Lords Sitting of 6 June 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 Chichester.

Physiotherapists: Employment
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the value of the service that can be rendered by the 21,000 members of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy is fully recognised and utilised through the National Health Service and private practice.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the value of the service provided by the chartered physiotherapists is fully recognised by Her Majesty's Government. Members of this profession play an important part in the treatment and rehabilitation of patients both within the National Health Service and in private practice. Within the National Health Service the employment and use of physiotherapists is a matter for individual health authorities and depends largely on local needs and the resources. The work of physiotherapists in private practice is not a matter for which Her Majesty's Government have responsibility.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Is he aware that those of us who have benefited immeasurably through physiotherapy services are confident that pressure on NHS beds could be greatly reduced by increased domiciliary physiotherapy and by the teaching of preventive measures in schools and colleges? Can he say whether the Government will encourage these methods?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the encouragement of this Government the majority of health authorities throughout the country already provide, in various forms, a physiotherapy service in the community, which can include treatment of patients in their own homes. The form and extent of the services provided will depend on local needs and circumstances. The Government accept that the contribution of the profession to preventive education generally is an important one. How this contribution can best be developed is currently under discussion between the Health Education Council and the profession.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, as one who is walking today as a result of prolonged physiotherapy, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware how much we on this side of the Chamber appreciate the fact that he has said that the concern of the Government is the staffing of the National Health Service by physiotherapists? It is important that such a contribution is found in the National Health Service, and many of us hope that it will be increased.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I, too, have benefited from physiotherapy, and I think that the physiotherapists are doing a marvellous job.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, may I say to the noble Minister—
Noble Lords: No! Ask.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I apologise. May I ask the noble Earl whether he is satisfied that many of the persons who are suffering from strokes are getting the full benefit of the physiotherapy services? I ask that because this is not the feeling that we have in the West Midlands, where (is the Minister aware?) many of the hospitals are not able to give to stroke patients the physiotherapy that is so essential for them to start life again.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not know specifically about the West Midlands. As I have said, it is a matter that varies from area to area, and is kept under constant check. But I will draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the points raised by the noble Baroness.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, in the light of what the noble Earl has told the House about the value of domiciliary physiotherapy services, may I ask him whether he is aware that the supply of those services in many areas in no way matches the demand, and that in urban areas it is becoming increasingly difficult to get home physiotherapy for the elderly?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not think I can add to my last answer. I will of course make sure that note is taken of these points.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask my noble kinsman number two whether he is aware that I have had seven most enjoyable years as president of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy? I should like to ask him when the review body's report on the professions allied to medicine is to be published; and, if any benefits to the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy are to come out of that. I hope they will not be from cuts in the existing National Health Service resources.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am not aware of a date for the publication of the report, and I do not think I can predict what it is going to say.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, this being June 6th, the anniversary of D-Day, is it not the most appropriate day for this Question to be asked? Is it not the case that very many of those who were wounded in Normandy—and I was felled by a machine-gun 40 years ago—are deeply indebted to physiotherapists for their ability to perform in any way however today? Will the noble Earl recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has said, that there is a great shortage of physiotherapists? Though there may be 21,000 members of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, there are only 15,000 practising physiotherapists, and very few of them, relatively, are in the community. Is

621
he aware that the chartered society is very worried about the availability of funds for the training of more physiotherapists, which are very much needed in an ageing society and a society where people are discharged from hospital much earlier than used to be the case?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am aware of the concern that is felt on this point, and we are in discussions with the society.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask one more question? Would it not speed up matters if GPs could refer patients directly to physiotherapists? Sometimes they have to go through consultants; there is such a long waiting list for patients to see consultants, and this holds up the whole issue.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I would think that at the moment GPs can refer direct to a physiotherapist.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister say whether his answers can be taken to reassure the chartered society that its ability to provide better and more economic care in community health is well understood?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, indeed I can.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, is the Minister in a position to say how many physiotherapists are engaged in the National Health Service and how many in the private sector?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, yes. I think I am right in saying that there are about 9,000 whole time equivalents in the National Health Service.

St. Helena: Report
2.44 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: 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 steps they are taking to implement the report of Sir Neil Marten on St. Helena.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, the report is being considered and any decisions arising from it will be announced in due course. Agreement in principle to establish a new central school was announced during Prince Andrew's visit to the island in April.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that we need to know more about this island? The past is a good deal more familiar than the present. Does she not agree that small colonial territories like St. Helena for which we have full responsibility should have first call on our aid money? The island is without natural resources and our
622
subsidies should provide a standard of living that meets the reasonable requirements of the 5,000 islanders and reflect credit on our colonial administration. I know from my own observations—
Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: Is the noble Baroness aware that the requirements of the island are comparatively modest and that—
Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: Speech, all right. Is she aware that they are comparatively modest and, in particular, will she examine more closely whether the islanders should be given freer access to this country?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I agree with most of the points that the noble Lord has raised. I can confirm that the present level of aid is over £7 million in the year 1983–84 and that it represents over £1,200 for each inhabitant on the island. Indeed, the unique economic problems are recognised in the substantial programme which clearly demonstrates our support for the island. The projects that are supported include expansion of agriculture, forestry and fisheries. With regard to the noble Lord's second question about increased immigration into the United Kingdom, I can confirm that the special dependent territories' work permits quota is subject to regular review and the needs of St. Helena are taken fully into account.
Lord Oram: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say anything about the employment situation in the island? What is the level, and what are the prospects of jobs for the people there?
Baroness Young: My Lords, a large part of our development aid programme is designed to be labour intensive which alleviates considerably the problems of unemployment. We are exploring the possibilities of other employment elsewhere, including the Falkland Islands. So far as employment on Ascension Island is concerned, there are at present 750 St. Helenans employed on Ascension Island but this figure is likely to be reduced over the next year or two as construction projects are completed.

Overseas Students: Aid
2.48 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: 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 whether they can give an assurance that so-called "Pym package" of aid for overseas students will be continued after the financial year 1985–86.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we intend to make suitable provision for the continuation of additional support for overseas students in 1986–87, which is the last year to which present public expenditure plans extend. I cannot yet say, however, how much money can be made available.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. I know that it is very difficult for her to be precise about future expenditure. Would she not agree, however, that it is most important to give sufficient assurances of Her Majesty's Government's intention to persist with these programmes in order that students and governments can make plans for the future and can decide to send their students to this country rather than elsewhere?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, will be aware why I cannot give the figures. Under the PES arrangements, we only look three years ahead. But it is our hope, of course, that the numbers of students that can be helped will be maintained.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for the assurance that this modest scheme is to continue, will she not convey to her colleagues the tremendous damage that has been caused to our relations with other countries through the differential between the fees charged to overseas students and those charged to our own students? Is she also aware that in the long run, as future leaders of the third world increasingly seek higher education and technical qualifications in other countries, this will be very detrimental to us as well as damaging in international affairs?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, may like to know that 3,596 additional awards were made under these schemes in 1983–84, and it is estimated this figure will increase to 5,000 in the year 1984–85. We believe that this is a measurable contribution to providing help for students from overseas to study in our educational institutions.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, would the noble Baroness not agree the absurdity of the present arrangements concerning overseas students? I use the term "absurdity" with respect to their discriminatory character as between members of the Commonwealth and members of the European Community. These arrangements have been mitigated but by no means remedied by the so-called "Pym package". Indeed, these arrangements would never have been adopted had officials or Ministers been aware of the implications of the Rome Treaty for any discriminatory scheme between home and overseas students.
Baroness Young: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know—indeed, he has answered the second part of his question—the reason for the treatment of students from the Community is that it is part of the agreements made under the Treaty of Rome. In regard to Commonwealth students, he may like to know that under the various schemes, including the foreign and Commonwealth scheme, there are now 353 students from Malaysia, 590 from Cyprus, 1,201 from Hong Kong and 42 from other dependent territories.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, New Zealanders and Australians still have to pay 10 times as much as people coming from Greece.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the fact is that students have to pay the full economic cost of the course. But
624
there are these various provisions and there are a number of other provisions, besides the Foreign and Commonwealth Office scheme, for helping students. Indeed, much of the money from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office goes to support students on various shared schemes.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, in regard to the 590 students from Cyprus, can my noble friend say whether they come from both parts of that unfortunately divided island, and, if so, in what proportions?
Baroness Young: My Lords, yes; they do come from both parts. There are both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. Without notice, I cannot give the exact numbers.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, do we understand from the noble Baroness that no students from the African continent are benefiting, notwithstanding the enormous contribution we have made in the past to the education of African students?
Baroness Young: No, my Lords, I did not say that. I quoted these as quite specific countries that have been helped under specific schemes. Of course, there are students from African countries who are benefiting from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office scheme and from other schemes.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that one important reason for encouraging overseas students in our universities is the interests of our own industry and commerce, and that this is recognised by the contribution made by private industry and commerce to overseas students here? Would she undertake to discuss with the Department of Trade and Industry the possibility of their contributing to the funding of the scheme for future years, in order to increase the amount of funding available?
Baroness Young: My Lords, this funding to which the Question is directed, which is the funding from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, is an FCO matter. But it is something which is done on behalf of the Government and we recognise the benefits that come, both to the students themselves and to our commercial interests among other interests.
Baroness David: My Lords, do I understand from that answer that the Department of Trade is not contributing anything at all from its Vote, as the Overseas Students' Trust suggested in their policy paper?
Baroness Young: My Lords, my understanding is that there may well be funding which goes into other trusts, but the issue of the Question is the FCO scheme.
Lord Caradon: My Lords, in view of the great importance, as everyone can appreciate, to universities, schools and students all over the Commonwealth and elsewhere of knowing what their applications can involve and lead to, would it not be possible for the noble Baroness to give a somewhat

625
more positive assurance of intention that these schemes shall continue and, indeed, be extended?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the Government have made it quite plain that they think it is very important that we should have the schemes which have been introduced. We believe them to be very valuable and we welcome the fact that there are now a number of students studying in our educational institutions as a consequence of this. What we have said is that we cannot make an open-ended commitment—we cannot afford to make an open-ended commitment—to the situation which existed before the full-cost fees were introduced.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the review and monitoring which was promised in the Government document responding to the Overseas Trust paper has happened, or when it is going to happen?
Baroness Young: My Lords, perhaps I might write to the noble Baroness on that matter.

Population Control
2.55 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: 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 support they propose to give at the forthcoming UN Conference on Population and Development to proposals for limiting the growth of the world's population.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the United Kingdom recognises the need for urgent action to be taken to reduce the rate of growth of the world's population for humanitarian reasons, to achieve higher standards of living and to improve the quality of life.
The United Kingdom supports the principles set down in the World Population Plan of Action. The review and appraisal of the World Population Plan of Action and its further implementation will form a major part of the forthcoming International Conference on Population, which is to be held in Mexico City in August of this year.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Can he say approximately how many countries are concerned in regard to their population growth and in what general areas of the world those countries are? Apart from food shortages, can be say what effects the increasing population are having on these countries?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, attitudes in developing countries have changed dramatically in the last 20 years and there are now some 72 countries, accounting for almost 80 per cent. of the population of the third world, which have policies aimed at providing family planning services.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the fact that the best way to ensure the success of this most important conference would be to secure for it the advice and counsel of that wise man, the Prime Minister of Singapore?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I will pass on to my right honourable friend my noble friend's thoughts and comments.
Lord Oram: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that answers in another place on this subject have revealed a certain complacency on the part of the Government about this conference—a complacency which today's Answer has done only a little to correct? Can he tell the House at what level this country will be represented at the conference? Will it be at ministerial level, or what other level? Since unchecked rises in population have the effect of negating much of the development work of aid agencies throughout the world, is it not most important that this conference should have every possible success? Are the Government playing their full part to ensure that success?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with regard to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I want to say that in this matter I was not aware there was any complacency on the part of Her Majesty's Government. We take it very seriously. The United Kingdom delegation is expected to be led by a Minister and it will include officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Overseas Development Administration and the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. The leader of the United Kingdom delegation will be making a speech at the plenary session of the conference.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that England, taken as a separate entity, and leaving aside the small island and city states, is one of the six most densely populated countries in the world? However, thanks to an initiative in your Lordships' House in 1972, we have successful family planning arrangements which are enabling us to reduce the birth rate and stabilise the population. Is my noble friend further aware that therefore the active participation of Her Majesty's Government in this conference will be welcomed by many other countries as an example?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, what expertise and benefit we can bring to the conference with regard to family planning, we certainly will bring.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, further to the supplementary question asked to the noble Earl by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, can the noble Earl give the House an unqualified assurance that the Government have no intention of cutting back on birth control and family planning services here at home? Will the noble Earl further agree in that connection that, while we do not have an acute population growth problem here in Britain, the birth of any child unwanted at the time of conception is itself a serious matter?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, tempts me down a very different path. If the noble Lord would like to put down a

627
Question on that matter I might not be able to resist the temptation.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister two questions. First, does he not agree that authoritative surveys have indicated that the growth of population decreases with a higher standard of living? Therefore, would not the Government meet this problem by seeking world action to lift the standard of the hungry people of the third world? Secondly, does not the growth of population require greater food production? Is it not now possible that the deserts of the world could be used, by world action, to produce the necessary extra food to meet the growth of population?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, an increase in the world's population from 4.8 billion now to a forecasted 6.1 billion in the year 2000 will mean that more food is required. But taking that a stage further I really do think is another question.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, will my noble friend arrange that attention is drawn at the Mexico Conference to the destruction of forests and of topsoil by the pressure of population expansion, so that studies can be made on the future decreasing ability to produce food in those areas; on the decreasing supply of timber in the future; and on the possible catastrophic change in world climate?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Gisborough will be aware, the World Population Plan of Action in 1974 stressed the need to promote improved methods of identifying, extracting, renewing and utilising scarce natural resources, and that will again be covered in the Mexico Conference.
Lord Bauer: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is highly doubtful whether population pressure or growth are significant factors in world poverty? Is he further aware of the fact that many millions of the poorest people live in abundant lands, as, for example, the Aborigines and tribes-folk?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall read my noble friend's remark with interest.

Barclays Bank Bill
3.4 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 4 [Change of name of Barclays and of name, status and memorandum of BBI]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare) moved the following amendment:
Page 5, line 32, leave out ("or) and insert ("to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely drafting amendment so that the Bill will now refer to "Schedule 1 to this Act" rather than "Schedule 1 of this Act". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons amended.

Successor to the Second Lomé Convention: ECC Report
3.5 p.m.
Lord Brimelow Lord Brimelow rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on the Successor to the Second Lomé Convention (15th Report, 1983–84, H.L. 168.)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Motion asks this House to take note of the Report of the Select Committee on the European Communities on the Successor to the Second Lomé Convention. That title calls for a word of explanation. Had it been possible to entitle the report, "The negotiations for a Third Lomé Convention", that would have given a clear and exact indication of its contents. But agreement on the designation of the agreement, if any, which is to succeed the Second LoméConvention has not yet been reached. The Select Committee had, therefore, to content itself with the vague and noncommittal title, A Successor to the Second LoméConvention.
Few people in this country are thoroughly familiar with the two Lomé Conventions, the second of which now links the European Community with 64 African. Caribbean and Pacific countries, normally referred to as the ACP countries. Of those who have some knowledge of the Lomé Conventions, but not a detailed knowledge, the impression is prevalent that they relate to aid. It is quite true that aid does loom large in the Second Lomé Convention and in the negotiations which have been in progress since October 1983 for a successor agreement. But the ACP Governments do not regard themselves, and do not like it when they are regarded by us, primarily as suppliants for aid.
The Community is dependent for certain commodities on imports and of those imports the ACP countries are, for some commodities, important suppliers. I have in mind particularly tropical agricultural produce, some minerals, and oil. Conversely, the ACP countries are important markets for our exporters. They regard themselves as part of an interdependent system of states and they should like to see that economic interdependence developed to the mutual advantage of every participating state. For this reason the current negotiations cover far more than the formulation of future aid programmes.
The range of these negotiations is shown by the terms of the working parties which have been preparing recommendations for consideration by Ministers. One group has been addressing the problems of agricultural co-operation, integrated rural development, food self-sufficiency, and food security. A second group has been considering trade, commodities and the problems of an organisation

