood. If one takes, for example in the film "Rebecca", leaving aside Sir Laurence Olivier, there were Judith Anderson, C. Aubrey Smith and George Sanders, all British actors who were well established in Hollywood.
Why was that? I do not know. Bearing in mind that this was in the early days of the last war, was it due to problems within our own industry of either under-capitalisation, or the lure of Hollywood, with the admittedly very much larger amount of money available being the attraction at that time—and, indeed, even before that time? As far as I can ascertain, there has always been an exodus of British actors and actresses to Hollywood, and one wonders whether, in the event of this or any other government putting more money into the film industry, this exodus would be completely contained.
The British cinema industry has had a long and distinguished history. There have been many outstanding films in the last 10 years. Among them was "Gandhi", with British actors, a British producer and, largely, British technicians. It was a very fine film.
Lord Willis: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, I should like to ask him to bear in mind that "Gandhi" was financed one-third by America and a little more than one-third by the Indian Government, and it took Sir Richard Attenborough something like 15 years to raise the finance to make that movie. Moreover, it has had a restricted showing in American cinemas simply because of the point I
706
made earlier—that the Americans are not interested in allowing a film industry in Britain to develop.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Willis, with his considerable knowledge of this cinema industry, has made a very cogent point, which one hopes the Government and those connected with the industry will take on board.
Paragraph 9(2) of the White Paper contains the very important announcement, which was mentioned earlier, of the promotion of British films overseas. This is fine; much of this is already going on. What one wonders is whether the revenue returning to this country will be adequate, and which countries will be involved. We cannot escape video, but I think it is worth pointing out that not every family has video. We do not have it and, quite frankly, I do not think we want it. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, with his experience of the industry, made mention of the cinemas which have closed. Those of us who live out of London, as I do, can all name, whether it is in Surrey, where I live, or in Shropshire, cinemas which have closed. This is a very sad commentary on our times. One hopes that now, with the White Paper, there will be more funds available for more cinemas to open or reopen.
I question whether people really want to sit beside their television sets and watch films, particularly when the weather is reasonably favourable, rather than go to a cinema. Those of us who remember the cinemas of the 'Thirties and 'Forties, as I vaguely do, know that many of them were very comfortable. They had character, and, rather like seeing cricket at the Oval rather than on the television screen, one got the impact of the film concerned.
Time is getting short. The Films Bill is to come before us, but the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, has given us a very good hors d'oeuvre before the main course comes on.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Granville of Eye: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, not only for initiating this very interesting debate on the film industry but for the great part that he has played in giving the service which he has to the film industry in the past. I hope very much that he will continue to do so. Like other noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, I have tried to understand the Government's White Paper, which is to precede the Bill which will be going through another place. It seems to me, certainly from listening to the speeches that have been made here tonight, that what the Government have to decide is: do they really want a viable film industry or do they not? I hope very much that they will listen very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said in his speech. He put the whole case, because he is in the industry and he knows what is happening. It was completely realistic.
It is no good living in cloud cuckoo-land in this business of the film industry. It is worth while to remember, as he said in his speech, that the film market in the United States and Canada numbers 200 million people. The film market in the United Kingdom is 15 million people, and this is the basis of

707
investments and capital which go into the industry. Of course, the British market is vital to Hollywood. They break even on their own home market. They bring their films over here. There is no dubbing required as in Paris or anywhere else; it is an English-speaking version. They make their profits on the United Kingdom film market.
The Government cannot leave this matter as it is now and say, "Well, get on with it". There is a history attached to this; it has happened before. It is absolutely vital, if we want the British film industry to continue as a source of first-class entertainment, to make some kind of an agreement with the United States television and film circuits. I remember Dr. Leslie Burgin, as President of the Board of Trade, introducing the quota Act in another place after long discussions with Hollywood and the film industry; and it did give a certain amount of benefit to the film industry in this country. But now that has gone, and what they call the Eady levy, which went into production costs, has gone, too.