629
known as STABEX, which was set up under the First Lomé Convention to help to smooth out the fluctuations in income derived from the export of certain agricultural products and iron ore.
A third group has been considering the development of mineral and energy resources. This group has also been reviewing the problems of an organisation known as SYSMIN, which was set up under the Second Lomé Convention and which so far has helped Zaire and Zambia, in a period of recession, to maintain (but not to develop) their capacity to produce minerals.
A fourth group has been considering how to develop industries, fisheries, technology and tourism. A fifth group has been studying how financial and technical co-operation can be developed. A sixth group has been examining how trade could be facilitated by customs co-operation and by some relaxation of the rules of origin which determine the entitlement of imports of goods from ACP countries to customs privileges in the Community.
A seventh group has been reviewing the possibility of improving transport and comunications, with special reference to the needs in those two fields of the least developed, landlocked and island ACP states. An eighth group has been charged with a miscellany of subjects—social conditions, research, training, cultural co-operation, and co-operation between the ACP countries themselves, with special reference to the feasibility of more regional co-operation. The ninth, and last, group has been reviewing institutional and legal questions.
Any increase in the pace of development across so wide a front in so many countries would call for resources on a scale of which there is at present little prospect. In recent years most of the governments of the European Community have been trying to curb inflation. To this end they have followed policies of budgetary stringency. These have contributed, at least in the short term, to the depression of trade. They have also. in most Community countries, limited the funds available for aid. It has been possible to give the ACP countries full protection against adverse changes in their terms of trade, against increases in the cost of energy, and against the growing cost of servicing their debts. Some of them, far from enjoying development, have had to suffer retrogression.
In the current negotiations two meetings, apart from the opening session, have so far been held at ministerial level. Nothing in what has been published about these two ministerial meetings warrants the expectation of a sharp increase either in aid or in the earnings of ACP countries from their exports to the Community.
The importance for the developing countries of the world of the expansion of their foreign trade was discussed in your Lordships' House on 23rd May. I was abroad at the time and therefore, to my regret, I was unable to take part in that debate. The broad issues which were then discussed—protectionism, the effects of the common agricultural policy, interest rates, the debt burden, et cetera—lay outside the terms of reference of Sub-Committee B in preparing the report which we are debating today. The subcommittee's terms of reference were limited to the
630
negotiations now in progress with the ACP governments. Accepting that limitation, in its report the sub-committee made only a small number of recommendations, most of them quite modest, in the hope that some of them at least might find acceptance and be embodied in whatever agreement may succeed the Second Lomé Convention.
I shall take first the sub-committee's recommendations in the field of trade. For some ACP countries, though not for all, the expansion of exports to the European Community appears to be the best route to further economic development. Most of the industrial products which they export to us are already duty free. But entitlement to that privilege is governed by the detailed and very strict provisions of the Second Lomé Convention about rules of origin. Since derogations from these rules could be abused, the sub-committee accepts that the Commission has been justified in subjecting applications for derogations to careful scrutiny, but it nonetheless considers that this is a field where the Community could afford to be more generous and more expeditious than it has been hitherto.
It would like to see the ACP countries permitted to export to the Community as their own products goods containing imported components and parts originating in other developing countries where these are an obvious source of supply. It would favour the utmost simplification of procedures when incorporated components would themselves face no tariff barriers if they had been exported direct to the European Community.
The STABEX scheme provides some compensation, but not necessarily full compensation, for falls in the income derived from certain exports. It has hitherto included iron ore, but at the end of this year iron ore will be transferred to SYSMIN and thereafter STABEX will cover only agricultural products. The funds earmarked for STABEX are subject to a ceiling, and that ceiling did not suffice to provide complete compensation for the falls in export earnings experienced in 1980 and 1981. The unpaid claims amount to about 367 million European currency units, which is roughly £200 million. If commodity prices rise during the period of the next agreement and if in consequence STABEX has unused funds, the subcommittee would like to see those deficits made good.
Under the existing convention, ACP countries which have benefited from STABEX payments may be required to make refunds when increased export earnings permit. It would be equitable for the European Community to assume a corresponding liability when reduced calls on STABEX funds make it possible to compensate for past deficits.
The ACP governments which have received STABEX payments have been at liberty to use them as they wished. They have often regarded them as free foreign exchange. In general, these payments have not been used to remedy the difficulties which made them necessary. This has been a cause of concern to Her Majesty's Government, who should like to see STABEX used to remedy shortcomings in development programmes. The sub-committee thought that that was right.
Given that under the successor agreement STABEX will relate exclusively to agriculture, the subcommittee hopes that the current negotiations will be used to include some products not at present covered—principally tobacco, on which some ACP countries are highly dependent. The sub-committee also hopes that thought will be given to the possibility of including in the successor agreement processed products derived from sisal and timber.
More generally, the sub-committee felt that the possibilities for using STABEX to promote the growth of processing industries had not been fully explored. If, as we all hope, world trade picks up from now on, there is a possibility that some of the funds earmarked for STABEX and SYSMIN may not be used. The sub-committee would not like to see substantial potential investment resources kept lying idle because of over-rigid regulations. They would welcome the introduction of a flexibility which would make such funds available for the operations of the European Development Fund, and which would facilitate transfers between STABEX and SYSMIN.
Turning to SYSMIN, the sub-committee were somewhat critical of the way SYSMIN has operated hitherto. Just as they wished to see STABEX payments used for the solution of development problems, so they wished to see SYSMIN payments made available for the diversification of development of mineral-dependent economies. In brief, they would like to see STABEX and SYSMIN operating on parallel lines.
On a minor point, of interest in this country only to rum drinkers, the sub-committee think that ACP rum producers should have quota-free access to the Community market. The present complicated system of annual quotas is a nonsense that should be brought to an end.
The Community's common agricultural policy limits the concessions which the Commission can offer to the ACP countries in the field of agricultural produce. Where markets are distorted by the existence of Community surpluses, the sub-committee were not able to make specific recommendations. They simply expressed the hope that during the current negotiations the Community will offer concessions wherever it is possible to do so. The reform of the common agricultural policy—which is a necessary pre-condition of rational international trade in some agricultural products did not lie within the subcommittee's terms of reference.
I now turn to the sub-committee's recommendations in the field of aid. The sub-committee accepted that for some ACP countries a revival of the world economy and an upsurge in world trade will be more beneficial than any foreseeable provisions of a successor to the Second Lomé Convention. But some of the ACP states are among the poorest and most disadvantaged in the world. For them the need for aid is likely to persist.
The problem which calls for the urgent attention of all aid donors is that of hunger, particularly in Africa. In October 1983, the month that the current negotiations for the successor convention began, the
632
Food and Agricultural Organisation held a conference on African food problems. It reported that 24 African countries, all of them ACP states, were affected by food shortages. Given this background, the subcommittee welcomed Commissioner Pisani's wish to move away from large-scale project aid and to devote a greater part of the resources at his disposal towards the achievement of adequate and secure food production, particularly in the areas threatened by food shortages. One member of the sub-committee was already pressing for this change of emphasis many years ago when he was Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the overseas development ministry.
But the shift of emphasis for which Commissioner Pisani is now working will not be appropriate for all ACP countries, some of which are self-sufficient in food: and where it is appropriate it will not be free of problems. The difficulties and the qualifications are reviewed in paragraphs 65 to 70 of the report, and I shall not repeat them here.
One thing is certain. Food sector strategies will call for differing approaches in the countries which adopt them. The possibilities and the problems vary from one country to another and, in some countries, from one region to another. From the outset, Commissioner Pisani has emphasised that when an ACP government decides to opt for the food sector strategy, it will be essential for that government to enter into careful discussions with the Commission about the whole range of policy decisions which will be needed to make that strategy a success. From the point of view of the Community this makes sense.
Community aid to many ACP states is only a small fraction of the total aid they receive, and Community aid in itself is not sufficient, and will not be sufficient, to finance a switch to food sector strategies. Coordination with other aid donors will be essential, and the Commission, for that purpose, will need to be well informed of all relevant needs. But in some ACP states the reaction to the Commission's insistence on the need to discuss policies has been suspicious. Hitherto, any conditions attached to aid received from the European Development Fund have, as a rule, been limited to the project for which that aid is given. But the need to ensure the success of food strategies affects a wide range of domestic policies. In some ACP states the Commission's request for the discussion of policies has been interpreted as an attempt to impose new conditions on the grant of aid and as an infringement of the sovereignty of the receiving government.
Pilot studies in food sector strategies are now under way in four countries. In Mali and Rwanda they seem to be going well. In Kenya they have given rise to misgivings. In Zambia the disparity between the extensive changes required of the government, the modest amount of Community aid, and its slow dispersement, together caused strain. We are told (Question 619) that of late the strain has eased. At the recent ministerial meeting in Suva the doubts and sensitivities of the ACP governments were discussed, and a search is now in progress for formulae which will allay, ACP misgivings.
For some of the areas threatened by hunger, food aid may continue to be necessary for a long time to come. But the sub-committee were well aware that food aid can, in certain circumstances, discourage

633
local food production, and they were not happy that the surpluses produced by the common agricultural policy create a constant incentive to give food aid where other forms of aid might be more appropriate. Food aid needs to be carefully co-ordinated with food sector strategies. For this reason the sub-committee support the suggestion already made by Her Majesty's Government that in the successor agreement everything relating to food should be brought together in a single chapter.
Some non-governmental organisations have acquired considerable expertise in developing food production in areas of subsistence farming. The subcommittee would like to see the Community making the best use of their services, but care will be needed. The Community is bureaucratic. To some extent the success of the non-governmental organisations has, stemmed precisely from the facts that they are independent and not bureaucratic.
The Overseas Development Administration announced on 16th February of this year that in the financial year 1984–85 there would be a small rise to £1,174 million in the funds allocated to all United Kingdom aid. Since the increase is small, it has to be assumed that the United Kingdom Government will not advocate any substantial increase in the total of Community aid under the successor convention. Nor were the sub-committee given any grounds for believing that the other member governments of the Community would recommend substantial increases in Community aid.
Meanwhile, the United States' contribution to the International Development Agency has been reduced and that reduction has not yet been made good by other governments. The ACP governments have made clear their hope that the resources transferred to them under the successor agreement will be much increased, but the view of the sub-committee is that the funds from which such an increase could be financed will not be there.
Within the ceiling of United Kingdom aid it will be possible to increase the allocation to Community aid, but that, given the ceiling, would mean reducing the allocations to the World Bank group to our bilateral aid programmes. The sub-committee have not recommended that. As aid givers, the World Bank group are experienced and efficient and the subcommittee view with approval the efforts of the United Kingdom Government to mobilise additional resources for the International Development Agency.
As for our bilateral aid programmes, they help to meet needs in areas not covered by the Lomé Conventions. Because of the existence of an aid ceiling, these bilateral aid programmes are being squeezed by the increase in our contributions to the international aid donors. In recent years the value in constant prices of all aid given throughout the world has been falling, but with population growth and the depression in world trade, the need for aid has been increasing. In the opinion of the sub-committee, the time has come for the United Kingdom Government to accord higher priority to aid in the general pattern of its expenditure. The efforts which the Government have been making on behalf of the International Development Agency could perhaps be interpreted as a recognition of that need.
Although the sub-committee's recommendations are so modest and so temperately worded that they might be regarded as anodyne, when I presented the sub-committee's report to the Select Committee for its approval, I felt bound to point out that its recommendations were in fact controversial. A Government who have given priority to the fight against inflation and who have already determined the aid ceiling for the present financial year can hardly be expected to agree without qualification to a recommendation that they should now give higher priority to aid. Those who think that the best thing the Community could do to help the developing countries would be to buy more from them are likely to be critical of the report's acceptance that early and rapid progress is unlikely in this field.
Those who have studied the ineffectiveness of some past aid programmes, those who have drawn attention to the examples of the waste of aid resources, those who have condemned the deleterious effects of some forms of food aid, those who are conscious of the manifold sources of resistance to change and of the difficulty of changing the emphasis of aid programmes—all of these people may well be of the opinion that in five years' time, when the performance of Community aid under the successor agreement is scrutinised, many of the old criticisms will be found still to be valid. The governments of the ACP countries and their negotiators may be disappointed that the report has not been more outspoken in support of their aspirations, criticisms and demands. The view of the Select Committee, when it gave its approval to the report, was that such issues are best debated on the Floor of this House.
When some of the ACP ambassadors in Brussels, who are the day-to-day negotiators for the ACP countries, gave oral evidence to the sub-committee, they asked what was the attitude of your Lordships' House towards development and development aid: towards protectionism, especially in relation to agricultural produce and in relation to the poorest countries; towards the need for an increase in aid; towards the reform of the common agricultural policy, with special reference to the production of sugar beet in the Community, and to the Commission's proposal for the taxation of imported vegetable oils; towards a suggestion that the successor agreement be ratified by the joint EC-ACP Parliamentary Assembly on behalf of the EC-ACP member states; and towards the reinforcement of the various EC-ACP institutions. Many of these questions lay quite outside the terms of reference of the sub-committee and, indeed, of the Select Committee. Such replies as we were able to give will be found on pages 260 and 261 of the minutes of evidence. If the noble Baroness who is to reply has anything additional to say in answer to these questions, I am sure her words will be studied most attentively by the ACP negotiators.
I am conscious that I have passed over in silence quite a number of the recommendations of the report. Most of them were suggestions which might improve the administration and effectiveness of Community aid. To have covered them all would have made this introduction inordinately long.
Before I sit down I wish to express the gratitude of the sub-committee to its specialist adviser. He had

635
previously been the sub-committee's specialist adviser for its earlier, and much more extensive, report on development aid in general. His advice on the choice of witnesses, on the formulation of issues, and on the shaping of a report which covers an intractably broad and diverse field gave great assistance to us.
I also wish to thank our clerk, who was new to his job, and who worked like a Trojan to ensure that copies of the report were ready in time for the ministerial meeting in Suva last month. Lastly, I express the thanks of the sub-committee to all the witnesses—ambassadorial, private, ministerial, and official—who so generously made their knowledge and experience available to us.
And now, having presented the report, I shall listen with attention and interest to what your Lordships and the noble Baroness who is to reply have to say about it and about the issues which it raises. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on the Successor to the Second LoméConvention (15th Report, 1983–84. H.L.168)—(Lord Brimelow).
3.38 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brimelow, for introducing this debate today. I am grateful, too, for the opportunity provided by the Select Committee's report to stress the importance that the Government attach to the current negotiations on a successor to the second Lomé Convention. Your Lordships will notice that I, like the noble Lord, Lord Brimelow, deliberately avoid the shorthand "Lomé III", because no decision has vet been taken as to where the next convention will be signed. That will be a matter for the African, Caribbean and Pacific states to decide among themselves; but the Government would certainly be happy to see a Commonwealth country act as host to the signing ceremony.
I should like first to welcome the Select Committee's report and to congratulate the noble Lords involved on the thoroughness and excellence of their work. Three years ago the same Select Committee produced a volume of similar proportions to the one which we have before us today on the more general question of the European Community's development aid policy. That has since become a standard work on the subject. I have little doubt that the present report will soon attain the same status.
The report rightly addresses itself to the political nature of the Lomé relationship. Lomé is the Community's major aid and trade pact with the developing world. More than half the world's developing countries are party to the convention, which, with the expected accession of Angola and Mozambique, will soon include the whole of independent black Africa as well as all the former British colonies in the Caribbean and Pacific. Of the present convention's 64 signatories, 35—the majority—are members of the Commonwealth. Or, put another way, three-quarters of Commonwealth members are in Lomé. Small wonder, therefore, that we want the current negotiations to succeed.
636
The committee consider that both trade and aid are important to the development of the ACP economies. The Government agree. For the ACP group as a whole, the financial flows resulting from trade with the Community are between two and three times as great as those from aid from all sources. The Government believe that it is essential to increase the opportunities for the ACP to sell their products to the Community, and in the long run to decrease their reliance on external aid for funding their development investments. The Government agree that the Community should offer trade concessions wherever it can, and consider that removal of the few remaining tariffs on imports of agricultural products from the ACP countries would be of mutual benefit to both the Community and the ACP. The Government, like the committee, also consider that European Development Fund (EDF) aid can make an important contribution to the promotion of ACP exports and to the development of regional ACP markets.
The Government also share the view of the committee that the encouragement of food processing and development of industry in the ACP require changes in the Lomé rules of origin. Possibilities are the extension of allowable non-ACP content to include that from those Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) and Mediterranean countries at a similar level of economic development, changes in the required percentage of value-added in the ACP, and simplification and expedition of the derogation procedures to allow for deserving exceptions. We have tabled proposals to this effect in Brussels: these have made some headway, but there is still room for further improvement in the Community's position.
In the Government's view such changes to the origin rules would increase the incentives to private Community investment in the ACP. We consider private investment an essential source of finance for ACP development, and have also proposed that the next convention should contain clearer provisions to encourage private investors.
If we turn to aid, it is convenient to look first, as the report does, at the Lomé STABEX and SYSMIN schemes, which are specifically intended to help particular commodity production sectors. The Government agree with the committee that it is preferable not to tie up too great a share of the EDF in specialist schemes like these, where funds may lie unused (as they have under the current SYSMIN scheme) or be inequitably distributed; but the level of resources to be devoted to these schemes under the next convention will not be decided until the size of EDF VI is agreed at the end of the negotiations. As to changes in the schemes, the Government, in accordance with our view on the need to improve the quality of EDF aid, support the Community position that STABEX transfers should contribute to the remedy of production problems in the sector which has triggered a STABEX claim, or diversification where appropriate. The ways in which this can be achieved are currently being negotiated with the ACP. The Community also consider that the ACP should, retain their right to propose the addition of new products to the list covered by STABEX; the scheme should however retain its tropical agricultural coverage.

637
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Brimelow, expressed the wish of the sub-committee that the unpaid ST ABEX claims for 1980 and 1981 be made good if funds allow under the next convention. I see difficulties in this. It would mean, in 1991, when the balance sheet for the next STABEX scheme was clear, making good shortfalls from 8 and 10 years earlier. Shortfalls from so long back will be a matter of history, and it is likely that by then there will be other issues to which the ACP and the Community might wish to put unused STABEX funds. I can however say that the Community has already agreed to reconsider this question at the end of the current convention, when it will be clear whether there is any unused balance in the current STABEX scheme.
The SYSMIN scheme for rehabilitation of capacity for the mining of selected minerals has to date been used only twice, and it is consequently difficult to evaluate its effectiveness at a time when there is an international over-capacity in the production of many minerals. The Government have, however, proposed changes to the scheme, including coverage for nickel, inclusion of related products in the calculation of SYSMIN claims, and greater flexibility for use of transfers, in recognition of the need to render the scheme more accessible to ACP states.
I mentioned the Community's concern to ensure that development aid makes the most effective possible contribution to ACP development under the new convention. We have proposed to the ACP that there should be a dialogue with them on their sectoral economic policies, which are crucial to the context in which aid is required to work. As experience has shown, the effects of aid can be minimal or even harmful if it is provided where local policies are inimical to its objectives. A commonly cited example is where local prices for farmers give inadequate incentives to them to make full use of development aid for agricultural production. Another example is provided by food aid which, while essential in emergencies for relief of famine, is all too often supplied with no regard to its integration with local agricultural policy, so that local farmers are under-cut, food consumption patterns changed and the capacity of local agriculture severely diminished. To overcome such difficulties and unintended consequences of aid, the Community has proposed to the ACP that they should discuss the local policy context in the areas most suitable for EDF aid. In this way both sides can establish where Community aid may be used to greatest effect.
The examples I have mentioned have been drawn from agriculture, and with very good reason. Agriculture remains for most of the ACP the principal contributor to their economic production. For most ACP it is the major employer. And, of course, if the continuing exodus of rural populations to cities where there are no jobs, no housing and inadequate sanitation is to be stemmed, the conditions of life in the countryside must be improved. The first requirement is that the ACP countries should be self-reliant in food, whether by their own production of food or by purchase, using earnings from their export of agricultural commodities and processed products.
This serves to highlight the inter-related nature of aid and trade policies. ACP exports will require
638
markets in the Community and elsewhere. It is evident that the food sector strategies already being implemented in selected ACP states will be of major importance in the new convention. We see it as a necessary condition of successful food strategies that all forms of Community aid should be effectively coordinated; and we welcome the committee's support for the Government's proposal that a separate food chapter in the next convention could usefully serve to highlight the interdependent nature of the various aspects of Community aid—including food aid—in the pursuit of food self-reliance.
Not all of the ACP will give equal prominence to agriculture. For many the development of other sectors—for example, mining, industry or transport—will be important. The policy dialogue will aim to establish where the need is greatest and the contribution likely to be best used. Like the committee, we see a major role for the Commission delegations, presently all too often under-used, in establishing the groundwork for this sort of discussion. It will also be important to ensure co-ordination, not merely of the various elements of the Community's trade and aid relationship with the ACP but also with the aid efforts of individual member states and with other donors. The dialogue, which we envisage as a continuing and flexible process, will offer opportunity for this.
It will now be rather evident that the Government place great faith in constructive dialogue with the ACP as a means of increasing the effectiveness of Community aid. We would also agree, however, with another important change recommended by the committee concerning the evaluation of completed projects. There is at present no regular evaluation of major Community aid projects. Nor is such evaluation made available to member states, the ACP, or the interested public. In both respects this contrasts with the practice of the leading multilateral aid agencies. The Government are pressing—with some success—for more evaluation of EDF aid under the new convention, to act both as an audit of performance and guide to the future based on experience. Perhaps both an enlarged evaluation unit within the Commission itself, and/or a greater role for the Court of Auditors, offer the greatest prospects for improvement.
I should not go on without reference to the next European Development Fund itself. The Government believe it is right that this should not be discussed with the ACP until the end of the negotiations on the substance of the new convention. However, I can say now that a principal factor in the Community's decision will be the ability of its member states to pay. The United Kingdom share of the EDF comes of course from our own aid programme. In considering their position, the Government must therefore take account of the other competing calls on a total aid programme necessarily contained within a given ceiling. Although that ceiling, like all Government expenditure, is reviewed regularly, it is right and necessary that it should be subject to the same disciplines as other areas of public expenditure. It remains the Government's policy to maximise the room for manoeuvre for our own bilateral aid effort by looking critically at expenditure on all our contributions to multilateral programmes.

639
The committee has pointed out that a significant increase in real terms in the size of the EDF would require the diversion of United Kingdom funds from other uses, particularly our own bilateral programme or our contributions to other international bodies. The Government note that the committee would deprecate such a diversion. In fact any increase, even in cash terms, would have this effect, so we are faced with a difficult choice. The final judgment on our contribution to the next EDF will be taken in the light of all the financial and political factors.
There are several other important recommendations which shortage of time prevents me from dealing with as fully as they deserve. Perhaps I may mention some of them briefly. The Government agree that EDF procedures can be slow and complex. An improvement will be necessary if the ACP are to be enabled to spend their EDF allocations as quickly as intended. We also hope that reforms in internal Community procedures—notably in provision of better advance information in EDF contracts, in the abolition of quotas for consultancy contracts, and in improved payment procedures—will result in an even greater share of contracts for United Kingdom firms, although our performance in this field has shown a steady and encouraging upward trend.
The Government share the view that nongovernmental organisations have a valuable role in tackling the problems of ACP development, and have also done a very effective job in publicising the issues involved in the Lomé negotiations. I am thinking in particular of the excellent series of "Lomé Briefing" papers produced under the auspices of the Liaison Committee of Development NGOs. There must however he a doubt about whether the NGOs could realistically absorb a large injection of Community financial assistance without fundamental change to their independent character.
The Government agree that some major ACP problems—for example, the fight against decertification—will need to be dealt with on a regional basis. To deal with the most important issues is precisely the purpose of the EDF, which has a pocket of money specially set aside for regional projects. The Government also agree that cultural aspects of development are important and may be aided from the EDF.
On the question of rum, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brimelow, I can assure the House that the Government share the sub-committee's views about the drawbacks of the present system. We have continually pressed for the removal of the least defensible aspect of the current regime, the separation of the United Kingdom market from the rest of the Community, with separate quotas for each. So far, we have met with little success. but the question is still under negotiation.
Near the end of his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Brimelow, referred to the request from ACP Ambassadors for guidance as to the attitude of your Lordships' House towards a number of issues. He noted that anything additional I might have to say on these issues would be studied intensively by the ACP negotiators. I believe that I have covered most of these
640
points in my reply. There are however a couple of additional points which I could usefully make. The common agricultural policy was, as the noble Lord rightly noted, outside the remit of the Select Committee's report. I need hardly remind your Lordships of the Government's efforts to reform that policy. On sugar beet, the Community has already taken a number of steps to reduce its production and is actively participating in discussions for a new International Sugar Agreement. We very much hope that an effective international agreement can be negotiated. At the end of the day, this will be the best contribution to the stabilisation of world sugar prices to the advantage of both importing and exporting developing countries. As for the Commission's proposal for the taxation of imported vegetable oils, I can assure your Lordships that the Government are firmly opposed to this, and I do not believe the Community will ever agree to such a tax.
I note the suggestion that a successor agreement might be ratified by the joint ECP/ACP Parliamentary Assembly. As a matter of constitutional practice, however, since the next convention will be a mixed agreement to which the Community, member states and ACP states will be party, it will have to be ratified by each signatory according to its own procedures. The Government support the suggestion that EC/ACP institutions should be reinforced to make them more effective. It has already been agreed in the negotiations with the ACP that there should be a consolidation of the present two parliamentary bodies, the EC/ACP Consultative Assembly and the Joint Committee.
Finally, it has been suggested, notably by Commissioner Pisani himself, that the next convention should be of unlimited duration, with a number of time-limited protocols covering particular issues—for example, trade co-operation or STABEX. This question has not yet been tackled in the negotiations, but the Government share the committee's scepticism about the value of such a change.
I trust that I have shown that the Government warmly welcome the contribution that this report has made both to the development of Government thinking and to public debate on the Lomé relationship. There is scarcely a recommendation in it with which the Government would wish to disagree.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brimelow, and to the Select Committee for the very thorough and comprehensive examination which they made of the negotiation to secure a successor to Lomé II, and it has been very useful at the beginning of our discussion to have this statement of the view of the Government which has just been given to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. It is clear that this is an important subject; yet it is equally clear—I think the report brings this out—that the Lomé Convention is of a limited nature. I think a few facts will support that contention.
The 64 ACP countries involved in the convention represent only one-eighth of the third world

641
population. Only five of the 25 most populous nations are included and the EEC of course has a series of aid and trade agreements with the rest of the developing world. Lomé accounts for only half of the EEC's own development aid and it accounts for only 12 per cent. of the development aid provided by the EEC member states, most of which is bilateral. Developing countries are naturally affected by the other policies in which the EEC is involved—for example, the common agricultural policy, as we have heard this afternoon, and the multi-fibre arrangement. The EEC generalised system of preferences applies to all developing countries. While it is true that more than 95 per cent. of Lomé exports come to the EEC duty free, most of them would in any case—I believe it is about 30 per cent. which actually benefits from the Lomé Convention in this respect. The money provided for all Lomé purposes, as one of the representatives of the ACP countries pointed out in evidence to the committee, is the same as the export earnings of British Steel. To say all this is not to criticise Lomé but to get it into perspective.
In spite of their limited nature, I believe that Lomé I and Lomé II have been very important experiments. I think there has been particular value in the institutional structure and the philosophy of equality which inspires it. There has been the specific experiment of STABEX which is designed to support earnings rather than prices. That was a distinctive change in the normal practice in these matters and that is a principle which I would think is capable of considerable expansion, as the report suggests. I regret that it has been used to some extent as a balance of payments relief, as the noble Lord, Lord Brimelow, explained to us, rather than to help particular producers affected. Nevertheless it is something that has been attempted on a small scale which could with value be extended further.
If the report makes clear that there is much to Lomé's credit, it also makes clear that nevertheless, particularly during the period of Lomé II, there has been growing disappointment and disillusionment with it. Recession, inflation, population outstripping food production, high interest rates and increasing debt have created an unfavourable economic background. STABEX has twice run out of funds, as we have heard, to meet legitimate claims and the balance of trade has moved strongly in favour of the EEC'. There have been complaints that the European Development Fund is under-funded and there have been the complaints to which reference has already been made of bureaucratic procedures for disbursement on the part of the Community. But, perhaps most disappointing of all, Lomé countries have failed to maintain their share in EEC markets even in comparison with other developing countries.
But I do not think that we should despair because there have been these disappointments. I think we must learn from experience and seek to make the successor convention wider in scope and more effective. Turning for a minute to aid, the EEC member states provide 39 per cent. of the aid which the ACP countries receive. The EEC itself as a group, as an entity, provides a further 9 per cent. and, of course, it is largely that 9 per cent. that we are concerned with when we are thinking about Lomé
642
I understand that the figure which is available is not negotiable and that this is resented by the ACP countries. Last time they got half of what they asked for. This time, as I understand it, there is to be no discussion. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, if I understood her aright, said that there would be discussion at the end when all the other talking has taken place. One wonders if that is perhaps entirely the right order in which things should occur. And there is the related problem, to which the noble Lord, Lord Brimelow, referred, that if the United Kingdom increases its contribution to Lomé it decreases it elsewhere, so what we have to press for if we want to increase the amount available for Lomé is an overall increase in United Kingdom aid. I would support the plea which the noble Lord, Lord Brimelow, made for a higher priority to be given to aid.
Clearly the EEC must have the last word on the EEC figure, but I should have thought it should be discussed, and discussed in relation to overall total aid from all sources, with the ACP countries. The European Development Fund's real value has declined over the years. I should like to ask the noble Baroness when she comes to reply whether the new European Development Fund allocation is going to offer increased real value. We have already heard mention of the need for larger allocations for STABEX.
The report deals with the views of Commissioner Pisani that there should be a concentration now, so far as aid is concerned, on improving agricultural production. I am sure that there is much sense in that and that what both speakers so far have said about food aid and its effect on self-reliance in food must be given proper weight; and, in order that this matter should be discussed with the ACP countries, there is the proposal on which the noble Baroness put great stress for policy dialogue. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Brimelow, pointed out, this has problems and it needs sensitive handling because some of the ACP countries, at any rate, fear that this is just one way of attaching conditions which would be an infringement of their sovereignty.
Then there is the question of industrialisation. We cannot altogether neglect that, although it is right to make agriculture the priority in the conditions of today. But only 4 per cent. of exports to the EEC from the ACP countries are manufactured goods. I wonder whether the Government are anticipating that there will be any increase in that. I am aware that there is very little restriction—there is some, particularly in the field of textiles on the import of manufactured goods; but this is a matter which involves development and aid as well as trade. I was glad that the noble Baroness spoke strongly about the need to have more effective disbursement. It was hopeful that this could be achieved. Comparing aid and trade, in 1982 the disbursements from the European Development Fund were equal to about 3 per cent. of the value of the ACP countries' trade with the EEC.
It will be seen that the benefits of aid can easily be cancelled by marginal changes in EEC trade policy. In 1982 the 64 ACP countries received £400 million in aid from the European Development Fund. In the same year they received £10,000 million from the sale of exports to EEC countries, so it would seem to be

643
right as a general proposition that trade is more important than aid, important though aid is. I accept what the report says, that this would not apply to every ACP country, but I put it forward as a generality. It has been suggested that aid not trade might well be the motto of the EEC countries in their approach to the current negotiation. I would wonder if the noble Baroness would think that that was fair or whether that gives an unbalanced view of what the governments of the EEC have in mind at the moment. I would think that there is a need for freer access for produce which competes with the common agricultural policy; and the noble Lord, Lord Brimelow, touched on that.
I noted the evidence in the report from the Consumers in the European Community Group, who said that, by and large, the EEC is only prepared to allow duty free imports from ACP countries of food that cannot be grown in the EEC. They went on to say that there are cases where the Community does tax food imports from ACP countries even when the EEC does not produce the food concerned. That would not seem to be justified. There is the question, too, of the impact on developing countries generally of the agricultural export policy of the EEC. That, too, has already been mentioned this afternoon. I think that perhaps it might be wise to look again at the operation of the safeguards clause. One wonders to what extent the threat of its use is used to achieve what is perhaps euphemistically described as voluntary restraint.
I was glad to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, was in agreement with the report over the relaxation of rules of origin. I would hope that now something will be achieved in that sphere. It seems to me also that in thinking of these problems we cannot leave out of account the effect on ACP countries and other developing countries of the economic policies which are followed in the countries of the developed world; and that if the EEC countries were able to come together to give some stimulus to their economy—to investment in their infrastructure, for example—this in turn being the engine which drew their own economies more speedily out of the recession, they might at the same time provide an engine to do the same for the third world.
Then finally there is the problem of the overall coordination of all aid from all sources. Ideally, of course, the greatest help should go to the severest poverty anywhere in the world. That conflicts with the principle of selecting 64 nations, mostly with historical ties, for favoured treatment. That is now an established policy. It is understandable that the EEC should want to maintain these relations and close connections that have been built up, but a compromise is obviously necessary and it will not always be easy to achieve. However, I believe that the British influence should lead towards a universal approach rather than a selective approach and that we should be seeking, where possible, to include more people and more countries within the scope of the provisions of the Lomé Convention and its successor.
I hope that the EEC and ACP countries will be able to rise above past disappointments and recapture something of the original vision, and create together a more satisfactory and satisfying outward-looking relationship in the future.
4.11 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester: My Lords, I am sure we must all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brimelow, for this Motion and for giving us the opportunity to debate this report. The existence of the first Lomé Convention was for many of us an important factor in commending the European Community at the time of the referendum. I am sure we are also grateful for the encouragement which has been given to the recommendations of the report by the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
I claim no expertise in the technicalities of this matter, but we on these Benches have a special concern for the current negotiations with which the report deals because we are members of the worldwide Anglican Communion, in which we are partners with bishops and others in many of the ACP countries. My own diocese has a special link, along with Guildford and Portsmouth, with the provinces of Nigeria and West Africa. The Bishop of Accra has been for the last month in Sussex, visiting parishes and addressing meetings; and he will be staying with me this coming weekend. So we are acutely aware at a personal level of the appalling problems of poverty, hunger and disease in many of the ACP countries. I am not so widely travelled as many of my colleagues. but I shall never forget the impression made upon me by a visit to Sierra Leone and Ghana, and by the enormous contrasts in riches and poverty that one sees walking through the streets of, for example, Freetown.
Therefore, for us "partnership" is a very important word in relation to this whole field of concern, and that is what I particularly want to emphasise in today's debate. It is what I understand to be spoken about expecially in Part 3 of the report. Some of your Lordships will no doubt have read Schumacher's last book, and may well remember a particular story that he tells of a family—a father, mother and a bright little boy of eight or ten—who went into a restaurant. They sat down, and the waitress brought three menus. The little boy looked at his menu and said, "I'll have liver and bacon". The father looked at the menu and mother looked at the menu, and the father then said to the waitress, "Three steaks, please". The waitress, writing it down, said, "Two steaks and one liver and bacon". After she had gone the little boy turned to his mother and said, "Mummy, she thinks I'm real".
I think that story has an important moral for us, because we are all tempted to think that we know what is best for other countries. It is vital that all discussions about aid to developing countries should be conducted and thought of in ways which respect the human dignity of those being aided. This, as I see it, involves for the giver that he must give freely and not because he expects to get some advantage in return, and also that he accepts that what he gives will be freely used by the recipient, possibly even in ways that the giver thinks unwise or does not much like. Obviously there are some limits to this, but there is an important principle at stake about the kind of relationship there should be: it should be one of partnership.
I want to stress in this field the importance of the voluntary contributions of individuals in this whole range of aid—the non-governmental contributions which, because they involve a large number of people,

645
I believe help to build up the right sense of relationship. We in the Church of England have tried to make a contribution to overseas aid by asking all our members to give 1 per cent. of their net take-home pay for this purpose. A resolution to that effect was passed as long ago as 1975 by the General Synod in a Motion promoted by the present Archbishop of Canterbury. I may say that the Archbishop would very much have liked to have been present here today to speak in this debate, but he has to be in the chair at a meeting of the House of Bishops outside London, at a place which perhaps I should hasten to say is not Epsom. The General Synod, in taking this action, was following the example of the Methodist and the United Reformed Churches.
It is difficult to be precise about the response to this, because different dioceses deal with the matter in different ways: some by a process of direct grant through the diocesan budget and others by appeals to parishes. However, every diocese now has its own diocesan development representative, and there is a central committee trying to keep them all up to the mark. I am quite sure we could do more than we do, but it is in fact increasing.
This cannot, of course, take the place of governmental contributions, and therefore it must be a cause of some concern to read statements made by the director of Christian Aid to the effect that the 1984–85 expenditure on the net aid programme will be 17 per cent. lower in real terms than the aid given in 1978–79. Also, we learn that nearly two-thirds of the British bilateral aid programme is tied to the export of British goods, and in a way which benefits British companies. It is doubtful whether it really helps the poorest.
Again, between 1978 and 1982 British aid to the United Nations development programmes fell 56 per cent.; and in 1981, at the Paris Conference, Britain refused to give 0.15 per cent. of national income to the least developed countries. At the same time, we are grateful for what the noble Baroness has told us, and it is cause for pleasure that in March this year Britain agreed to spend £106,000 million on development education up to 1987, and that the Government have committed themselves to increase the benefits which projects bring to the developing countries and, in particular, to the poorest sections of the world community.
This last point touches on the problems of how, without infringing the proper independence of the countries to which aid is being given, we can try to ensure that the poor do not get poorer and the rich richer. One way may be, as the noble Lord, Lord Brimelow, said, by assisting in long-term development projects for food production as against simply exporting large quantities of food. Reference has been made to the four African countries, in which, since 1982, there have been pilot projects of this kind. Paragraph 65 of the report indicates that there are some qualifications and hesitations in what is to be said about these, but it is notable that other ACP countries, seeing this, have requested help of a similar kind. That is an important example of the sort of partnership that I have had in mind in what I have been saying.
646
I should like to end with a word about the importance of the two Lomé Conventions and of these current negotiations for the European Community itself, because partnership is a two-way thing. Many of us who were enthusiastic supporters of Britain's entry into the European Community have been greatly saddened by the way in which the European vision, the thought of what Europe has to give to the world—its potential contribution to world peace, the rule of law in the affairs of nations and above all, the European religious and cultural tradition—has all been submerged (indeed, it has almost vanished from sight) under the perpetual arguments and conflicts over internal economic policies. To be compelled to direct our attention to the Lomé Convention and to the needs of the developing countries will at least, if only for a moment; lift our eyes above these preoccupations to the needs of others and to what Europe ought to be contributing to the world.
As I said, partnership is a two-way thing, and, indeed, our ACP partners may help us to think a little more critically about what we expect as of right to be our standard of living, and perhaps remind us, as in a different way this week does, of the spirit of service and sacrifice called for from all of us at all times in the cause of human dignity and freedom. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will do everything they can to give strong support to the current negotiations and to stress their urgency.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brimelow, for giving us an opportunity to discuss this matter. I also wish to compliment him on his chairmanship of the sub-committee and thank him for permitting me to exercise my right as a Member of this House to attend meetings of the sub-committee. Of course, not being a member of the sub-committee, I am not responsible for the report. However, I welcome it. Much of it is in the spirit in which I would have written such a report, and therefore I welcome it. There are one or two points on which I would not ncessarily go 100 per cent. with the sub-committee, but these will emerge in the course of my remarks.
I was an observer in Brussels when the very first Lomé conference started and there were great hopes as to what would emerge as a consequence. It is fair to say that 10 years later our faith is not as strong as it was, because the results have not been as good as any of us had hoped. At this stage, therefore, we must see how in the course of the negotiations upon the next agreement we can remedy any defects that there may have been and move forward and revive the hopes that we had 10 years ago.
I shall comment on a few of the issues, starting with the volume of financial resources. I do not disagree with the suggestion that the volume of aid should be declared at the end of negotiations. I am not against that. I am, however, very critical of the fact that all the information that I obtain suggests that, while the EEC Governments are insisting that they will not declare what will be the volume of aid until the end of the negotiations, they have nevertheless given a very

647
limiting financial brief to the negotiators. That I would have to criticise. If we were looking at the issues, deciding how we would deal with them and, in the end, provide the resources for dealing with them, then the approach of the EEC Ministers would be right. If, however, they are definitely going to limit funds, they ought to begin by making it clear that the funds are limited and thus, in the course of the negotiations, allow the ACP countries to decide which of the policies they would wish to push. To leave the level of funds to the end, and allow them to negotiate in the expectation of higher funds than they will receive, is quite wrong.
Therefore, I hope that Her Majesty's Government for their part, will make sure that the role they play in this is correct—either that there will be limited funds, and saying so, with the negotiations based on that, or, alternatively, negotiate and, at the end of the day, provide the funds to meet the agreements that have been made. It seems to me that it cannot be done in the way that it is being done.
The last Lomé agreement was in per capita terms 20 per cent. lower than the first one. As I have been saying, what the level will be with this one we do not know. At least, we should try to match the last Lomé agreement. But in fact we ought to be matching the first one, because, if in 1974 we thought that a particular level of funds was necessary in order to attain the objectives that we had in mind, then, unless those objectives have been attained, or are being attained, a reduction in funds is not a logical course. Therefore the objective should be to try to raise the level of contribution to what it would have been had we kept to the level which existed in the first Lomé Convention. My hopes are not very high. Nevertheless, I hope that this point will be borne in mind and that the Government, with this objective in mind, will try to be a little more liberal when making funds available.
We are speaking about the period from 1985 to 1990. A large increase in aid would not be required in 1985–1986 in order to start off the process. The process could be started off by a small increase in 1985–1986, followed by another increase in 1986–1987. and further increases in 1987–1988 and 1988–1989. The funds have to be declared now, but they could be made available on that understanding. Although the economic situation is not very good, I hope that, nevertheless, the appropriate funds will be allocated and that the economic situation will not be allowed to dominate the whole issue.
I am pleased that the Government's attitude to trade is not too bad. As this is a trade and aid agreement, I believe that we should try to do the best we can at both levels. It is perfectly true that for many of the territories it is the trade, rather than the aid, agreement which matters. What is required, therefore, is a trade regime which is capable of stimulating ACP trade. It is in that context that our whole attitude to trade should be examined.
I am glad that the Government are willing to look at the rules of origin and that they support their revision. I had hoped that the Minister would say that the Government support the recommendations contained in the report. It should not be too difficult to do so. The
648
present position is that materials from either ACP or EEC countries are allowed in. We are asking that, in addition, goods should be allowed in from other developing countries, as well as from EFTA countries. EFTA goods already have free entry into the EEC. Therefore, it should not be very difficult for the Government to say that they will back this approach in the negotiations. I hope that, even though the Government do not say so, they will nevertheless back this approach because it would be a way of helping the developing countries.
It is particularly important that we should liberalise the rules of origin for the fishing industry. Many of these countries will soon have a further economic zone which they will wish to exploit, but there is no way in which they will be able to provide the fishing fleet with which to export their fish. It will have to be exported by the fishing fleets of other countries. In effect, therefore, there must be some liberalisation in order to allow such countries to benefit. I hope that all these matters will be borne in mind and that the rules of origin will be liberalised sufficiently to enable these countries to benefit from them.
The STABEX scheme needs to be improved. STABEX is one of the Lomé successes. On the other hand, it is quite clear that the funds made available have been insufficient. I do not see why it should be difficult to use the interest from EDF, which belongs to the ACP states, in order to replace the STABEX funds when they run out. There is always in hand a large amount of interest from EDF which could be used for this purpose. I hope that there will be an examination of this approach in order to meet the shortage of funds for STABEX.
In addition, STABEX needs to be improved by expanding the range of products which are available for it. The noble Lord, Lord Brimelow, mentioned tobacco. I shall mention citrus. I see no reason why citrus products should not be part of the STABEX scheme. Furthermore, the dependence and fluctuation thresholds were intended to limit the funds. I hope that this problem will be looked at very carefully in order to examine whether they are necessary, or at what level they are necessary. For example, is 2 per cent. necessary in the case of the least developed territories? In the case of the better developed territories, is 6.5 per cent. necessary? Perhaps it ought to be 5 per cent., or 4 per cent. This problem ought to be looked at because more territories ought to be able to benefit. STABEX has been criticised by the Court of Auditors. I hope that their criticisms will be borne in mind, in particular their criticism that there are inconsistencies in the way in which it is calculated and administered. As the Court of Auditors have said, there should be greater transparency in calculation and greater predictability in operation. I hope that it will be looked at in that light so that an improvement can be made to the STABEX scheme.
I now turn to SYSMIN. Some degree of compensation is required because, as at present administered, the SYSMIN scheme does not allow for any degree of compensation. In addition, in order to maintain its present export capacity a certain measure of compensation—I am not suggesting that it should be total—should be added to the SYSMIN scheme. I hope that this point will be seriously considered.