Those were the great days of film production, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, well remembers: Gaumont British; Shepherd's Bush, now a TV studio; Elstree; Islington; Pinewood; Denham—all great dubbing, colour film production studios. There were people like Alexander Korda, who produced great films; Michael Balcon, Hitchcock, Tom Walls and Ralph Lynn, with films which were successful. The trouble in this industry, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said, has always been finding the "angels"—the people who are willing and ready to put up risk capital without having to depend upon the United States, as we did with the quota Bill. As he said, Australia gives tax concessions. They are setting up a great film industry there which one day may challenge even Hollywood. Other countries are doing it. Ireland is following suit, and France gives considerable benefits as well.
According to the White Paper, the Government are making a suggestion about Channel 4. I suppose there is some kind of poetic justice in this, if television has closed cinemas. But a tie-up between the United Kingdom cinemas and TV and the United States circuits might work. It is no good the Government washing their hands and saying, "We are going to leave this industry free to go on and develop". They have got to take this up with Washington. We shall not get the television and cinema moguls of Hollywood to agree to this; they want their profits. They want an English-speaking non-dubbed film market. The Government must say to them—as Leslie Burgin tried to tell the other place—"You have got to give a fair deal to British films on the American market"—an English speaking market. There is no future without that. This White Paper will never produce a good Bill.
I was astonished to read about an American film mogul who was visiting this country. He said that the BBC was destroying the English language and that unless someone could talk common, he would not get a part on British television. I hope that the Government are not going to leave the situation like that, because it really is not good enough. We must get some kind of arrangement with Washington—and why not? We are great allies of Washington. But the
708
power of Hollywood—and noble Lords can read the whole story of Hollywood to see what it is—should not prevent the British film industry from standing on its own two feet.
7.1 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Layton, on his maiden speech, There was not much with which I agreed in the speech, but in the spirit of Christmas I would have wished him a larger audience than he had tonight. It was perhaps marginally better than the audience in a cinema on a wet afternoon in a town such as Hartlepool—if, indeed, they still have a cinema in Hartlepool. I should also like at this stage to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Willis, on an excellent speech. The noble Lord summed up the whole business. He summed up the historical background of the American dominance of our film activity. I use the word "activity" advisedly because I do not believe that we have a film industry in this country; I believe that we have three quite separate film activities.
The activity upon which the Government have concentrated in their White Paper is the commercial activity, the historic background of which has been so admirably sketched for us by the noble Lord, Lord Willis. The other activities are, unfortunately, very separate, but they are linked by one very important factor, and that is that they all to some degree use the same pool of expertise, the same technicians, the same men in the lighting team, the same editor as could work for an American company producing a film at Pinewood Studios. Indeed, they could well be working on one of the rare—and I emphasise "rare"—successes in the middle to low budget area of British films.
Moreover, such people might well be employed on the third level of activity which is equally important and which has been almost totally ignored by the White Paper; namely, that area of the low budget—one could almost say "hair-string" budget—films which are made often under extreme hardship in regions of our country by small groups of hungry, emaciated and admittedly rather left wing young men who produce what is known as "workshop cinema".
All the areas which I have described should form part of a film industry of which we could be justly proud. But, unfortunately, I do not think that there is much at the moment of which we can be justly proud. I use the phrase "justly proud" because the Government have used it in their White Paper. Indeed, there is a great crescendo of emotion which arises in the conclusion of their White Paper. I felt that it was rather like leaving a cinema, puffed up with false emotion after seeing a rather bad Hollywood film, and it is only afterwards that one is left with rather a nasty taste in the mouth. I think that I have sketched the three activities and I should now like to move to the White Paper itself and what it actually suggests.
It suggests that the only part of the industry which encourages the low to medium budget film—namely; the NFFC—is to be dismantled and passed over. I hope again that I am not showing a lack of Christmas spirit but the Government are washing their hands of responsibility in the area of supporting the low to medium budget British films which are the only part of

709
British cinema which can produce a picture of British life, make a contribution to our culture and can help to produce the creative and innovative talent which exists in this country in those areas—and I stress this point again—which have been totally neglected by the White Paper. I am referring to the workshops, the small regional areas which are supported on very low finance and very low contributions by way of grant and very small contributions by way of dole-outs from the NFFC and so on.
I am totally losing track of the intended direction of my speech. However, the excellence of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, leads me on to the extraordinary way in which responsibility is spread over a number of departments. Channel 4 has agreed to come into the new NFFC, which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, referred to in somewhat uncomplimentary terms. Indeed, one critic rather wittily described the son of NFFC as being definitely on the wrong side of the blanket. The participation of Channel 4 might well not have been so enthusiastic if Channel 4 had realised that the grant which is given to the British Film Institute for production purposes had been completely whittled down. Indeed, I do not think that, under its present financial circumstances, the British Film Institute will be in a position to finance any local or regional films. From the way in which the new son of NFFC is constituted, Channel 4 will get much more by way of interesting, innovative material from the British Film Institute than it will from this new body which is totally dominated by large interests—EMI, Rank and so on—which will not have the incentive to produce the kind of material which will be suitable for Channel 4. I would not be at all surprised if Mr. Jeremy Isaacs was not kicking himself for being talked into contributing so generously or undertaking to contribute so generously to this new company.
That is really all that the White Paper intends to do: it intends to wash its hands of the British film industry. I have heard the speeches from noble Lords on the other side. I was entertained and in a way encouraged by the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, who I understand is part of the pool of expertise and talent which exists in this country and which is currently being used. He is quite right when he implies that the film studios at present are absolutely packed with productions. But they are packed with American-financed productions—they are not packed with British productions. What comes out of those studios will have no relation whatever to British life, British standards or British culture. We are left to rely on a contribution to British culture by way of "the moving image", because "the moving image" is the phrase which has been chosen to name the new museum, the foundations of which will be laid in British Film Year. That is something of which we can be justly proud.
That enterprise, together with other events which are planned for next year, will surely give us something which may persuade noble Lords on the other side of this argument. I suspect that they could see that what appears to be a healthy activity is in the end only pushing this country into total domination by television. I do not decry television at all and I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, being an
710
experienced contributor in that field as well, would not wish the influence of British television to wane.
However, I suggest to your Lordships that it is not a good idea to put the whole of our cultural effort in the moving image into television because the product of television is more ephemeral - often it is like a newspaper. I do not mean to take anything away from the value of some very high-class productions in recent times on both the BBC and the IBA, but what we lack in television and what we have in cinema is the concentration on texture, the development of ideas, and the introduction of elements of ambiguity which encourage the use of imagination.
I shall sum up briefly. Cinema is not only a means of entertaining the masses; in fact, it has ceased to entertain the masses in this country, and noble Lords have given the figures. Cinema attendances have declined from 1½ billion in the 1940s, just after the war, to just over 60 million now. People do not go to the cinema any more. But they can be won back to the cinema. We are seeing a trend develop in the major cities at the present time. There are one or two clever new cinema owners who realise that there is an audience to be captured, albeit a minority audience; it is often an audience of young people. I believe that the average age of people who go to see films in major cities is well under 25, but the number is increasing because people want something different from television. Television came about at a time when the cinemas became unattractive; they ceased to produce the product which people wanted; they became rundown. We had the housing boom and people stayed at home. Now we are seeing coming out of universities a new type of potential audience for the cinema which can be compared more with audiences in France and other continental countries, and Australia, which was mentioned by other noble Lords. Time prohibits me from going further into that.
I should like to conclude by saying that I wish the Government would look again at the whole area of films. They do not mention anything about documentaries in their White Paper, or anything about industrial films or, as far as I am aware, commercials. They seem to have their mind fixed on only the commercial cinema, the commercial blockblustertype cinema, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said, is totally American-dominated. If at this time the Government abdicate their position and their ability to control and balance the funds available to regenerate the film industry, we shall have lost out against almost every country in the developed world and even some countries in the developing world.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, for having provided us with the opportunity to discuss the Government's White Paper on film policy, (Cmnd. 9319). Your Lordships are, of course, well aware that at the moment there is going through the other place a Films Bill which is already in Committee. Indeed, I believe that there have been some unexpected developments during the Committee stage and so we do not really know at this stage what final form the Bill will take. For that reason, and because we shall have an opportunity of a Second

711
Reading, as well as a Committee stage, of the Films Bill when it comes to this House, I should prefer to deal with the broad generalities that are implicit in the White Paper itself.