649
Since I come from the Caribbean, I have to say I hope that serious consideration will be given to tourism and to the way in which the EEC can help territories whose main asset is their beauty to benefit from that. A regime to help tourism could be agreed. I hope that serious consideration will be given to this point.
Serious consideration should also be given to shipping. I regret that the sub-committee did not have an opportunity to tackle this serious issue, in terms of how these territories will benefit from any trade preferences which are given to them. Whatever benefit they may gain can be absorbed—just like that—in the cost of shipping goods to Europe. Shipping, therefore, is a question which requires serious consideration.
Regional co-operation is of the utmost importance. It is important to the Southern African Development Conference. It is also important to the Caribbean—to CARICOM. I spoke earlier about such territories exploiting their exclusive economic zones. Many of these territories cannot individually exploit their exclusive economic zones; that will have to be done on a regional basis. Therefore, assistance with regional activities should be given a great deal of support within the agreement.
Also, I believe that the EDF could use the regional financial institutions to better effect. I do not refer only to the distribution of funds but also to the knowledge they have of the areas concerned and to their value as people who can help in assessing the value of a particular project. It seems to me that that is an area in which the present regime is lacking. I believe also that in the management of the fund all told, more could be done not only by using the delegations but also by using local people; not only on the staff of the delegations but having some ACP experts in Brussels. From what I hear, it seems that there is a need for more sensitivity in DG VIII to the actual needs and conditions of the territories with which they are dealing. Therefore, to have some ACP experts in DG VIII would be of value. It may not be in keeping with the constitution to have them there, but if one had them in delegate offices and used them, that would be just as good.
I want to comment now on three or four products of importance to individual territories. In the case of beef, for example, those territories permitted to export beef to Europe were given a quota of 30,000 tonnes before Zimbabwe joined. When Zimbabwe joined, the quota was increased to only 38,000 tonnes. I gather that the territories requested a quota of 44,000 tonnes but that they have been given only 30,000 tonnes. This seems to be absurd. I hope that the information I have received is wrong and that this will not be the way in which the matter is handled.
Bananas are an absolutely essential export commodity for the Windward Islands. The retention of the export structure for bananas is therefore of the utmost importance. Wherever possible, the provisions should be extended, and I hope that will be considered. Sugar has been mentioned before. This is an area of serious conflict. We have the EEC accepting a certain sugar quota from these territories and then dumping its surplus sugar on the world market. As a consequence, the world price of sugar is made very
650
low, so that the territories which depend on sugar exports find themselves in difficulty.
It should not be so difficult for the EEC to find a way of helping those territories. I agree that if they join the international sugar agreement, that will be a first-class development. I know that the British Government have been pushing them to do so and I was glad to hear from the Minister that there seems to be some hope that they will. Even if they do not do so, there are opportunities for them. Sugar can be included in other products, for example. If one asks what percentage of exports a particular commodity represents, I can assure your Lordships that sugar represents more than 6.5 per cent. of the exports of Barbados, because its main export is probably sugar and rum. If there is a fall in the world price of sugar, territories relying on sugar exports are really and truly hit.
It seems to me that something could be done, even if it is only in assessing the price at which that sugar is bought. One could take account of the fact that a volume of sugar was about to be dropped upon the world market, thus forcing prices lower. One could then pay those territories a compensatory price. They would be paid a little more than they receive now. The price that they receive now is analogous to the price paid to European sugar beet producers. The territories could be paid an extra penny or two, to compensate them for the fact that they will lose when there is dumping. The real solution, of course, is not to dump sugar on the world market, and we hope that will be achieved one day. In the meantime, we must find ways of helping the territories which are hit in the way I have described.
Again, I was glad to hear the support from all sides of the House for the rum regime. There is no reason why there should be any problems or any quota. What is more, there is no reason why rum should not move from one EEC territory to another quite freely. One ought to be able to achieve agreements of that kind, and I hope that the British Government will be pressing very hard for such agreements.
Finally, I wish to comment on the policy dialogue which everybody seems to be so happy about. I am not saying that we should not have it, but I am saying that we should be careful how it is done. It must be a dialogue between equals. When all is said and done, the EEC is providing only 9 per cent. of the aid which goes to the territories in question. If all the others providing the remaining 91 per cent. also insist on policy dialogues, it may be found that their attitude is not the same as that of the EEC. Where will the territories stand then? All the territories will have to conform because they are compelled to do so. They do not receive money from the IMF unless they conform with whatever policy is laid down. Supposing the policy suggested was different from that of the IMF, where would the territories stand then? Although a policy dialogue looks to be a sensible idea, one must approach it with caution.
I have spoken for long enough, but I hope that I have given the Minister some points which she will be able to give to her right honourable friend to take to the various meetings. I believe that Britain needs to play a forceful part in the negotiations. When all is said and done, the majority of the ACP countries are Commonwealth countries.
4.48 p.m.
Viscount Rochdale: My Lords, it was a great satisfaction to me to be able to serve on the subcommittee under the very penetrating chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Brimelow. I should also like to congratulate him, as other noble Lords have done, on the very skilful way in which he has introduced this debate. This debate follows closely on that introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, on 22nd May, to which reference has also been made. Unfortunately, I was not able to listen to all of that debate but I have read Hansard very carefully and it was quite clear that it emphasised very much the importance of the subject we are now discussing. There was a great deal in that debate which impinges directly on the work of the report.
The report, as I understand it, can be divided under two main headings. The first is the subject of aid—whether in cash or in kind. The second is the subject of trade between the ACP states and Community members. While the relative importance of these will vary with the circumstances of individual recipient countries, I suppose one can safely hope that—except in the case of emergencies such as drought, crop failure or earthquakes—the need for aid as time goes on will come to be regarded as a transitional demand only. Ultimately, as self-sufficiency in food becomes more of a reality—however long that may take, perhaps many decades—the need for aid will gradually diminish and perhaps come to an end. On the other hand, increasing trade must surely be regarded as essentially a continuing, important and necessary way of life for the mutual benefit of the ACP countries and the members of the Commission.
In the short time that I propose to speak I should like, first, to give one or two general impressions that I received from the evidence that we were given, both oral and written. The aid received from the Commission through the EDF is, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, mentioned only a moment ago, a relatively small part of the total aid from all world sources. Small as it is—and I say this with great regret—1 doubt whether as a general rule the best use is always made of the limited resources available; or, to put it in other words, I doubt whether those at the receiving end always get the best value for the money allocated to them by the donors.
I hasten to say that I am not seeking to criticise the efforts of the many men and women who work for the Community, whether in Brussels or in the delegations overseas. I imagine that they may well be overworked and probably are, but I get the impression that some of the procedures that have to be used and followed are too cumbersome, and that there is room for simpler procedures, for more flexible administrative arrangements and for more co-ordination between the various sources from which aid comes. There could be more delegation to those on the ground and, as has already been mentioned—and this is one of the most important things—better evaluation and monitoring of what actually is being achieved on the ground in the ACP states.
One realises that if one pursues this a long way it could result either in an unacceptable increase in
652
workload for those who have to carry it out or in higher administrative costs. But I still wonder whether, even if those costs were increased, it might not result in an important net gain at the receiving end. I feel that this is something that should be looked at. In this field I get the impression that the bilateral aid and the aid from the NGOs can often be more effective. For that reason I deprecate—as, indeed, paragraph 103 does—any diversion of funds away from the United Kingdom bilateral aid to Community aid. Similarly, with the pattern of world trade constantly and inevitably changing—with all that that involves, which is a pretty considerable matter—there will be a need, as I see it, for periodic review of arrangements, with perhaps fairly substantial adjustment to them. Therefore I would not favour the successor convention being of unlimited duration. That, too, is referred to in the report.
Having given those general impressions, I now turn to the matter of trade. The importance of trade must vary with the individual ACP countries: with their stage of development: their natural resources, whether mineral or crops; and the stage of development of their human resources, whether in the field or in industry, or in their government institutions. In the long term a worldwide network of trade-flows must be to the advantage of all and must be our constant objective. The problems inherent in the development of this kind of trade are many and varied. They are discussed in the report at some length in paragraphs 37 to 49. In so far as they deal with, shall we say, industrial or processed goods from the ACP countries to the Community—to the old industrial countries—they can at times be painful. Any one of your Lordships who like myself, has been in any way associated in the past with the textile industries will know only too well what that can mean. However, I do not intend to pursue that line of thought, although other noble Lords may wish to do so.
I want to refer, in particular, to paragraph 86, which the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, mentioned and which deals very briefly indeed with shipping. It is the question of the shipping interests of the ACP countries and the countries of the Community. International trade—and that is what we want to promote—demands, as a necessity, efficient, reliable and rapid shipping services to transport the cargoes concerned. Unfortunately, however, the written evidence that the sub-committee received from the General Council of British Shipping on behalf of itself, and also from CAACE, its opposite number in Europe dealing with the European countries' shipping bodies, did not arrive in time for it to be fitted into the programme for the hearing of oral evidence that we were able to carry out. The written memorandum submitted by the General Council of British Shipping is printed in the report on page 313, and I should like to comment a little on it. However, I must emphasise that, as this could not be discussed in any detail by the sub-committee, what I have to say can only be my own views and not necessarily those of the sub-committee.
In the Lomé II convention, at Annexe 19, there is a declaration recognising the need for harmonious development of efficient and reliable shipping services on economically satisfactory terms between the ACP countries and European states. Unfortunately, this

653
declaration carried no obligation with it for signatories to the convention to follow up. So it is that we see a number of ACP countries who were involved in the negotiations, and who were actually signatories to the convention, pursuing a protectionist maritime policy which must not only be a disadvantage to the shipping lines in Europe, including our own, but also, from their point of view, reduce competition and increase costs, and so be of no help at all, whether to exporters or importers, whether in ACP countries or in Europe.
I find this very disturbing. With the emphasis, which we heard very clearly in other evidence that we received, that ACP countries reasonably wish the negotiations to be regarded (and I am using their own words) as between equals, and with the United Nations liner code having come into force last autumn with all its possible teething troubles, it seems only equitable that shipping should feature in the negotiations that are now going on and in some way be built into the new convention on a give-and-take basis. To date, that has not been the practice. Despite, as I understand it, some diplomatic approaches to the offending countries, they seem to have had no effect at all.
The General Council's memorandum urges an undertaking on the part of all signatories not to discriminate against each other's shipping. It makes six specific suggestions, which can be read in the report. I am not going to develop them in detail today, but they can be developed. There is a good deal to be said for each of them. They deal with different undesirable practices, but what they all amount to, in effect, is one form or another of discrimination against each other's shipping lines.
One final point on this matter is: could there not be an assurance that Community aid cargoes will be equitably divided between ships operated by the Community, on the one hand, and ACP lines, on the other—always provided, of course, that they can produce an efficient and competitive service? Too often we have found Community aid cargo having been either reserved by the recipient ACP countries exclusively to its own ships or shipped by state-subsidised Eastern bloc shipping. I cannot imagine that that sort of reservation of aid cargoes is really in the spirit of the original Lomé Therefore, all I hope is that this question of shipping is discussed in the negotiations, and that something will be written into the new convention, just as it has been written into Lomé II.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, although I am a member of the Select Committee, I was not on Sub-Committee B, so I think it is quite appropriate to say how much I value this report. In fact, I think it is one of the best we have produced in the last few years. I am sure the House would agree that Lord Brimelow deserves much praise, not only for producing this report but for the amount of work that he personally put into it, to which I was a witness.
A great many of the things I was going to say have been dealt with, so my speech is going to be very short, but I have one or two points which have not been raised. The first point that I was very glad has been raised and has been stressed is the fact that the Lomé
654
Convention is not just a matter of aid. In actual figures, I believe the total is about 3 per cent. of volume in proportion to the volume of trade between the EEC and the ACP countries. In my view, there can be no doubt that it is a very valuable instrument for both diplomatic and economic reasons, and it highlights the interdependence of the first and third worlds.
However, I think it could be much improved. This was very well summed up by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, whose officials told the committee on 26th October that their major worry about the Community Aid Programme was the disproportionate share which goes on food aid and the purposes to which it is put. This has been already been mentioned, but I think it is a very important point. They went on to say that, while they accepted the role of food aid in emergencies, most of the food aid is not to remedy disaster, but goes rather to provide for imports to the recipient countries, thus reducing the incentive to increase domestic production, distorting market forces and consumption habits and delaying necessary reforms. As your Lordships may remember, this was the theme of the debate on world hunger that took place in this House last July. I make this point now because most of the criticisms are administrative criticisms, but I believe that the actual policy of the aid giving also deserves some further examination to decide whether the policies are right.
The other matter that slightly disappointed me was that there seemed to be very little, if any, reference to any priority being given to areas of the greatest devastation caused by lack of water control, desertification, soil erosion and destruction of forests. In 1981 the World Bank pointed out that there is a declining growth rate in agricultural production below the rate of population growth and underlined the urgent need to reverse this process. The ACP countries do not appear to give this problem the very high priority is should command. I think the actual figures for this are rather interesting: in the Community only 10 per cent. of the population are engaged in agriculture, yet it has the highest priority of everything in the Community budget. In Africa, 80 per cent. of the population are engaged in agriculture and up until recently it has received virtually no priority at all. I am sure that this is well appreciated by the Commission and the Council of Ministers, but it is difficult to do much about it unless the ACP countries can be persuaded or convinced that it is agriculture in general and the special problem that I have described that should be given priority.
This brings us once again to the very sensitive area of conditionality. When oral evidence was given by a group of ACP ambassadors, their leader, His Excellency Ambassador Kazunga of Zambia, said in no uncertain terms:
"Nor are we amenable to the introduction of conditionality in our arrangements which have always been predicated on a basis of complete equality of partnership".
How they are to be persuaded to ask for these urgent and fundamental reforms of aid I do not know. However, I believe that the matter is so important that discussions should take place at the highest possible level and that in the last resort these priorities should be insisted on. I further believe that any country that produces a plan that seriously meets these criteria

655
should receive massive financial and technical support to ensure success. I would remind your Lordships that the reinforcement of success is not only a principle of war.
Another worry that I have is the extent to which this country seems to favour increasing multilateral aid through the EDF. I stress this again. The point has been well made that any reduction in bilateral aid could act very seriously against both our interests and the interests of the recipients. On the face of it, it appears that multilateral aid has much to be said for it. It could make a larger impact. It is more acceptable. But against this there is the cumbersome administrative machinery which we see particularly in connection with the Community, where we have so many different directorates engaged in all these policies of aid.
So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, I have no doubt that we have a greater expertise in development matters than any other member of the EEC, if not any other country in the world. I think many of your Lordships may have seen the report of the CDC which appeared a few days ago—a most remarkable document, which I commend to your Lordships' attention. Although I know it is not a private sector enterprise in that sense, but it is run on normal private sector principles, using equity, and so on. it has, in fact, succeeded in the most astonishing manner, and this last year has made a net profit, after all expenses, of £11 million which has been added to its reserves, bringing them up now to £93 million. I believe the earnings ratio is now about I0 per cent. on the capital employed.
It is important when we are talking about aid to think in terms of what is done by such bodies as the CDC. Too often. I believe, questions have been asked in your Lordships' House about the amount of aid in cash terms. If one thinks of the CDC, this is not done in disbursements from the Treasury, although there might have been a few millions involved in topping up over the last few years. By simply giving a guarantee, extended in this House the other day to £750 million, it is possible to provide aid of that amount on a rollover basis. The amount of aid that the CDC has produced over the last ten or 20 years is far greater than that. When we think of the volume of assistance we give to ACP countries, where the CDC largely operates, that has to be taken into consideration.
I wish now to discuss private investment, which brings with it so much essential skill. This aspect, although not described as aid is potentially even more important than all the activities of the EDF. It has often rightly been said—I have perhaps used the argument too often myself but I repeat it without shame—that equity investment is the cheapest and most effective form of finance. It costs nothing until it has earned profit and a sufficient cash flow from which dividends can be paid. It costs nothing if the project fails. Those who have put it up lose their money but there is no debt left in the form of Government loans that have to be repaid out of taxation and carried forward in due course.
If I have any criticism of the Select Committee report, it is that it does not emphasise enough the
656
importance of private investment. I shall be interested to know whether noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, and the noble Lord, Lord Hams of High Cross, will support what I am about to say on this. Paragraph 83 of the report states that,
"given the vagueness of the references to this subject in Lomé II, there would be advantage in seeking the inclusion in the successor Convention of 'sensible, effective and clear provisions that would help to create a better climate for Community investment'."
We should have said more. I hope that the Commission will be much more specific and negotiate a code of practice that will include, inter alia, these points. First, there must be freedom for firms to employ expatriates with special skills in management, marketing and technical services; and, secondly, there must be freedom to repatriate a reasonable proportion of profits, employee savings and capital that becomes surplus to requirements. Thirdly, those responsible must refrain from imposing penal taxation on profits or employees' salaries—something which I am afraid I have seen only too often in the countries where I have operated. Fourthly, there must be a guarantee not to nationalise or expropriate undertakings without full compensation. Fifthly, there should be no insistence on a minimum 50 per cent. holding in the equity by the ACP country concerned. Sixthly, the code should be applied equally to all existing private sector firms. Lastly, there must be agreement on how dispute settlement procedures are arranged.
If some agreement on these lines proves negotiable, the Community, as a quid pro quo, should relax some of the rules on origin, include additional products in the STABEX scheme and allow more flexibility in the SYSMIN scheme in order to encourage diversification and help to finance new undertakings. There was an agreed statement by the ACP countries on the second Lomé that private investment would be welcome. It would appear to be timely to take them up on this in the hope of making progress on agreement of a really genuine code of practice.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury: My Lords. may I first offer my congratulations to the committee and to its chairman for having compiled an excellent and comprehensive report on a subject that noble Lords must admit is both extremely complex and politically sensitive. Statistically, trade with the EEC is vastly more important to the African, Caribbean and Pacific states than Community aid—a fact to which many noble Lords have already referred. In fact, the value of the ACP countries' annual exports to the Community is well over twenty times that of the total aid available from the European Development Fund. Thus, in preparing for the Lomé renegotiations, in my opinion the EEC has paid undue attention to aid policies in relation to the resources that they are willing to make available. Much as these policies may be commendable, I am sure that noble Lords will agree that there are already many organisations, both governmental and non-governmental, better qualified and more experienced than the EEC in developing and administering aid programmes.
It must also be recognised that, however much aid programmes increase domestic production. many of the ACP states will still depend on exports to meet

657
their outstanding debt obligations and to buy essential imports. Therefore, a "trade sector strategy", as suggested by the Overseas Development Institute, may be a better approach for the EEC to adopt than Commissioner Pisani's "food sector strategy". Evidently, such a trade policy cannot be applied in the same form to everybody. In any case, there is a need for a flexible approach, given the great disparities in the nature and stages of development of the ACP states.
In many of these states there is undoubtedly scope for encouraging and improving the first-stage processing of foodstuffs, as well as their standardisation, packaging, storage and marketing. For example, very recently the Ivory Coast has developed techniques for long-term storage of cocoa. If adopted on a commercial scale this would allow producers to increase their control over the flow of cocoa shipments and thus improve their marketing.
Within the ACP, a growing population and the rising expectations of urban dwellers may, given time, lead to increased domestic demand for value-added processed food and drink products. As it is, the Food and Agriculture Organisation has warned that weaknesses in Africa's infrastructure, marketing and processing will limit the extent to which the demand for food can be met from their own rural resources.
As to export markets and especially those in the EEC, there is the question as to whether the ACP states will be able to find and penetrate these. The Coffee Trade Federation emphasises that industrialisation to give value added should not be indulged in unless a full market study reveals a potential profitable market for the end product. And, as many noble Lords may be aware, this applies to products other than coffee.
In the past, ACP exports have shown a poor performance in the EEC markets. Certainly, part of the blame rests with the EEC's imposition of levies on some processed agricultural exports, stiff rules of origin, and other non-tariff barriers. Naturally, the EEC has been anxious to protect its own manufacturing industry. According to the Food and Drink Industries Council, the ACP have supplied to the United Kingdom semi-processed products, such as cocoa butter and paste, which have not caused competitive difficulties. However—and I quote from their evidence:
"It is a sad reflection on the relative lack of progress under the Lomérelationship that ACP countries are not yet seen as capable of offering serious or damaging competition in finished or semi-processed food and drink products, though their potential for doing so is recognised in one or two sectors."
Not all the blame for the ACP states, failure to expand exports of food products to the EEC can be placed on the existence of tariff and non-tariff barriers. There are, of course, certain absurdities in the operation of tariff preferences which must be rectified. The case of the out-of-season strawberries from Kenya has been the most frequently quoted, and evoked considerable indignation. This is because the Kenyans were not granted the same tariff concessions as those given to the Mediterranean countries. However, there has been little mention, if any, of the fact that quality may be as important a determinant as price in the development of a market for fruit. Quality refers not only to good eating characteristics, but also to
658
standardisation of the product, regularity of supply, packaging and presentation. The Mediterranean countries, and particularly Israel, have secured markets in the EEC by adopting a very successful marketing strategy. The ACP states will need some marketing assistance if they are going to produce goods which can compete against those from the Mediterranean.
A plan to improve the marketability of food products and to encourage first-stage processing of agricultural products cannot be divorced from plans to improve agricultural production. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. This is well illustrated by the corned beef canning industry in Botswana. Supplies of corned beef from Botswana tend to be irregular, not because of any deficiency in the canning operation, but because of great fluctuations in the numbers of cattle. The severe drought of the last few years has reduced the herd considerably. The prevalence of disease, notably foot and mouth, also impedes export trade. Faced with intense competition from Brazil, Botswana, even though benefiting from duty-free entry, can only hope to maintain and expand its corned beef market in Europe by ensuring more regular supplies. This will depend on the success of agricultural development programmes and the animal health operation currently in progress there.
At the other end of the chain, the EEC should offer greater help with port construction, warehousing, and the material handling of exports, as was suggested by the London Commodity Exchange in their submission to the committee. To return to the corned beef canning industry, I understand that production in Kenya is being constrained by lack of cold storage facilities.
Undoubtedly, there is room for investment in the food processing industries of the ACP countries. And there would seem to be a role for the EEC in providing that investment, as the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, has already pointed out. However, the necessary safeguards will have to be provided in order to attract investors. Perhaps something along the lines of the code of practice suggested by the Food and Drink Industries Council could be embodied in the Lomé Convention.
Even though the Community should place more emphasis on the trade aspects of the Lomé Convention, this by no means implies that aid should be neglected. But a distinction must be made between food aid and disaster relief. As I have said in earlier speeches, food aid is a subject of strong emotive appeal, one which many regard as a humanitarian and high-minded way of getting rid of surpluses. It is not an adequate substitute for food production in those countries which are suffering from food deficiencies.
In my opinion there is no doubt that the Community has been misguided in dumping some of its surpluses in the third world. Leaving aside any moral judgments that one might make, this type of action should be condemned for leading to a severe misuse of resources. For example, the ODI found that the cost to the Community of funding cereal aid to Mauritania was over twice as much as it would have cost Mauritania to buy the cereals from the cheapest source. Surely it is time that the EEC stopped burdening the third world with its own problems.

659
My Lords, in concentrating on the trade aspects of the Lomé Convention, and particularly on the potential for increasing value-added, one must always be conscious that these will not solve the poverty and hunger problems of the rural populations in the ACP countries. However, it can be hoped that the EEC can contribute to development by operating a suitable trade sector policy alongside, and not at cross-purposes with, appropriate development programmes administered by other organisations.
In conclusion, may I say that the liberalisation of international trade should be part and parcel of any trade policy. The interdependent world's economic problems are being prolonged and aggravated by protectionism based on narrow, national self-interest. Let us hope that, in time, a wider, wiser vision will prevail.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I have never tried to hide my opposition to the entry of Great Britain into the EEC. It is an opposition which is based on premises different from those of most of my fellow opponents on this side of the House and, I should say, different from those of all the opponents of that entry on the other side of the House. It is an opposition based upon my concept of internationalism. I would fully accept that Mrs. Shirley Williams, one of the founders of the SDP, was sincere in her concept of internationalism when she used that as her reason for supporting entry into the EEC. In my view she was wrong, and certainly her views were not shared by the other members of the Gang of Four or by many others who have since joined the SDP.
However, my concept leads me to thank the noble Lord. Lord Brimelow, for giving us this afternoon the opportunity to debate what has always been claimed by internationalists to be the brightest jewel in the EEC crown that was offered to us by them. I have always conceived—indeed, more than that, I have discovered by analysis—that the EEC is essentially an exploitive institution. It has been subsidised, and is being subsidised, by a number of members of the third world. That was my belief at the time of the referendum in 1975, and in my view it is a belief which has been borne out by experience. We have seen transfers of resources from the third world countries to Europe. We have seen the lesser developed countries maintained in their position as the suppliers of raw materials. We have seen the inhibitions which have been placed on them in regard to any development of the industrial and manufacturing processes within them.
Now we are seeing something further—something which is, to any rational mind, incredible. We are now seeing the transfer of capital from the third world to the EEC. We are seeing, through the payment of debt interest, greater sums being paid from third world countries to Europe than the whole total of overseas aid and investment going from Europe into those countries. In fact, as I understand it, in the last year the net loss of third world countries vis-á-vis the EEC countries was in the region of 21 billion dollars; I repeat that that was the net loss.
660
I well remember when we were debating and discussing the question of entry of the United Kingdom into the EEC, how at that time the Ivory Coast was given as the great economic success story of Africa. But at that time—the best time for both the EEC and the Ivory Coast—twice as much capital was leaving the Ivory Coast every year for France as was being either invested, or given, as aid to the Ivory Coast. So I claim that the case that I am making that the EEC has been subsidised, and is being subsidised, by the peoples of the third world is a valid one. Of course, since then we have also seen a growing balance of trade deficit between the ACP countries—the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries—and the EEC.
Two weeks ago this afternoon the House was kind enough to grant me the privilege of introducing a Motion for debate on trade between this country and the developing countries. I very much appreciated the participation of those noble Lords who spoke and the Minister who replied. I do not want to repeat the arguments put forward in that debate, with one exception. However, I am a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Brimelow, in introducing the debate on this report, told us that the terms of reference did not allow for a consideration of what I would have thought was essential; namely, recognition of the context within which the negotiations for a new Lomé convention, or the continuation of the Lomé agreement, are taking place.
If we are going to consider those negotiations and if we are going to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their attitude to those negotiations, surely it is essential—and surely it was essential for the Committee—to consider the context in which we have to analyse the arguments within the range of those negotiations. I would simply refer to that last debate in the terms of that context.
Is it not the case that the third world is being prevented from developing and from increasing its purchasing power by the growing walls of protectionism, by the rising rates of interest, and by the operation of the International Monetary Fund whenever any of these countries is in difficulties in its balance of payments? Is it not the case that the squeeze on production within these countries, through those means, is not only depressing their purchasing power, but at the same time distorting their economies? Interest rates alone are forcing such countries to turn increasingly to cash crops and to neglect the agriculture which supplies their own people. They are forcing countries to take desperate measures in order to export at all costs, even when prices are below the cost of production. I have so often referred here to the case of copper and Zambia. They are forced to export in order to pay for the interest charges on their foreign debts. In the case of Zambia, last year 65 per cent. of their exports had to be paid out in interest on their foreign debts. So only 35 per cent. was left to buy the goods of the industrialised world, including those of this country.
Therefore, I cannot leave the debate of two weeks ago without recognising what the effect will be on the people of Bathgate; they will say that 40 per cent. of the people of West Lothian will be unemployed, and will have no chance and no prospect whatever of being

661
employed again, with all that that means to themselves, their families and their children. So, on the one hand we are having unemployment here in the industrialised world and, on the other hand, in the third world hunger, unemployment and dangerously bad health continue to increase through lack of resources.
Lomé was intended to try to bridge that gap. Lomé was intended to deal with these issues. I should have thought that that is why this context was crucial to any consideration of the negotiations for a future Lomé. But, as my noble friend Lord Pitt pointed out, Lomé has not fulfilled the expectations of any of its erstwhile supporters. Mr. Ramphal, the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, who himself had taken part in the negotiations for the first Lomé Convention, now agrees that:
"the Convention's cumulative impact on the economic development of the ACP has been remarkably small".
It was Jean-Pierre Cot, the former French Development Minister, who noted that certain parts of Africa, which putatively enjoy the benefits of Anglo relationships with Europe, were actually undeveloping, and he concluded in his article that:
"we have to admit that the Lomé Convention has failed or, to be more precise, that the Lomé Convention is unsufficient to guarantee the development of the ACP countries".
Finally, the chairman of the APC itself, Archibald Mogwe of Botswana, summed up this whole position at the beginning of these negotiations in these words:
"Our situation threatens to be a permanent one. There are no signs of a respite. Lomé has not succeeded. For despite its preferential nature, not one of the 63 ACP states… has been able to emerge as a newly industrialising or semi-industrial country".
So I am by no means alone in saying that this bright jewel of Lomé has certainly not justified either our membership of the EEC or the claims that the EEC represents an international policy for the United Kingdom.
As has already been pointed out, most of the goods that are exported from ACP countries to the EEC are duty free, anyway; it is reckoned that about 75 per cent. of them are duty free because they do not compete with European goods. But where there is control, that control is exercised particularly over agricultural goods—foodstuffs—which compete with European production. Yet we should observe the trend as well as the absolute figures, and the trend shows that only 4 per cent. of ACP exports to Europe are manufactures, underlining the issues which Mr. Mogwe had pointed out, that still the ACP countries are basically the providers of the raw materials to the European continent and that still they are unable to develop their manufacturing industry, which is essential for development and growth.
Let us look at the recent trend as regards the relationship between the ACP countries and the EEC. In 1977 the ACP share of imports into EEC countries was 7·3 per cent. In 1982—and these are the latest figures which I have been able to obtain—that had fallen from 7·3 per cent. to 5·5 per cent. It was a very substantial fall.
I want to say a few brief words on the question of aid. I should like to ask the noble Baroness who is to wind up for the Government to answer a specific question on this. If we look at the operation of the
662
European Development Fund, we might ask: "What on earth has happened to the money? Where is that money?" According to my information, at the end of 1981 only a half of the Lomé I funds, which commenced in 1975, had been disbursed. What happened to the other half? At the end of 1982, when we were into Lomé II, which started in 1980, only 10 per cent. of those aid funds had been committed. I should like to ask the noble Baroness what has happened to the rest.
I believe it is estimated that by next year the backlog on the committal of those aid funds will be as much as 3,000 million European currency units or in American terminology 3 billion. These funds are not index-linked so they are losing value all the time. While they stay in whatever bank they are invested in, inflation reduces their value. It may seem strange to beg the Government to do something contradictory to the French Socialist government representative in Brussels, Mr. Edgard Pisani, but I would beg the Government to ignore his claim for the communitisation of aid funds, because I believe that even under this Government the bilateral disbursal of aid funds is much more efficient, it is less bureaucratic-ridden, it is not delayed so much, and it is better allocated than through the European Development Fund.
My argument is well borne out by the European fund's own court of auditors, which has publicly upbraided the Commission for the slow spending and for often financing projects inside the ACP for questionable development value. I would suggest that that is conclusive evidence that the EDF is in a very bad way, and I should like the noble Baroness to tell us what Her Majesty's Government's attitude is to the EDF, what they are doing to try to end what is a scandal in not just the misuse but the lack of use of funds which have been provided for aid to the ACP countries.
My noble friend Lord Pitt has enabled me to leave aside the consideration that I wanted to give to STABEX, with this one exception, that again on STABEX there is some bureaucratic delay. How was it that in 1981 STABEX provided only for 50 per cent. of the legitimate claims made, and how was it that in the following year, 1982, that figure fell from 50 per cent. to 40 per cent.?
I would agree with my noble friend Lord Pitt and other noble Lords who have said that STABEX plus SYSMIN are probably the two most promising, most constructive institutions within the framework of the Lomé Convention, provided that they have increased finance—perhaps at the expense of the European Development Fund—and that they are able to increase the commodities that they can cover (whereas today sugar beet, citrus fruits and tobacco are all excluded), and that the SYSMIN combination with STABEX is extended to the mineral producers who are among those suffering the greatest hardship for the collapse of commodity prices.
In these negotiations let us transfer what is being spent, or a great deal of what is being spent, on food aid. Again I agree with so many noble Lords that this should be emergency aid only and should not be undermining the farmers themselves. It should be used only in an emergency, or drought, or political

663
upheaval, and so on. It should certainly not be allowed, as it is today, to be a dumping medium for the common agricultural policy which, as my noble friend Lord Pitt pointed out. in the case of sugar and indeed of other agricultural products is a world-wide scandal. Again what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards agriculture in this country within the CAP in so far as it affects the ACP countries and their necessity to continue to produce agricultural products?—because at the moment that food aid programme, I understand, is four times as large in monetary terms as STABEX itself.
Finally, may I ask the noble Baroness another question? Is it not the case that this report demonstrates once again the much greater emphasis that needs to be put on trade between this country and the developing world than upon the aid issue? If that is so, is there not a crying need, as there has been not just with this Government but with every Government since the war, for much greater co-ordination in the economic relations between this country and the third world? Should there not be co-ordinated policy through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, through the Treasury, through the Department of Trade and Industry, and, as I have suggested before, including also the Ministry of Education referred to so clearly by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester?
There must be co-ordination of Government policy if the Government are going to stand up to that industrial lobby, to the large farmers, to the landowners who today are benefiting from the wasteful CAP policy raising food prices in this country and starving farmers and their families in the third world countries. The European Community will have to be radically reformed if it is to meet this major challenge of our age. It is the challenge to the wealthy, comfortable Europeans which will determine the character of the world in which our children will live, and whether they are allowed to live there at all.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I am afraid that I must start with an apology: that owing to the record length of many contributions—if I may say so, particularly from the Labour Benches—I shall almost certainly have to leave before the closing speeches, which I shall have to content myself with reading in Hansard. As a penance, I shall speak even more briefly than usual. My anxiety from the Cross-Benches is that the formidable expertise represented by the members of the European Communities Committee and other speakers in this debate may be in danger of being dissipated in coded exchanges about such mysteries as STABEX, SYSMIN, derogations, the distinction between "dialogues on policies" and "discussions of strategies", and the great issue of whether or not we should go for "budgetisation". The chief exception so far has been my noble friend Lord Seebohm, with whom I am in close agreement.
I found it most difficult to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, who has now persuaded himself that countries that pay interest, or repay their debts, are subsidising their creditors. As my noble friend Lord
664
Seebohm explained, private equity capital has the great advantage for the recipients that it imposes no burden since there is no charge against a project unless the investment yields a surplus above its cost. I persist in believing that the central issue buried in this report is whether the continuation of decades of foreign aid to centrally mismanaged economies is really helping the millions of people who have most claim on our charity and whose lot remains wretched.
The committee calls for higher priority for aid in paragraph 102, and yet goes on in paragraph 108 to call for more thorough evaluation of past results. This plainly puts the cart well ahead of the horse. It seems to me that the never-ending demand by recipients for ever more aid suggests that past subsidies of this kind have not done the trick. The best up-to-date evidence of failure is provided in the recently published study entitled The Economics of West Africa, by Douglas Rimmer of Birmingham, whom I regard as one of the most authoritative and dispassionate students of the theory and practice of development in a dozen of the 64 African, Caribbean, and Pacific states. He shows in quite short compass how countries as well-endowed as Ghana, Nigeria, and to a lesser extent even the Ivory Coast, have misdirected their own resources, along with foreign aid, by neglecting the fundamental principle of comparative advantage.
No independent country is obliged to give first priority to economic development. But what if instead they pursue quite different goals hostile to the long-run material prosperity of their people? The noble Baroness, Lady Young, illustrated ways in which aid recipients damage their own efficiency and progress by perverse policies. Among the many more baneful examples given by Mr. Rimmer are the following: forced industrialisation; pervasive price control; self-sufficiency; import substitution; political centralism; equality; the persecution of minorities: the politicisation of economic life; utopian resettlement of rural populations; punitive taxation; statutory monopolies: nationalisation: and. most ugly of all. "indigenisation". No wonder these countries are not exactly flourishing.
Perhaps the strongest ground for offering them subsidies is to assuage the guilt of the old colonial administrators and the new tribe of development economists who taught African rulers that central planning and indiscriminate investment would lead to the take-off into self-sustained growth that would make aid redundant. But there must surely be some limit to the continuation of this reverse Danegeld.
Taught by that other international authority, the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, I no longer call for an immediate end to these damaging and distortionary subsidies. Instead I start by following another disillusioned observer Gunnar Myrdal, formerly the Swedish champion of aid, who suggested two or three years ago that aid should in future be concentrated on emergency relief only. For the rest it should be phased out—this is my view and not Gunnar Myrdal's over five years whilst we redirect our efforts to increasing mutually beneficial trade. Thus we should remove tariffs and other barriers, including bureaucratic customs formalities exposed in the impressive evidence of Mr. John Raven, reproduced on pages 298 to 304 in the report before us.