Before I pass to that I should like to offer my felicitations to the noble Lord, Lord Layton, on his maiden speech, which, being someone who believes in controversy as a health-giving and sometimes healing process which both Houses of Parliament can occasionally accommodate with advantage, I found most agreeable in its controversial content. The noble Lord is a distinguished industrialist and he has a wide knowledge and experience of both industry and commerce. We have many such members in this House and their contributions are always of considerable value in looking at the industrial and commercial aspects of our lives. I am quite sure that the House would wish me to say, as indeed I gladly do, that we shall look forward with very great interest to the future contributions which the noble Lord will undoubtedly make.
I think that the White Paper has been dealt with most adequately by my noble friend Lord Willis. In fact, to go over the ground that has been covered by my noble friend and which requires answers from the Government would be redundant at this stage of the debate. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, expressed some anxiety that the Government might abdicate responsibility for the film industry altogether. His fears are fully justified. That is precisely what they intend to do; that is precisely what they are bent upon doing. They wish to abandon all responsibility for the industry. They stated that quite clearly in the White Paper itself and, indeed, it is in the Bill. In this House we have to pass judgment on this.
The noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, paid the most eloquent tribute to the development and prosperity of the British film industry. He reminded us, if we needed reminding, that we have some of the finest script writers, producers, directors, technicians, people in the cutting room, editors and so on to be found anywhere in the world. Perhaps one ought to remind the noble Viscount that had it had not been for my noble friend Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, the industry today would probably not have existed at all. One of the most eloquent testimonies that the Government have given to the measures taken by my noble friend when he was Prime Minister was to refer to them in such glowing terms. Had it not been for the support that became available through the policies pursued by the then Government—and I wish they had gone a good deal further—then about half the films which have been made over the past five or 10 years would never have been made. That is what we have to face.
We are all agreed that we have the artistic talent, we have the technical talent, and the organising talent within the realm of film production. I propose to concentrate on film production. There are the other parts of the industry such as the distributors—as my noble friend has already said, largely under the control of the United States—and the exhibitors. Also, owing to the advance of technology, about which the noble Lord, Lord Layton, was kind enough to remind us, we have the transmitters in the form of television
712
augmented presently by direct satellite broadcasting, and also video and cable.
We have some new ancillary commercial operatives who are purveying the original goods that are made. There have undoubtedly been great technical advances. But all distributors, exhibitors, transmitters, whether they be television companies, media or DBS, depend on the original product. The original product, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, reminded us—as if we needed to be reminded—is a one-off job. It is not something which is produced like sausages off a sausage machine. It does not lend itself to the normal commercial treatment which has now become so much in vogue in Government circles. It is one off.
There is always the problem—it has been the problem of British manufacturing industry since 1950—that it has invariably been the fortune of our country that although we have the innate skills and possibly in some fields the genius, they have to be married up with capital resources before anything can be done about them. We are in an area in the film industry of risk capital. Even in manufacturing industry, which is possibly less risky in those terms than the making of a film, we have had a grosser shortage of private investment in this country than in any other country of our industrial status in the world.
The question that the Government have to answer is what happens if, under their privatised arrangements, the capital is not forthcoming? What happens if the same thing happens to the film industry as happened to the whole mass of manufacturing industry over the past 30 years? What happens if private enterprise decides not to provide the capital? It is a simple question and it can have a simple answer, and I want the noble Lord to tell us.
There is of course one answer to the problem. It may be said, "Well, of couse capital would become available if one were able perhaps to make the film a little more amenable to what we consider the public want". We could take it down to the store level, as it were. They could say, "Well, we will provide the money for a film but we do not like this particular one. You have got to go down market. People don't want this particular type of product".
If industrialists and people in commercial life will forgive me, they may be good at reading balance sheets; they may be good in organising affairs of commerce; they may be good at making profits; they may even be kind to their dogs; but they are not universally acknowledged as having been some of the most distinguished patrons of the arts. They are not universally distinguished for being able to appreciate cultural requirements. The Conservative Party itself certainly is not. The Conservative Party itself has only one particular aim in life, and that is the making of profits, and the privatisation for private gain of everything it can lay its hands on.
The late Dr. Goebbels in Germany was very frank. He said—and noble Lords who were alive at the time will recall this—"When I hear the word culture, I reach for my gun". I am not saying that the Conservative Party are anything like that. No. They would not be so indelicate as to say anything of that kind. They probably do not even feel it. But I shall say without fear of contradiction, that so far as concerns

713
them and their support of the arts and culture of the United Kingdom outside the pursuit of private pelf, they do just the minimum sufficient to sustain a veneer of regard for culture. Just sufficient to maintain a veneer, and no more. They are past masters at that art of knowing how far they can go. Therefore, we have these ridiculous cuts in the grants to the Arts Council which have been commented upon quite widely today.
If there is to be any future for British film production—I am not for the moment talking about the exhibitors, the transmitters, and the distributors—the actual production of film, there has to be among those 73,000 people in that particular section of the industry some reasonable expectation that their films are going to be financed. The Government do not like subsidies. They have agreed to contribute £1.5 million for five years to the reconstituted NFFC. Well, they paid Lazard Frères £1.5 million for the services of Mr MacGregor. I suppose one can say that that is the roughly cultural equivalent. At the same time they have cut their grant to the Arts Council.
They do not like subsidisiang. They talk about the international cultural uses of the British film industry and of its international significance. Exactly the same Government cut the overseas services of the BBC by £1 million. This is their regard for culture. I have to tell the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that his fears are already there. They are not going to do it. They are going to get out of it.
Whether they will be able to sustain that over the passage of years is another question altogether to which they might care to address themselves, particularly in the circumstances of the rather creaky nature of Conservative Party unity in another place and indeed in this place at the present time. You know, my Lords, they are not there for all eternity. The question for them to ponder is this: do they want to be known as the Government of an artistic appreciation equivalent to the sound of a cash register? This is really all that is at issue. They are willing to spend £3000 million on selling British Telecom shares at half price. That is really cost effective stuff! What they are now trying to do is to make art cost effective; one of the most sordid exercises in which any government could ever be involved.
The Government say that they do not like subsidies, yet when it comes to subisidising, they subsidise agriculture up to the hilt without the slightest hesitation. So they have a divided philosophy on this matter. They like sturdy independence free from government paraphernalia, not the paraphernalia which their farming friends enter into when they fill up their long and complicated forms in order to receive money for not producing milk or not spoiling the countryside. This is the level of priority to which the Government have succumbed.
I am sorry to be so terse on this matter with the noble Lord opposite; he is a most amiable noble Lord with whom I frequently discuss these matters; but he must accept his responsibility as a Minister. The British film industry is not going to be sustained by this kind of privatisation mania upon which the Government are bent. It is not going to be able to have a full and constructive life, particularly in the light of
714
the American situation which has been so graphically described by my noble friend Lord Willis. It is not going to be sustained on the basis of this completely Philistine attitude. Either the Government believe that the production of a film is a matter of art, not only a matter of commerce, and therefore deserves the people's contribution to the enhancement of a very successful cultural expression of the activities in the United Kingdom, or it is going to lead in the end to the arbitrament of the cash box.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I should like first of all to thank the nobe Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, for introducing this subject and remind the House that the noble Lord was the moving force behind the establishment of the National Film and Television School and is of course one of its governors and also a member of the Interim Action Committee on the film industry which is chaired, as noble Lords have pointed out, by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson. I have little doubt that his influence will still be felt throughout the industry, and I think that this will be for the benefit of the industry.
I also join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Layton on his speech. May I say to him that, contrary to the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, who felt the speech was somewhat controversial, that I thought his speech was eloquent and straightforward? I thank him very much for that.
We have heard reference to the fact that the Bill based upon the White Paper is in another place now and will be here early in the New Year, when no doubt we shall go over some of the ground, so I do not propose to discuss many aspects of that Bill. I should like, in the main, to respond to what noble Lords have said. Before doing so, it will not surprise your Lordships if I attempt quite briefly to set out some of the fundamental conclusions of the review of film policy which are set out in the White Paper.
After all the representations we received, it was quite clear to us that the Eady levy on the price of cinema seats had become an unjustifiable burden upon the declining cinema industry. I do not think I dissent at all in round terms from any of the figures which have been given by noble Lords. I believe that the fortunes of the cinema industry have changed largely as social habits have changed: television programmes of good quality, widely available in the home, and now video, seem to have accelerated the decline by providing ready and inexpensive access to feature films at home.