665
We should, I think, take on the intellectual and professional interest groups that have battened on foreign aid in both donor and recipient countries. I believe it would simplify and purify our dealings if such aid as continues during the transitional period were confined to bilateral, untied cash transfers. Future gifts should be made conditional upon the adoption by recipient governments of policies consistent with the long-run economic welfare of their own people. If it is said that this would be interfering with their domestic affairs, we must frankly confess that we have already been interfering, with rather disastrous results. Indeed, our past indulgence in aid has led them sadly astray. We have encouraged their amateur planners to persist with misguided policies which anyway our own academics taught them and which have made them abjectly dependent on indefinite continuation of subventions.
In conclusion, if asked what criterion we should henceforth apply in giving aid, I would suggest simply that favoured governments must recreate the conditions of safety and security for life and property essential to encourage commercial development by harnessing domestic, no less than international, enterprise and investment.
I urge Her Majesty's Government to give thought to the code of practice to attract foreign private investment as outlined by my noble friend Lord Seebohm from his unrivalled experience in fruitful, successful commercial banking throughout the Commonwealth. By way of encouragement and inspiration to the frustrated non-recipients of aid in future, I would offer the shining example of Hong Kong and other Asian oases. They show what people can achieve for themselves when governments are content to establish the stable environment so notably lacking in much of the third world.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Kissin: My Lords, I also had the privilege to serve on the committee that was so ably guided by the noble Lord, Lord Brimelow, and which has skilfully brought us face to face with the problems that the negotiators for the next Lomé Convention have to analyse. In today's climate the international community is not terribly concerned with Lomé III, but for the last eight years the European Community, with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, has conducted within the framework of the first and second Lomé Conventions a fruitful trade and aid experience which we all know has not, however, achieved the results that were hoped for.
The committee's work was concerned with the question whether the previous Lomé Conventions represented a statement of principle adopted by the two parties to the agreement, or whether it was intended to create an equal partnership. The committee inquired what kind of partnership had been established and what kind of partnership the parties were aiming for now. I think it became clear during the committee's deliberations that the rhetoric of the term "co-operation and development" has far outstripped the actual achievements. The fact is that in the last few years the ACP countries have been running a considerable trade deficit, and the concept of a
666
balanced economic relationship has not been achieved.
The statement of general principles does not provide the dynamics for economic development. In my view, aid and trade are the main factors of the Lomé Convention, but however hopeful we are and whatever wishful thinking we express in this House, I do not believe that the governments of the European Community will increase substantially the cash element of the aid programme. The new Lomé Convention must be negotiated within the terms of a better trade relationship. The real question, therefore, is: how can trade be so rationalised that the parties to the convention become real and equal partners? This was the original aim of Lomé
The new agreement must create guidelines for free enterprise and trade, both in the Community and in the developing countries, and it must be established in a way that the parties can operate in terms advantageous to both. I fear that, contrary to what many speakers have said in this House, as a first step the European Community is required to attempt to eliminate legislation within the Community which perpetuates the vicious circle of denying ACP products access to European markets. Given the many agreements within Lomé there is insufficient realisation that consumers rather than governments provide the operating basis for economic development. Agreements about particular products and commodities can be of value only if they make it possible for private initiative and private enterprise to derive an advantage from trade with each other.
One of the main questions that the committee had to consider was how to improve trade between the Community and ACP countries, and whether it is realistic to think in terms of improvement when the Community members themselves find considerable problems in maintaining a liberal trade regime within the European Community. The experience of Lomé I and II has shown that there are limits to how far negotiations with ACP countries can in reality lead to liberalised trade before they are confronted with the immovable obstacle created by some of the Community's internal problems and policies.
The common agricultural policy, which is constantly debated in the Community, is, in its present form, working directly against the interests of the ACP countries and developing countries. Although the Community allows duty-free imports of tropical commodities that cannot be grown in Europe, such as coffee and cocoa, it restricts access to those products when it can produce them itself. It appears that ACP producers face restrictions even when, as for instance in the case of beef, Community producers cannot fulfil the requirements of the European food processing industry. Somehow, this does not appear to make sense. It must be in both parties' interests to create jobs—and how many could be created, both in Europe and in the developing countries, if the processing industry were allowed as the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, has said, to buy its raw materials at competitive prices from efficient low-cost producers wherever they are located?
Although the sugar protocol was not part of the consideration of the committee, I want to make a brief

667
reference in view of the letter that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Eskan, have written today in The Times. I am entirely in sympathy with the contents of the letter, and the sugar situation is in a way significant as an indication of the problem that arises between the interests of the European Community and the ACP countries.
Many ACP countries depend on the export of sugar for their livelihood, but since our accession to the Common Market in 1974 the supply position of sugar has totally changed. Just as an illustration, I would mention that when we entered the Common Market there was a boom in the sugar price and the cost of white sugar was 60 cents per pound. Since then the Community has increased its own production of sugar by 60 per cent. from 8.5 million tons to about 14 million tons a year and during the same period consumption has dropped from 10.7 million tons to 9.5 million tons. The price today for white sugar is 6 cents per pound. The Community had therefore exported the surplus, irrespective of the cost which often exceeds by several times the intrinsic value of the commodity involved.
Consumers in the Community are disadvantaged by paying high prices for commodities produced in Europe and by having to subsidise exports. I consider that the aid could be given by the Community if it were to stop subsidised exports of cheap, European-produced commodities, knowing that ACP producers suffer from restrictions placed on their exports.
I am making this point in order to give an example of the unresolved problems which exist in the philosophy of the Community vis-á-vis the developing countries. In fairness, the Community has started to face up to some of the problems created by the common agricultural policy, but there is still a reluctance to make fundamental and vital reforms. The reforms at present contemplated do not appear to me to solve the problems that we face.
It is understandable that the Commission wishes to negotiate long-term contracts to supply agricultural products in surplus in the Community, but is this the way to create an equitable partnership between the ACP countries and the Community? It may be an expedient way to dispose of food mountains, but it simply delays the day when the Community will have to tackle the underlying problem of over-production which prevents the ACP countries from developing their own food self-sufficiency.
I am not an expert in many of the commodities covered in the Lomé Agreement, but from evidence before the committee I have learned that import restrictions, such as the multi-fibre arrangement, prevent ACP countries from expanding and diversifying their industries. Attention was drawn to the case of Mauritius, whose export of textiles to Britain in the 1970s led to these countries imposing what euphemistically became know as "1untary restraint agreements". The negative consequences of such agreements are now widely felt. They affect not only those countries involved, but also those countries who would expand their own industries further if they had access to the European market.
The same considerations apply to the rules of origin for materials used by ACP industries. Noble Lords
668
have already referred to this, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, has specially mentioned the term "derogation", and so I shall not bore the House by giving further examples. But the restrictions that exist disrupt economic developments. The Community is inclined to make short-term concessions, but there are such constant domestic political pressures for protectionism within the community member states, which make long-term agreements very difficult, that I fear that there are no easy solutions.
Member states feel differently about the effects of low-cost imports of their own industries. But if the aspirations of Lomé are to be realised, then it is essential to develop a more coherent Community strategy to trade. The Community has to analyse and pinpoint those industrial sectors which are of importance to ACP countries and which do not increase the pressure for protectionist demands within Europe. This will be an important test of the Commission's "dialogue on policies". Member states should be prepared to give the Commission some flexibility in how it_conducts these negotiations.
Tribute has been paid to the existence of SYSMIN and STABEX. They have been of great importance, but the committee has also learned of the bureaucracy that has interfered with the work and with the success of these institutions. In addition—and this I consider important—money has often been invested (and we all know of such instances) in large prestige. capital projects which produce few benefits for the majority of the population, and aid is often given to improve and seal political relationships, rather than to promote economic growth.
Personally, I welcome the new initiative from the Community's commissioner, Mr. Pisani. But putting emphasis on aid for rural development and, in the commissioner's own words, "food sector strategies", the Community has begun to realise how ill-utilised much development aid has been in often fragile ACP economies. One must watch the experimental schemes in Kenya and other countries, with much interest.
I do not underestimate that aid is an important component of the aims of the Lomé relationship, but real aid can come only from better trading facilities. Attention must be focused on the role of the private sector in promoting development in ACP countries.
I would suggest that it is important to give consideration to some ways of creating incentives for private companies to commit resources to countries which have, by our standards, been politically unstable and hostile to foreign investors. The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, has given us many examples of what is required.
ACP countries must play their part. If they wish to benefit from the expertise and capital that a foreign company can bring, they must give clear signs to the Community that they are prepared to allow them to operate freely. Developing countries ask us in the Community to be both consistent and flexible. We have the right to ask the same of them.
In times of international debt problems there are open to us solutions which ought to be investigated by introducing an insurance mechanism as a positive aid. Companies within the European Community require the security of some realistic insurance scheme that

669
protects their investments overseas. Some discussion on this is urgently needed.
The Lomé principles are now an integral part of Europe's political and economic relations with the third world, but the need is for better definition and therefore for better performance. This has become clear from the committee's report. If we do not succeed in this, we shall foster resentment within the developing world.
One must fully realise that this will involve difficult adjustments within the Community. The current negotiations, however, afford an opportunity to reconsider the protectionist policies and trade barriers which, in the long run, harm both Europe and the developing countries.
The signatories to the Lomé Convention are committed, in the words of the convention, to,
"reinforce on the basis of complete equality between partners, and in their mutual interest, close and continuing co-operation in the spirit of international solidarity".
If we wish to adhere to this, we must accept the responsibility for changing some of our policies within the Community in a practical attempt to create an equal partnership.
We have all had sufficient experience over the last eight years to know the way to give real aid to the extent of our ability to assist. This assistance must come, I suggest, through mutual trade. Undoubtedly from this both sides have a great deal to gain.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Bauer: My Lords, I too most warmly thank the sub-committee for its lucid, concise and wide-ranging report. The main issues fall into three broad categories: first, the general case for official aid; secondly, bilateral versus multilateral aid; and, thirdly, the complexities of Lomé. The report takes for granted the case for official aid. I disagree with this axiomatic approach. But, following Carlyle's advice, I accept the universe.
In the context of the European Development Fund, the sub-committee shares the Government's repeated preference for bilateral aid. Is it not, therefore, baffling that the share of multilateral aid in United Kingdom aid, already about 40 per cent. will soon rise to 50 per cent? I wish the committee had examined this issue. Donors have no effective control over multilateral aid. In FAO and UNESCO the impotence of the major donors is familiar. During the Falklands War, the United Kingdom delegation unsuccessfully protested to the United Nations Development Programme against its aid to Argentina. Under bilateral aid, support for barbarous policies can at times be checked more effectively, as we saw when our aid to President Amin stopped, while EEC aid continued. Is not such unconditional aid objectionable on moral, no less than on political, grounds? By severing contact between donors and recipients, multilateral aid is also less efficient.
Nor is multilateral aid disinterested and objective simply by being freed from domestic pressures. The staffs of international aid organisations have their own political and professional interests. Their constituents are most third world rulers whom the officials understandably wish to please, besides wishing to
670
enlarge their number, resources and power. Aid goes to governments and not to the people at large, which may help to explain why small countries tend to get more aid per head than large ones—a given volume of aid supports more constituents. Of course, where bilateral aid is tied, it is in part an export subsidy. Hence my preference for untied grants, clearly distinguishable from domestic subsidies.
These considerations are reinforced by the subcommittee's unduly mild reservations about the EDF. The evaluation procedure is altogether inadequate. Last year, I visited a major EDF-supported tea project in the warring region of southern Sudan. The project was managed by expatriates. It was well behind schedule and the large budget already overspent. It will not yield a return in the foreseeable future, if ever. Any output will compete with tea production in neighbouring Kenya. I was accompanied by a Western ambassador, who was critical both of the concept and of the conduct of the project, notably the lack of effective EDF control, but thought that that criticism would have no effect except to arouse resentment against his country. I strongly support the committee's suggestion that EDF resources should not be expanded.
The much-applauded STABEX scheme compensates for a decline in exchange earnings from agricultural exports. This instrument confuses the smoothing of fluctuations in exchange earnings with raising them. The smoothing of income fluctuations is ambiguous for such reasons as the distinction between movements of real and money prices and incomes and the changing composition of the body of producers, but in any case it is distinct from raising exchange earnings. How could the huge African and Asian-owned cocoa and rubber industries have developed before the war if fluctuations in export earnings were so damaging? What about the damage done by Government policies, including special taxation of exports? Why should governments in prosperous times not set aside contingency reserves against adversity? Are we not in danger of displaying contempt for third world people whose ability to take a long view is shown by their readiness to plant tree crops which take many years before yielding an income?
Furthermore, the error of imagining that the terms of trade move systematically against the third world is proved by their large improvement between the early 1960s and the late 1970s both for the third world as a whole and for major ACP countries. A more revealing truth is that since the war producer prices in many ACP countries have been set, not by the market but by governments, well below world market levels for various political reasons. Schemes such as STABEX divert attention and money from the more pressing needs of near-subsistence producers who live in extreme poverty and insecurity. Indeed, in many ACP countries, emergence from these conditions is obstructed and misery aggravated by government policies, including underpayment of producers, persecution of traders, suppression of trade, and the neglect both of public security and of the infrastructure, especially roads. Government policies are often behind famine in Africa—not that governments cause drought, but they certainly aggravate its consequences.

671
My Lords, the ACP is a collection of highly diverse countries. The Lomé arrangements, notably STABEX and the EDF, are complex, cumbersome, even obscure. They also set up various tensions and conflicts, notably between donors and recipients. We should work towards a running down of these arrangements, which do little for the poorest. They should gradually be replaced by freer trade, lubricated by bilateral aid, preferably in the form of terminable cash grants to governments of poor countries which genuinely try to improve the lot of the needy.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Saint Brides: My Lords, the sub-committee's report is a shrewd and thorough one and its authors have served the House well. Britain was a latecomer to the EEC and its aid arrangements. In consequence, it has been an uphill struggle to make our influence felt in working a system which in its original form—that is to say, during the Yaoundé epoch—was devised without us. We have done well to secure its extension to so many Anglophone territories but even so it still does not cover three very large Anglophone ex-colonies of Britain, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, whereas it does cover virtually all the French, Dutch, Belgian and ex-Italian colonies. It follows that Britain needs to be especially careful to ensure that the direction of our global aid flows is not for this reason distorted.
We must also do our utmost to ensure that our own especially British blend of pragmatic concern for particulars and intuitive grasp of how best to cope with the feelings and predilections of local people (gained by reason of our long and close national experience in dealing with the third world) is given its chance to operate in the EEC context as elsewhere. At governmental level, this long and close national experience used to centre in the Colonial Office, the India Office and the British overseas services that they controlled and maintained and, in the past, generations of young Britons found a worthy, personal goal in service to the Empire and people. Their work finds its counterpart today in what that knowledgable and highly competent body of men and women, the ODA, is trying in very different circumstances to achieve through the judicious application of British aid.
The grant of independence to virtually all our former territories has not meant that we as a country have lost interest in their welfare. On the contrary, in Britain the level of informed concern about them remains remarkably high. Incidentally, this is in sharp contrast with the state of public opinion in the United States, where, as I know from recent personal experience. the level of interest in, and understanding of, third world countries is, to say the least, a good deal lower than it is here.
The Minister for Overseas Development told the sub-committee that over the next year or two Britain would focus its contribution to Lomé aid on making that aid more effective. As he said, it is not enough to offer resources; we need to see results. But, in order to get results, it is necessary to recognise, take into account, and adapt to, the individual circumstances of each recipient country—each ACP country in this case—and sometimes of individual regions within that
672
country. If so much was achieved—and a great deal was achieved—by Britain during the colonial period, although it is unfashionable to say so, it was because that kind of detailed thought and study was given continuously, both on the spot and here in London, to the special problems of each individual territory.
As the noble Lord, Lord Brimelow, said, very wisely I thought, during the proceedings of the subcommittee:
"If good is to be done it has to be done in minute particulars".
The trouble about multilateral aid-giving, as several noble Lords have already said during this debate, by international organisations to an artificially assembled group of highly heterogeneous clients—and what could be more artificial or more heterogeneous than the ACP countries—is that too often procedures are devised and policy decisions taken as if the recipient countries were a much more homogeneous group than they actually are. Matters are not made easier by the recipient countries themselves, who, believing that their strength resides in their numbers, choose to play down their differences in order to maintain the common front by which alone they believe they can obtain the concessions which they seek.
On the basis of my own fairly prolonged and intimate experience of aid administration, though admittedly it was in the South Asian sub-continent and not in any of the ACP countries, I believe unrepentently that, as several noble Lords have already said, bilaterally given aid is generally more effectively directed and more effectively deployed aid. Our own bilateral record of success—this is a point on which I was happy to find myself in agreement for once with the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby—in providing the appropriate type of aid in timely disbursement, in the efficient organisation of technical assistance, and in the evaluation of projects, is at all points superior to that of EDF or Lomé aid so far. While recognising that multilateral aid-giving, not least in the EEC context, has come to stay, I wholeheartedly wish the Minister success in his arduous task of seeing that British standards of efficiency in aid-giving—to which the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, made eloquent reference—are applied in the EEC multilateral context, too.
Of course, I recognise the problem which confronts rich countries, or relatively rich ones, in this post-colonial area when transferring resources to fiercely independent poor ones. In the process of doing so we the rich, or relatively rich, countries are assuming a measure of involvement with the internal economic and social affairs of the recipient countries, but without any longer possessing, as we once did, the power to ensure that our intentions in providing the resources are in fact met.
We in Britain cannot change this state of affairs. We cannot put back the clock and nor would the great majority of us do so even if we could. But this situation creates a certain inescapable tension with the recipient countries which, while anxious to receive as much aid as they can get, are anxious to get it in ways which set the least possible limits on their freedom to spend it as they wish. If their chosen priorities are not those of the aid donors, so much the worse for the aid donors. We shall certainly have a tussle over the improvement of

673
food production within some African countries where, as the Sussex academics' Institute of Development Studies told the sub-committee,
"The role of agriculture"—
they refer to these countries—
"as a milch cow to support a dubiously productive urban élite—produces price distortions that harm efficiency and equity alike".
The noble Lord, Lord Bauer, also made telling reference to this point. As I believe Commissioner Pisani himself has said, to "parachute"—that is the expression I am told he used—surplus EEC food supplies into some African countries could well have the unintended effect of depressing indigenous agricultural enterprise still further. I was much encouraged to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Young, speak to your Lordships on similar lines, and the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, also referred to it in his speech.
In conclusion, I wonder whether we ought not, if we can, to channel a good deal more EDF aid through the NGO's such as Oxfam with its flexibility and its modest low-profile and low-key approach. Oxfam and the other similar organisations in this country, in the Federal Republic of Germany and in Holland have a remarkable record of constructive achievement at the grass roots precisely because they are nongovernmental and non-bureaucratic and cannot plausibly be accused of neo-colonialism. The World Bank has stressed the need to reverse the decline in food production in Africa by reforming local policies and concentrating on smallholder production. The Overseas Development Institute suggested in its evidence to the committee that where small projects are appropriate the EEC should sub-contract more to grass-roots organisations such as the voluntary agencies. If we wait for the recipient countries themselves to suggest this to us we may have to wait a very long time by reason of their natural desire to have full control over the spending of all aid funds; but we need to balance regard for this desire of theirs against our own strong desire to see Lomé aid disbursed more speedily and effectively. I believe that this is an area in which our concern for effectiveness should come first.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Rhodes: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brimelow, has been a delightful chairman of our subcommittee. He has not spared himself or us in the compilation of this report. If one is ideologically against the Common Market Lomé is not a good thing, but if one is committed to the Common Market, as I believe we are for all time—we ought to give it a chance because it takes a long time for human behaviour to change—Lomé is a good thing. What we have been trying to do while we have been discussing it upstairs is to improve it.
I want to go on to one or two practical things. There we are upstairs studying Lomé week after week, and then we get a big report like this. And I question what happens to it. I shall tell your Lordships what has happened to it to date. Manchester's Stationery Office has eight copies; Edinburgh's Stationery Office has 10; Bristol, two; Birmingham, one; Belfast, two; Holborn bookshop 100; the House of Commons, 30; the Printed Paper Office, House of Lords, 100; and Mr.
674
Phelps (our clerk), 200. That makes a total of 453 copies,
We have not sent any to Members of the European Parliament—perhaps we do not like them. But, on the other hand, neither have we sent any copies of this report to anybody on the continent. We do not know, for instance, whether there are on the continent comparable organisations considering this kind of question in this kind of way. But I think it would be a good thing if these reports, which are churned out upstairs by first-class people, had a record placed on them every six months, say, to show where they have gone or to show whether we have wasted our time by leaving a thousand of them in some warehouse or other.
A thread runs through this report: it is the need for the evaluation of the aid given under Lomé II and how to use the lessons learned to create a better Lomé III. It is perfectly right and proper that donor countries in Europe should query whether or not they are getting value for money. We have found that the resources devoted by the Commission to evaluation are smaller than those of any other comparable source, such as United Kingdom bilateral aid or those of other World Bank operations. Indeed, we heard in evidence that the resources for evaluating European Development Fund activities have been reduced during the past two years and that one man and half a secretary were the sum total of the evaluation taking place at the time the evidence was given.
We are not alone in highlighting the problems of procedure and effectiveness. Many outside observers have drawn attention to it, and the European Court of Auditors covered the same ground in their annual report for 1982.
Readers of the report will have seen that in paragraph 76 we draw attention to the need for reforms of the European Development Fund. It is worth looking at. This is a multilateral fund, supported by European member states, and it is located in the European Commission. But it is not funded from the Community's own resources, and it is not subject to scrutiny by the European Parliament, as are other Community funds. Also, because of the way it was set up originally, the European Development Fund suffers from complex and cumbersome procedures which have made its disbursements far too slow. This has been explained by Brussels on the grounds that high standards of accountability have to be maintained.
It has also been suggested that the administration in many of the recipient countries leaves much to be desired. Of course it does. The Community started a large aid programme with inadequate administrative resources 10 years ago, and it has never been able to catch up. In consequence, it has been feeling its way ever since with countries particularly low down on the development list.
But everybody concerned with the report has no doubt whatever that the procedures are unduly rigid and laborious and should be simplified forthwith. It could be that simplification would follow the inclusion of the European Development Fund in the Community Budget. Indeed, the Commission and the European Parliament would like to see this happen and they regard it as anomalous that there should be a

675
separate aid fund with a separate procedure solely for EDF aid to ACP states.
The weight of opinion in the committee is that the present financial crisis in the EEC must be resolved before incorporating the EDF into the Community Budget. Perhaps when the Minister comes to reply she will comment on this matter. I think she already touched on it in what she said earlier.
That leads me to the recommendations in paragraph 78. There are, apparently, Commission delegations in 42 countries, with personnel of up to 250 people. Up to now no decisions have been taken as to their role in policy dialogues; yet potentially these delegations are one of the most valuable features of EEC arrangements. They comprise technical specialists who could play an invaluable role by being able to take decisions on the spot and by being a source of information to the Commission in Brussels.
In practice, little use has been made of these delegations, and the net effect to date has been negative rather than positive because, without anything to do, they tend to form another tier of bureaucracy. The result is that the most trivial decisions are referred to Brussels, which sometimes take months and months to negotiate.
The committee is therefore of the opinion that they should be encouraged to take a lead in recommending the type of aid which is suitable for their particular recipient country. We also think that these delegations should, and could, be used to monitor and to help with the evaluation of projects, and to make policy recommendations.
My next point—a short one—concerns coordination. In this connection it must be remembered that if the Commission succeeds in changing the direction of its aid, the administration of aid is bound to be more complex: and it is highly desirable that there should be co-ordination between all participating donors, such as the World Bank, the IMF, the United States, and other donors, with the countries they are trying to help. We also believe that there should be complete co-ordination between Community aid and the bilateral aid policies of the member states. Surely there is a role here for the Commission delegation in ACP—countries which are well placed to do a local co-ordinating job, always provided that they are given adequate instructions and authority.
Now I come to my most serious point, and I regard it with such sincerity that I hope the House will take notice of it. We have been told about the shortcomings of Lomé and we have heard about the shortcomings of the EEC. But almost on the last day of our deliberations on Lomé we found some information that is absolutely and utterly vital to anything which is designed to help the Lomé countries with information, et cetera. As I said, it came at the end of the committee's deliberations. We received a short memorandum from the European Institute for The Media, based on the University of Manchester. It brought to our notice the issues in media development in ACP countries relevant to Lomé III. The memorandum highlights the importance of radio in developing countries.
676
The print media is often difficult because of low literacy and/or poor surface communication. Television is expensive, so radio remains the instrument of contact between government and governed. It is used for agriculture extension, health education, political education and a whole series of related activities. But let me quote to your Lordships from the memorandum, which gives a far more graphic description than ever my words could give. It reads:
"The declining economic conditions in many ACP countries have also had negative effect on their media systems. Resources which were previously scarce have all but dried up. Even the basic resource of sound radio, the transistor battery, has become virtually extinct. Battery production units in Tanzania and Ghana, for example, have had to be closed down for lack of raw materials for production. In Zambia, among other countries, we are told that boiled-up batteries are sold at a premium on the black market.
"Shortage of foreign exchange also inhibits the maintenance of production, transmission and reception equipment. Spare parts, hard to come by at the best of times, can no longer be afforded. Little is said, but whole sectors of the communication system are closed down because an essential piece of equipment is broken. This decline in standards of operation extends to the production field; the absence of maintenance resources makes studios unusable. Static budgets become progressively less capable of paying for the escalating prices of marketing products. Persistent efforts in the field of programme exchange fail to materialise; and the optimisation of production resources by means of co-production arrangement tends to be inhibited by political constraints.".
That is the result of investigations, seminars, et tetra, by the Institute for The Media which, if we were not in the Common Market. would not be available. This is one of the most important items that there are in this report. We have had a Derby Day today. What is the Derby called? It is called the Ever Ready Stakes—batteries. The West can give £207,000 for a first prize in a horse race. Why can it not do something more for the people who need it most?
6.54 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I start with an apology for not having been here at the opening of the debate, and particularly an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Brimelow. I plead a prior engagement which I can claim had its origins 50 years ago today. Specifically, I was helping in the celebration of the Golden Wedding of our noble friend Lord John-Mackie and Lady John-Mackie. I hope your Lordships will think that that is sufficient reason for my not having been here at the outset of the debate. I shall certainly read the report of it, although I would have preferred to listen to it.
I should like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Brimelow, and his colleagues for this very valuable report on a very important matter. It is a balanced and well-informed report, and it is good that we have a chance today of discussing it. I certainly went along with the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, when he said that Lomé is a good thing. It is a good thing. Some people may prefer direct bilateral aid. We certainly do not wish to stop giving that, and we may in our conceit, or from our own experience, believe that bilateral aid from this country is more efficiently made use of than aid from Lomé But as the noble Lord. Lord Rhodes, so rightly said, we are part of the Community. It is a duty of the Community to help with the problems of the third world. We as a member of the Community, and the member with the greatest colonial past and

677
knowledge of overseas territories, must play a leading part in the promotion of Lomé.
I should also like to pay tribute to what I would call the founding father of Lomé, M. Claude Cheysson, now the French Foreign Minister but at that time the commissioner in charge of these matters. I would say it is due almost entirely to his vision, his enthusiasm and his personality that we have got as far as we have with Lomé, and I hope that your Lordships go along with me in expressing our gratitude to him for that.
But having said that, I certainly would not maintain that the success of Lomé to date has been altogether unmitigated. In fact, it has had very many disappointments, and I do not believe it has lived up to the expectations of any of us who were involved in its earliest days. It has been in some respects disappointing, and it has certainly shown that there are many aspects of it which can and must be improved if it is to go on and achieve the purposes which most of us—though I am afraid, from listening to some of the speeches, not all of us—believe it should achieve.
The main reason for its failure is the very simple one of shortage of cash. There has not been enough money available. That is something which is very well pointed out by this report, and in its conclusions and recommendations at the end it is made absolutely clear that more money should be made available. Again quoting the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, we cannot in this country plead poverty when we see money that is spent on not altogether productive purposes, however much pleasure losing money on the Derby may give to certain people. The same applies to the other member states.
Another reason why Lomé has not been as successful as one had hoped is inflation. The money which was made available in its initial stages has been overtaken by inflation and is worth a great deal less at the time it is disbursed than it was at the time the sum was voted. A third reason—and one has to say this with some regret—has been both the central and the regional administration. That is not surprising. You cannot create an organisation of this sort de novo and expect it to reach the pinnacles of administrative success; but it is only fair to point out that there are many ways in which it could be improved.
One of the points which the report makes, which is very close to my heart, relates to regional administration. I do not have sufficient personal experience throughout the ACP countries to pass judgment on the calibre of the regional officers. However, either they should be improved in calibre or they should be given more independence from the centre. They should be good enough (some of them undoubtedly are) to be able to do the job without continual reference back to Brussels. All of us can think of examples of inordinate delays over perfectly sound projects—projects which undoubtedly ought to be looked at carefully but which do not need the minute and bureaucratic interventions and interferences to which they are submitted at present.
Many noble Lords have quite rightly referred to STABEX, one of the most exciting ideas of the first Lomé Convention. It would not excite or please the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, because, as I understand him,
678
he does not believe in stability. However, with the greatest respect I would suggest to him that he may be living somewhat in the past. In the old days, when copper was dug by people with picks and shovels and when rubber was produced in a fairly primitive way from a plantation of low-producing and ill-fertilised rubber trees, perhaps one could say that if one disregarded the standard of living of the people engaged in the production it did not matter very much whether there was stability. If the price rose, all one needed to do was to give people a few more picks and shovels, or to plant a few more trees; in due course the trees would grow up and produce something and the price might still be high enough. But we have moved out of that age of primary production, and it is essential that we should move out of it.
As the noble Lord knows perfectly well, copper mining requires enormous capital investment. For proper rubber cultivation, investment in research, in breeding and in machinery for producing and processing the latex is needed. No firm in its senses will invest the kind of money that is needed unless there is some degree of stability. That applies to the whole development of the third world. Therefore, we should rely more on STABEX and more money should be allocated to it.
Nevertheless, I would suggest that there is a weakness in STABEX. If, as I understand it, a country warrants payment from the STABEX fund, the payment is not made in such a way as to go eventually to the producers of the commodity; it goes to the central government and it can be used by that central government in any way they may wish. They can use it for paying the interest on their national debt. I know of one particular example where the payment was used in order to create short-term employment in the area of the Minister concerned where a crucial by-election was to take place. The payments can be used in a variety of ways which are very far from what was in the minds of those who originally thought up the scheme. There should be a considerable strengthening not only of the amount of money that is made available but of the way in which it is distributed.
I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Saint Brides, and other speakers—and the report—in stressing the importance of voluntary organisations and non-governmental organisations. They have a great deal of expertise. I would specifically mention the Commonwealth Development Corporation in this country which has vast experience, extending over many years, of profitable investment. If larger sums of money than are available at present were to be made available to these organisations by Brussels, it would be put to very good use indeed.
There is one specific point which I hope your Lordships will forgive me for mentioning. As your Lordships know, one is frequently asked to do certain things and frequently one does not, but in this case I believe it to be important to do so. At page 292 of the report, paragraph 5 states that:
"Sugar traders were adamant that there must not be any increase in the ACP sugar quota, even if Portugal joins the EEC".
I have received a letter from Tate and Lyle who, as your Lordships know, are not unconnected with sugar.

679
It says:
"The source of this statement has not been traced, but the London Sugar Brokers' Association have asked to change the record of their evidence in accordance with the attached statement from the secretary".
I hope that the record can be put straight, because it is of considerable concern not only to Portugal but to the ACP countries, Portugal at present being a consumer of approximately 100,000 tonnes of sugar. If that amount were to be taken into existing quotas, it would be to the detriment of the ACP countries.
Various points have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Hams of High Cross, stressed the importance of persuading governments to adopt wiser policies. He said that this might be called interference but that we had interfered frequently in the past and this would be a wise form of interference. I shall not dispute with the noble Lord whether or not it would be a wise form of interference. However, I would suggest to him that enormous difficulties face any Western country, whether it is the Community or individual countries, when trying, on the one hand, to persuade governments to adopt wise, to our mind, policies and when trying, on the other hand, to persuade them to adopt more democratic policies, thus keeping them away from the one-party state.
We in our somewhat sophisticated democracy know, especially when elections are looming (we may be witnessing some transatlantic examples at present) that there is a great temptation for the Government to introduce legislation which is attractive to the voter, or to fail to introduce legislation which is unattractive to the voter. If we are to promote democracy, we must realise that this is what will happen. We must realise that persuasion, by whatever means one sets about it, to adopt wiser methods simply does not go hand in hand with democracy. It is only where there is a fairly authoritarian government that this can be achieved.
The noble Lord, Lord Kissin, referred to sugar and the common agricultural policy. I do not want to defend the CAP—I have criticised it often enough before your Lordships, and elsewhere—and I certainly do not want to defend the present sugar regime. However, it is worth pointing out to those of your Lordships who may have forgotten it that the vast majority of sugar on the world market—over 80 per cent. in most years—is subject to special negotiations and is sold at special prices which bear little, if any, relationship to what is called "the world market". It is only a relatively small amount—between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent.—that actually comes onto the world market.
In general—and I repeat that I am not defending the common agricultural policy—the great majority of the commodities which are produced under the CAP in such surpluses are those which do not in any way compete with the third world. So a reform of the common agricultural policy would in no way solve the problems which are facing the third world.
We cannot get away from the fact—and this has been said so often in our debates on the subject—that there are two things above all which the third world needs. It needs more investment, and it needs more aid. It needs more aid for its infrastructure. I am speaking of those things which cannot pay an
680
immediate dividend and which certainly cannot make interest-free payments—the schools and all the rest, which I shall not detain your Lordships in describing because you have heard of them often enough.
There must also be an increasing tendency for the Community and the rich countries, when they invest in the third world, to invest not at fixed interest rates. They may be attractive at certain times but they can, as we are seeing now, plunge large sections of the third world into a position where it is impossible to meet those interest payments. There must be participation instead by way of equity in the undertaking; and money should not be put into undertakings which are not likely to be able to declare a dividend within five, six or eight years or some other reasonable period of time.
If all that is done, I believe that we shall have gone a long way towards solving the problems from which the third world is suffering at the present time. I hope very much that the discussions which are taking place, and which will continue to take place until Lomé III is finalised, will give thought to the overriding problems I have described. I believe that the report which the noble Lord, Lord Brimelow, and his colleagues have produced will help those concerned along the right path.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Oram: My Lords, it was a privilege for me to serve under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Brimelow on the sub-committee that has produced this report. If, as a chairman, he had a fault it was that he made the members of his sub-committee and the witnesses work most unusually hard. But in doing so he certainly set a good example, because he worked hard and he was always master of the particular aspect of the subject that we were examining in any particular session. I am also glad to have this opportunity of joining at the Dispatch Box the debate he introduced so effectively.
I will begin by suggesting why the Lomé Convention is of particular interest and significance within that vast complex of national and international machinery concerned with the economic relationships between the developed and the less developed countries of the world. It is because the provisions of the Lomé Convention are much more than an aid programme, for they constitute—at least in principle—comprehensive coverage of the economic relationships between its member countries. For example, many noble Lords have referred to the STABEX scheme, which provides for some rectification of a loss in the export earnings of ACP countries due to reductions in commodity prices. Moreover, the convention—unlike many of the instruments of aid and development—is a formal and contractural relationship on equal terms between its European members and their former colonies.
In my view, those factors make the convention stand out as a distinctive and imaginative scheme, potentially superior to other development organisations. but I advisedly use the words "in principle" and "potentially" because, as has been made clear in this debate, it is impossible to claim that the Lomé Convention has been in practice fully successful. For instance, although it is claimed that it

681
is a contractual relationship between equals, this is not—and perhaps it cannot be—the truth of the matter. When one person in a bargain holds the purse strings and the other person wants some of the purse's contents, then the former clearly dominates the situation. The same is true of nations; if some are characterised as the "haves" and the others are characterised as the "have nots", then one cannot, however theoretical the equality may be, have equality between members of this convention is such different circumstances.
The committee states in the report, and I quote from paragraph 35:
"In such circumstances it is incumbent on the stronger negotiating partner to exercise restraint and to accept responsibility for a fair outcome".
I hope very much that this advice from our committee is being followed during the official negotiations and that the advanced countries—the European members—will not only listen with sympathy to the case put forward by the ACP countries but will make a conscious and generous effort to meet the needs expressed on the other side of the table.
I believe that our sub-committee can claim that we did take that attitude and that we were right to do so. When a few of us from the sub-committee went to Brussels to see Mr. Pisani, the commissioner for development, we took the opportunity to meet the ambassadors from the ACP countries. We had such a fruitful, although limited, exchange that we were glad it was possible for them to come to London for a further exchange. We had a formal session with them here, at the Palace of Westminster, and their evidence is printed on pages 242 to 263 of the report. I believe that that section is a most important part of the published volume.
In my view, it is also very much to be hoped that the ideas of the Commissioner for Development, Mr. Pisani, which were put forward in his original memorandum, will find a place in the final outcome of the negotiations which are now proceeding. I express this hope despite the less than warm welcome which his ideas first received from the Council of Ministers and from the representatives of the ACP countries as well. That makes me think that he might well have been right, and it is why I hope that his ideas will prevail. Those ideas—and particulary Mr. Pisani's call for food self-sufficiency and the use of local resources—are summarised adequately in paragraph 15.1 believe that that, too, is an important part of what we have to report. I must say that I was a bit taken aback when, in one of the documents we received, the Pisani thesis was described as "new dogma". As my noble friend Lord Brimelow has pointed out, since I had been saying much the same thing for the past 20 years, beginning when I was a junior Minister at the Ministry of Overseas Development, I could not readily accept that it was either "new" or "dogma". But it was not altogether suprising, in my view, that the first reaction of the ACP countries to the Pisani memorandum was one of caution and suspicion. They are ever watchful—and rightly so—for any renewal in today's world of the economic exploitation which characterised the era of imperialism. When they are told by industrial countries that they should stick to agriculture third world countries are naturally very
682
wary lest their population should become forever the hewers of wood and the drawers of water. In fact, I believe, and I believe Commissioner Pisani believes, that his approach is the most certain way of lifting their populations out of their inferior status in world society.
It is on the basis of sound agricultural and rural development that appropriate methods of industialisation can be built and that is the path to higher living standards for their people. That, I believe, is what Commissioner Pisani is advocating and pursuing. As I have said, it is understandable that the developing countries do not readily accept this message. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, referred to M. Cheysson as the originator of the Lomé Convention. He has played a part in the current negotiations. I believe it is true to say that it was a statement from him that helped to remove some of the misundertanding that existed in the minds of the ACP representatives. Indeed, as I have mentioned, when a few of us went to Brussels and met the ambassadors from the ACP countries we sensed at first an atmosphere of stiffness, of suspicion and of obvious misunderstanding. In the first place, the fact that we were Peers of the Realm seemed to make an undue impression of our importance. Secondly, we seemed to be regarded as representatives of Her Majesty's Government; and naturally some of us were only too anxious to defend ourselves against any such accusation. However, before long we had disabused them of the notion and the combined charm of my noble friends Lord Brimelow and Lady LlewelynDavies soon established the possibility of a very cordial and constructive interchange.
These ACP countries are wary when proposals are put to them from the developed countries, and understandably so when you consider their present situation in relation to their European partners. I should like to quote, because I cannot express it better in my own words, from an excellent small pamphlet on the Lomé negotiations published by the Catholic Institute for International Relations. Its publication Comment states on page 16:
"The ACP stress that the Lomé Convention is but one part of the multi-faceted interdependence between themselves and the Community from which the Community benefits. They argue that this interdependence creates a net flow of resources from the ACP to the EEC through the remittance of profits by European firms working in ACP countries, through the interest paid on ACP debt to European financial institutions, through the Community's trade surplus with the ACP, and through terms of trade under which the ACP have to produce more and more exports in order simply to stand still and maintain current levels of imports from the Community."
Starting up as they do from that inferior position it is, I suggest, understandable that they are going to look warily at any proposals which might make their situation worse.
But it was not only the Community's development proposals which roused their suspicions, it was also the suggestion that there should be the so-called "policy dialogues" prior to the provision of development aid. This must have sounded like the laying down of conditions before aid could be provided. It was here, as I have already indicated, that the intervention of M. Claude Cheysson was so helpful. He said:
"For us it is clear that the definition of sectoral policies—whatever