The cinema must be freed from the levy as, indeed, the industry must be freed from very much quite obstrusive regulation. Consequent upon this decision to end the levy, I believe that the Government have made satisfactory arrangements for those bodies which have been wholly or partly dependent upon it. Firstly, the principal functions of the National Film Finance Corporation have been preserved, but will now be placed in the private sector.
I do not want there to be any uncertainty about this at all. Had the Government simply wished to get rid of the NFFC, they could have done that and it would

715
have been very simple. What we have done is to find a group of very responsible people who were eager to adopt the ethos of the NFFC and encourage the production of British films using largely British talent and skill. The White Paper makes it quite clear that the Government will make available £1.5 million a year for five years. That is hardly walking away from the NFFC, as the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, suggested. The £1.5 million a year will be added to the £1.1 million coming from shareholders. I am going to return to that when answering a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington.
We know about the portfolio of rights, the interest in which is being transferred to the new company. In addition, another £½ million for five years will be made available for script development probably with what is called "Son of NFFC". In saying that, the point I really want to emphasise is that, apart from ensuring the continuity of the National Film Finance Corporation functions, the structure we have in mind has, I think, the advantage of being fairly dynamic and flexible and could move forward; it is not static as was the old structure. It will be, I think, for that new body to develop the structure as it finds necessary.
There are two other organisations where the industry provided, through the Eady levy, minority funding. Both of these bodies are within the area of my noble friend the Minister for the Arts, who provides the bulk of their funding through the Office of Arts and Libraries. The first is the National Film and Television School, where we have secured a number of advantages over the existing arrangements for the Eady contribution. I can assure noble Lords that, so far as the British Film Institute is concerned, it has proved possible in addition to the payment from the Eady levy of £125,000 for the final levy year, to make an additional payment—a dowry payment so to speak—of £250,000.I think it might be worth setting the record straight because in an average year Eady funds provide only about 10 per cent. of the funding of the BFI production board. From what I have said, there can be no sense of the Government walking away from the industry; on the contrary, they are providing a basis for the future.
It is with some disappointment that I have listened to every speech other than part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Granville of Eye (for missing which I apologise) and it seems to me odd that, of those who have spoken about the White Paper, with one exception, all the criticism came from the other side of the House, despite the knowledge of the industry of some of my noble friends who spoke. The attitude seems to be, not surprisingly, because I have heard it before when we have discussed matters of this kind, that, provided enough Government money, which is taxpayers' money, is flung at the problem, it will go away. That is not this Government's attitude—
Lord Willis: My Lords, can the Minister quote one noble Lord from this side who made such a statement?
Lord Bruce of Donington: Yes, can he, my Lords?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: No, my Lords; I said my feeling was that their attitude seemed to be that. I did not say that I would quote anyone from the other side. When the noble Lord, Lord Willis, reads Hansard,he will see that I am right. I chose my words fairly carefully.
Perhaps the most important part of a debate of this nature, particularly when it is limited, is to turn to some of the points that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, particularly spoke of the National Film and Television School. As your Lordships are aware, this school is principally supported by my noble friend Lord Gowrie. The school's budget of about £1·5 million is only partly funded by the Eady levy. In the last levy year ended last October the proceeds of that levy provided only £500,000. Of the balance, £140,000 came from television and £75,000 from fees, with the Office of Arts and Libraries providing the remaining £850,000. So the Government already support the school to a major extent.
The Government have no doubt about the importance of the school. We have announced—and we intend to accept the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx—the special contribution next year of £250,000 to improve the television facility at the school. But it is important that the industry itself should substantially support the school because it is from that school that it receives its steady stream of fully-trained young men and women.
I have commented upon the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Layton, which gives support to the Government's aims contained in the White Paper.
I am sorry that somebody who has spent so long a time in the industry as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, should have found nothing but total criticism. When he said that what we want in the Bill is more imagination I read into his remarks that he really wanted further continuation of Government support. He made a special plea for the industry, as well he might. Every other industry in this country and every other service comes to Government cap in hand. They are special; they plead for special consideration. I do not think we can operate in that way because the taxpayers' purse is not bottomless though some noble Lords suggest it is.
That takes me to the earlier remarks which brought the challenge from the other side just a moment ago—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, may I—
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I have so limited a time on a debate such as this that it would be unfair to give way. As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has stood up, I should say that I thought that his speech was one that would seek to take us back from whence we have come. We have to move forward; we have to look forward, thrust forward, with new opportunities. It is the industry itself, and only the industry, that can provide that.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and the noble Lord, Lord Willis, spoke about there being one Minister for films and one Ministry for films as well. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister

717
has considered this matter further, certainly since the publication of the White Paper. She had decided that there shall be no changes in the present responsibilities. As for the question of one department, as I understood it, it would be some sort of statutory body under the control of a single Ministry, but it would have to combine cultural considerations with commercial ones and play an advisory role with executive and regulatory functions as well. That seems to me to be fraught with more difficulties than would be worth while.
My noble friend Lord Marley apologised to me for having to leave early. I understand that he has an illness in the family and wanted to get away. He asked me to pass his apologies to your Lordships. I very much enjoyed his quote from the 1930s. He also believes that the industry has to stand on its own feet and move forward.
The noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, spoke particularly of the neglect of the industry. I would ask him, rhetorically I assure him, by whom has it been neglected? In his speech he suggested that the Eady levy, which is considered by some to be a subsidy, should be replaced by yet another subsidy. That just is not on. He spoke, as did the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, about the NFFC being replaced by a private company. The noble Lord opposite asked what happens when the money dries up. He said: "I ask expressly that". Rank, Thorn-EMI, Channel 4 and the British Videogram Association have agreed to provide annual contributions totalling £1.1 million for a period of three years—Channel 4 has guaranteed its share for five years—to finance the new company. The new company I have described also has the NFFC portfolio. I have also said—and I repeat—that the Government have undertaken to establish this fund at £1.5 million a year for five years. The undertaking involves well respected people and companies in the industry. If I were asked to look six, eight or 10 years ahead, I would find it difficult to predict exactly the fortunes of any kind of company in any kind of industry. I think that is a reasonable basis with Government guarantee on which the new company can move forward.
I picked up one last point in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Granville of Eye. I take his point when he said that the British industry, notwithstanding Hollywood, must stand on its own feet. We are dealing with a commercial industry. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, made the same mistake as one or two other noble Lords in drawing together the cultural and artistic aspects of film making. In the White Paper we are dealing with the commercial industry. The artistic, experimental and cultural film making industry will probably need special support mechanisms. We have heard from my noble friend Lord Mersey that the commercial industry is thriving. It sells well abroad and we see its best prospects for success in building on its current strength. I encourage your Lordships to contemplate the strong position not just of feature films, where turnover as well as percentage finance from United Kingdom sources are both up, but in other areas as well: 3,000 television commercials are made here each year with a total turnover approaching £100 million a year; and the new area of pop videos
718
now topping £10million a year. The injection of new funds by Channel 4 to the independent production sector for programmes has been considerable. The industry can attract private investment on its own merits, and in order to continue that it must, like any other industry, subject itself to the disciplines and the pressures of the commercial market place. It cannot survive on subsidy after subsidy for regeneration, as it is called, when the only result is flinging good money after bad.
I close by thanking noble Lords for their contributions to tonight's debate and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, for having introduced it. I give him the assurance that he asked for in the opening part of his speech: I and my honourable friend the Minister in charge of the Bill in another place will take heed and note of what has been said this evening.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate and I should like to thank all of your Lordships who have come along to contribute to it. Particularly I would mention the very interesting maiden contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Layton, even though, as he will appreciate, I did not altogether agree with all his arguments.
It would be most inappropriate for me at this late stage in this short debate to try to join issue with noble Lords who have expressed views perhaps contrary to those which I have expressed and which have been expressed by other noble Lords. I should like only to say that I very much appreciate the kind references to me which the noble Lord the Minister has made. I detected a common note of what appears to be complacency in contemplating the future of the film industry in the light of the recommendations of the White Paper, and I was somewhat grieved to hear him appear to draw such a rigid line of demarcation between the film in its commercial aspect and in its artistic aspect. The essence of this whole business is grasping that these two matters are so closely integrated.
However, if I continue in this way I shall find myself involved in other issues, and therefore I think it only remains for me once again to thank all noble Lords for their most interesting contributions and to beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Greater London Council (Money) (No. 2) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at eight minutes before eight o'clock.