683
the ideological nature of the government in power—is within the competence of the countries concerned."
It is important that our negotiators should make that clear when they are advocating policy dialogues.
It would also help if this concept of policy dialogues was seen to be a two-way process, which is a suggestion that has been adopted by the European Parliament. I accept entirely that the policies of the developing countries need to be examined and improved, but could it not also be the case that the policies of the European partners towards the ACP partners are also capable of critical examination. I recall, for example, that soon after the present Government took office they declared that their aid programme would in future be conducted so as as to secure political and commercial advantages for this country. Could it not be that a policy dialogue about that declaration of policy could be conducted by members of the Lomé Convention from both sides of the bargain, particularly since that convention is supposed to be between equal partners?
Thinking of this particular week, is it too much to hope that self-examination and critical reappraisal of the policies of the industrial world towards the developing world will be the main subject of discussion at this week's London summit? I suggest that it is impossible to imagine the the indebtedness of Latin American countries to Western banks will not be prominent on the agenda of that summit conference. But let us not forget, since Lomé is largely concerned not with Latin America but with African countries, that the debt problem about which we are reading and hearing so much has a Lomé dimension. The individual debts of African countries may be small compared with those of Latin America, and therefore may not trouble the Western banking system so much, but the debt problem of the ACP countries is indeed serious for them. Wrestling with that problem may force them to adopt policies which they would not wish to adopt and which would have the effect of making their poor people poorer still. That is why I hope that these matters of the relationship between the West and the South, or the developing countries, will be taken on board in this week's summit conference.
I come finally to the point about the size of the resources available at the end of the negotiations. I am very glad that in the report of the committee which we are considering, it is clearly stated—and my noble friend Lord Brimelow and others have quoted it—that:
"We would like to see higher priority accorded to aid in the general pattern of United Kingdom Government expenditure".
I believe that that is a vital part of the recommendations which our committee has put forward. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, and my noble friend Lord Pitt had important things to say about this principle of putting the decision about the size of the resources at the end of the negotiations rather than taking it on board earlier in the negotiations. I took this question up with the financial spokesman of the ambassadors who came to see us. I suggested to him that, as I understood it, their position was not that they wanted right at the beginning a sum of money to be agreed upon but that the criteria by which that sum of money was to be negotiated should be established early in the negotiations.
684
Perhaps the noble Baroness can help us. I was wondering whether any progress was made in the recent Fiji conference in this respect. Was any progress made towards establishing not a global sum but the criteria by which that global sum could be calculated? This is vital. It is a question of what resources will be available at the end of the day. Otherwise one could go from one item on the agenda to the next item on the agenda and get harmony and agreement and then, when one came to the very last item of the agenda, all would be thrown aside because it would be found that no agreement could be reached about the global amount.
That is why the question of the negotiations for a new Lomé Convention relates very much to the attitude of our Government to aid and development policy in general. I believe that it will have to face the fact—as our committee has recommended—that more resources should be put into our efforts to help the third world and particularly the partners of the Lomé Convention, otherwise the outcome of the negotiations will be a failure.
7.33 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, this has been a most useful debate, concentrating, as it has, on the many important issues in the current negotiations. I very much welcome the support which the Select Committee has given to the Government's approach. A very wide range of issues has been raised this afternoon. Many of your Lordships have said that in the next convention priority should be given to supporting agriculture. The Community must get away from prestige projects, which Commissioner Pisani has graphically termed "cathedrals of the desert" and which are of little relevance to the vast bulk of ACP populations.
I also welcome the general recognition that it is right for the Community to press for more dialogue with ACP countries to ensure that the substantial aid which the EDF disperses is used to proper effect—a point that has been made by a great many of your Lordships today. In the early stages of the negotiations the ACP were wary of the concept of policy dialogue—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Oram—which they believed was an attempt by the Community somehow to undermine their sovereignty. I am pleased that they have now appreciated that the European Community had no such intention and are participating pragmatically in a consideration of how the Community's ideas might best be reflected in the text of the next convention.
Furthermore, an improvement in the effectiveness of EDF aid can only be to the benefit of the recipients of that aid. Many of your Lordships agreed with the Government's conviction that trade rather than aid is the most effective developmental tool. Lomé already offered extensive preferences to the ACP countries—around 98 per cent. of their exports into the Community free of tariffs and of any form of quantitative restriction—but the Government believe that more can and ought to be done. We shall, therefore, reinforced by the Select Committee's report and by those noble Lords who have spoken today, continue to press within the Community for some further movement in this field.

685
I should like to say a word about the state of play in the negotiations. Useful progress was made at the last ministerial negotiating conference in Fiji at the beginning of May. Officials are now working hard to refine the conclusions of this meeting and to turn them into texts. The next negotiating conference is scheduled for 28th and 29th of June in Luxembourg. The French presidency has given notice that its aim is to settle the main outstanding issues under negotiation at this conference. We fully support that objective, while recognising that a further session is likely to be necessary before the summer break.
A great many detailed points have been raised in the course of the debate this afternoon on which I should like to comment as far as I can. I regret that time does not allow me to take up all the points that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, and the noble Lord, Lord Oram, were both concerned that we should discuss the size of the next EDF sooner than agreed by the Community. But it would not be sensible to discuss the size of the EDF until negotiations on substance—that is, on its use—have been concluded.
Both noble Lords were also concerned about the need to maintain the value of the EDF. The Community cannot yet, however, commit itself to any figure for the new EDF, but it would be right for me to say today that even maintenance in cash terms would be difficult for the United Kindom. As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, suggested, some critics have dubbed the EEC approach as aid, not trade. But as I think I have made clear, the Government do not take this view and we have advocated improvements to the trade regime. Trade is much more important than aid.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester stressed the importance of interdependence and partnership, and the Government accept the message of the second Brandt Report, Common Crisis, that we live in an interdependent world. The economies of the industrialised nations and developing countries are closely interwoven. This inter-relationship is underlined in the truly joint nature of the Lomé institutions. As for partnership, the Government share the right reverend Prelate's concern. He mentioned the exemplary nature of the food strategy exercise in four African countries. Although these have not been without their problems, we see them acting as a precedent for what the Community understands by policy dialogue. It must make sense for the two sides, the European Community and ACP, to sit down together and talk about the context within which individual aid projects are set.
The Government also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, that the Lomé regime should stimulate ACP trade, both with the Community and with each other. The Community of course provides aid to trade promotion to encourage the ACP countries to use fully the concessions of the Lomé trade regime, and we are working to improve these. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, made a plea for the use of EDF interest to pay STABEX claims. The excess claims in 1981 were in fact partly settled from this source. However, these funds are limited and, as I said in my opening speech, the Community will reconsider the question of unpaid claims when the current scheme comes to an end.
686
I very much welcome what my noble friend Lord Rochdale said in support of the Government's view that the proper valuation of EDF is vital. As I have indicated, this was a point made by many other noble Lords. We have been pressing for this within the Community for some time and we are pleased that we have made some progress with our partners. I am confident that appropriate provisions will be written into either the next convention itself or the Community's own internal procedures.
My noble friend Lord Rochdale also made a number of points about shipping. I can assure my noble friend that the Government have studied with care the memorandum submitted to the subcommittee by the General Council of British Shipping. This issue has not yet been discussed in the negotiations, but I believe that the next convention will, as the noble Lord favoured, contain appropriate provisions, as did Lomé II. My noble friend suggested that these should comprise a formal arrangement under which the Community aid cargoes would be divided evenly between EC and ACP. The important thing is to ensure that Community aid is transported in the most effective way possible, whether the shipper is ACP or EC.
The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, in what I thought a most interesting speech, mentioned the harmful effects of food aid. This form of aid is not provided under the Lomé Convention, but many ACP countries receive food aid. The United Kingdom considers it vital to replace this kind of aid with the most appropriate agricultural imports—such things as seeds and fertilisers—and to ensure that this is fully co-ordinated with the recipient agricultural policy. We think that a food chapter might be of value in achieving this in the new convention.
The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, also drew attention to the importance of the CDC, and I have recently looked at its very interesting annual report. I welcome very much the tribute of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, to the kind of development assistance that is provided by the CDC. This is a salutary reminder that the quality of aid is much more important than its quantity.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, will recognise that I have already made clear in my remarks that the Govenment have no difficulty with the suggestion that he made that it would be appropriate for Community aid to certain ACP countries to focus on trade development rather than agriculture. Each ACP country's indicative aid programme is spent according to the priorities of the ACP country itself. I have no doubt that it will be right for a number of ACP countries to concentrate on the development of processing industries, port facilities, cold storage facilities and other matters that he mentioned. The Government fully agree that one of the tasks of the negotiators will be to ensure that ACP countries can take full advantage of the trade opportunities available to them.
The noble Lord. Lord Hatch, asked about the slowness of EDF disbursements. I can tell the House that at the end of March 1984 just over 50 per cent. of EDF 5 had been committed and only some 20 per cent. spent. This, I agree, is a very poor rate of disbursement. The Government have proposed that

687
EDF procedure be simplified to improve on this record. Greater delegation of authority to the Commission delegations and ACP would help. This is something that again has been referred to by many noble Lords, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Saint Brides and Lord Rhodes.
The noble Lords, Lord Hams and Lord Bauer, expressed concern about the effect of aid on ACP development. I think, however, that it is important to get aid in perspective. It is only one relatively minor element in the global flow of finance to developing countries. It is. however, disproportionately important to the low income, non-oil producing countries, many of them ACP members. In the present international climate it would be unrealistic to expect either private investors or commercial lenders to substitute for these aid flows. My noble friend Lord Bauer rightly drew attention to the damage done to ACP development by inappropriate policies, especially in the areas of pricing and marketing. The Government share the concern of the Community at this problem. We hope that the pricing dialogue proposed in the new convention will ensure that EDF aid is provided only to those sectors where local policies are conducive to success.
The noble Lord, Lord Kissin, will not be surprised to learn that I agree with very much of what he said about the excesses of the common agricultural policy. Since we joined the Community the Government have been pressing consistently for improvements. In particular, the Government share his concern about the concept of long-term agricultural contracts. We agree that such contracts would only serve to institutionalise the surpluses that we believe must be reduced. We are therefore firmly resisting this idea.
The noble Lord, Lord Kissin, the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and a number of other noble Lords, mentioned the need for better provisions in the convention to promote and protect private investment in ACP countries. The Government agree, and we have submitted proposals as to how the imprecise provisions of the present convention could be tightened up to make it easier to negotiate effective bilateral investment promotion and protection agreements. These are, we believe, the best instruments for achieving the desired objective.
As for the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Kissin, that we should examine the possibility of an investment insurance scheme, I can say that the Community is currently studying this very idea. If such a scheme were to be introduced, it would be essential for it to be self-financing, as is our own national insurance investment scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Saint Brides, referred to the exclusion of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh from the Lomé Conventions. These major Commonwealth nations do, however, receive substantial development aid from the Community under its non-associates programme. Indeed, India is the largest recipient of EC aid, including food aid. The Government will continue to press for a significant share of Community aid to be devoted to these countries within available resources. I was interested to hear what the noble Lord had to say about voluntary organisations and the effectiveness of their way of using aid money.
688
This will be the third convention between the ACP and the Community and will take the special relationship between them to 1990. There is no denying that economic progress in the developing countries, not least the ACP, has been disappointing over the life of the first two conventions. But there is equally no denying that the aid, trade preferences, and other help, provided under Lomé have made the position of the participant countries better than it would otherwise have been. The third convention will no more solve their problems than have the first two conventions. Solutions lie more in the state of the world economy and in the way individual countries manage their own affairs than in such external factors as Lomé. But through the Lomé relationship the Community and the United Kingdom can make a significant contribution. It has been valuable to have this debate. I should like to conclude by thanking once again the noble Lord, Lord Brimelow and his committee for the report on the successor to the second Lomé Convention.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I thank her for answering one of my questions. I remind her, however, that I asked another specific question about what Her Majesty's Government were doing in the agricultural field in relation to the production of food in this country and the production of food in the third world. Is it not the case that this Government are spending as much on subsidies to food in this country as on every other aspect of life in this country, and that this subsidy is undermining the production of food in the third world and the export of that food to this country?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thought that I had answered that in the reply that I made to the noble Lord, Lord Kissin, when I talked about the common agricultural policy. On innumerable occasions the Government have made it perfectly plain that we are working for a reform of this policy. What the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is I think concerned about is the effect of the common agricultural policy, to which, as a member of the European Community, we belong. on the agricultural economies of ACP countries.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: And the prices, my Lords.
Baroness Young: And the prices as well, my Lords.
Lord Bauer: My Lords. I had hoped that the noble Baroness would say something about bilateral and multilateral aid. As the Government have repeatedly expressed their preference for bilateral aid. and as a number of noble Lords have given good reason for supporting it. why is it that multilateral aid is expected to rise from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent., as mentioned in the report of the sub-committee?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I indicated—I think it was in response to the point raised both by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and the noble Lord, Lord Oram, on the amounts of money that were involved in this—we have not yet taken a decision on this matter. The most important question on the EDF is how it is going to be used, and I think it would be better to let the discussion rest at that point.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Brimelow: My Lords, since the noble Baroness the Minister has replied so fully and so courteously to the debate, my duty is simply to thank those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and the other noble Lords who have listened so patiently. They have given us their support, and we appreciate it.
It would be ungracious of me if I did not pay a special tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who has spoken twice. Her first intervention answered every point in my opening speech. It was full, relevant, precise and highly informative, and I listened to it with great pleasure. In her second intervention she has dealt very fairly with the points that were made in the debate.
In the speech by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester reference was made to the fact that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury would have wished to take part in the debate had he not been prevented by another of his many duties. That remark will not have passed unnoticed and unappreciated in your Lordships' House. But I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate himself for bringing into the debate a dimension of human dignity with which we are concerned all too seldom.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Saint Brides, for being here. He wrote to me from France to say that he would come specially for the debate. That was good of him. I am sorry that we dragged the noble Lord, Lord Walston, away from a golden wedding which we should all have liked to attend.
Many years ago my attention was arrested by an article by the noble Lord, Lord Bauer. Its title was a question: "Trickle Down for Ever?" "Ever" and "never" are big words which men brought up in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office seldom use. Your Lordships may not be aware that the oldest dipLoméatic archive in this country is not to be found in the Public Record Office, now happily re-opened to the public: it is in the British Museum. It is a collection of clay tablets found at Tel-el-Amarna in Egypt. This collection contains a number of messages from princelings in Syria and Egypt to the Pharaohs of the Eighteenth Dynasty—shall we say fifteenth and fourteenth century BC?
The gist of these messages was:
"O great king, send us presents; send us military assistance, and send us gold"—
which in Egypt is as plentiful as sand. Substitute "credits" for "gold" and the messages have a fairly modern ring. So the circumstances which give rise to the demands for aid and the demands themselves, and the failure of the aid sent to get rid of the circumstances which give rise to the demands, have been going on for (shall we say?) three thousand five hundred years, which is all the records show. Probably they have gone on for much longer. Will they go on for ever? I do not know. I think our job is to try to chip away, to reduce the need for aid, and thus gradually to reduce the scope for aid itself.
But in this debate we have also dwelt on the need to expand trade. I am not at all convinced that the world yet knows how to cope with the re-expansion of trade without finding a resurgence of inflation. But that is a
690
matter for another debate. The Motion before the House is to take note of the Select Committee's report on the successor to the Lomé Convention. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has agreed not to proceed with his Unstarred Question tonight, in view of the late hour at which it might well have come on. The Unstarred Question has been retabled for Friday, 22nd June.

Video Recordings Bill
7.56 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Exempted works]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 5, after ("with") insert ("politics,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord the Chief Whip for the announcement he has just made. It will relieve us of any anxiety that we are keeping other noble Lords waiting for the conclusion of this business. That does not mean to say that I am going to prolong it any further than I think is necessary. I will do my best and I am sure other noble Lords will, too.
I beg to move Amendment No. 1. On 5th May The Times newspaper had a leading article headed, "Abusing the Statute Book". I am quoting when I say that I read:
"Legislation thrust on a Government by the British public in one of its periodic fits of morality is apt all too often to prove irrelevant or actually harmful when it comes to be applied in the courts. The Home Secretary has done well to resist being bounced into hasty legislation by the wave of anxiety, real and justified as it is, over the problem of glue-sniffing".
The article went on to apply by inference those strictures to the Bill before the House tonight, because it described the Bill to control video nasties as,
"another Bill conceived hastily in a moral fit".
If the quality of legislation has to do with certainty and clarity, this Bill must fail miserably by any test one likes to apply. No more is that so than in Clause 2 where we are dealing with exempted works. The more I think about the replies we have had so far on this clause, the more doubtful I am that this is a justifiable piece of legislation, worthy of the name of this House. But looking at it as it is we find that the clause says:
"(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, a video work is for the purposes of this Act an exempted work if, taken as a whole"—
then paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) follow. Obviously there are difficulties about a video recording designed to inform, to educate or to instruct. It gets a little more specific when dealing with sport, religion or music. It has occurred to me that in the absence of a reference to politics we may get into some very difficult questions of what is an exempted work on a video recording dealing with politics. I know that in all cases of exempted works Clause 2(2) contains an overriding

691
condition. In my view it is an offensive one, but we are not dealing with that at this particular moment.
As I understand it from what the Minister has said so far on the Bill, the great difficulty is that we exempt ourselves under this clause and under the several headings given in it. It seems like a do-it-yourself exemption and one takes the risk oneself in exercising judgment. I do not know whether it would be permissible for a cautious or nervous producer to go to the censorship authority and ask: "Is this video in your opinion an exempted work?" They would probably reply that they are not the judges of what is an exempted work and that it is a matter for the courts.
But what about political and other controversial types of videos that do not fall within the mischief of Clause 2(2), but which may raise some questions of fitness to be viewed in the circumstances which this Bill envisages? My fears may be unfounded and it may be that the Minister can advise us as to where he thinks politics would come. Do politics come under information? Do they come under education? What about propaganda? What about something which may offend against good taste but which may not necessarily be either obscene or so deeply offensive as to excite censorship judgment?
We are promised guidelines, but we have not got them and it does not look as if we are likely to get them to allay these fears—certainly not in time to dispel some of the problems that we may have. In my view, videos will be used increasingly for political propaganda purposes. Let us suppose that we have one which is entitled, "The Knocking of Neil Kinnock" and it is very offensive about my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition. Let us suppose that there is a video entitled, "The Unfrocking of Mrs. Thatcher", which is suggestive of a very offensive video. Would the British Board of Film Censors recall the noble Lord, Lord Hill, to say, "Yes, but not in front of the children"?
Theatre censorship has been dismantled. We have a voluntary arrangement for the cinema. We are now erecting this third structure of censorship which relates to showing things in the home. Behind all three stands this macabre sentinel, the Obscene Publications Act 1959, to remind all and sundry—statutory bodies and voluntary bodies alike—that the ultimate censor is the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Can we be told when any Government last interceded with the Board of British Film Censors to influence its policy or decisions? Will the designated authority be clearly independent and not under Government influence or direction? Will there be consultation between the designated authority and the Government on matters which they fear might give rise to controversy but which do not fall, perhaps, within the four corners of the stipulations laid down in the Bill? I do not know. Without guidelines one has difficulty in judging the basis upon which the censorship authority is entitled to approach matters of some controversy or difficulty. So are we sure that offensiveness, bad taste, political bias, the criticising or lampooning of the monarchy, the Church or other institutions, including this one—because we will probably not be immune from some offensive references in the course of the development of political propaganda through video recordings—are dealt with?
I suggested earlier in our debates that I thought that the main purpose of the Bill was for the protection of the children. I believe I am right in saying that the Minister said that it was more than that—it was for the protection of grown-ups as well. I have with me a list, with which I shall not trouble your Lordships, of the occasions upon which the Government of the day have interfered with the complete freedom and independence of the British Board of Film Censors. For example, a pacifist film produced by the Peace Pledge Union in 1935 was refused a certificate by the British Board of Film Censors on the grounds that it might lead to disturbance. However, in the following year a film on the territorial army was approved and widely exhibited.
The answer may be that they would be shown in the home. It might even be said that they would be shown in the privacy of the home and so they would not create any public disturbance. However, I would be glad of some reassurance on this point. There can, at any time, be doubt as to whether the instructions to the British Board of Film Censors are clear enough. Their approach to their statutory duty is clear enough. What comfort may individuals have in claiming that the works they are producing are exempted works under the Bill? I should be glad of any comments that the Minister may make on this matter.
In my view, politics should be included. After all, religion is a form of politics—it is a form of conviction and belief. Politics are a form of conviction and belief. They both can be extremely controversial. But religion is included because, presumably, it has a sanctity that politics do not have. I should like to be more certain in my mind than I am at present about the position of politics and political propaganda circulated among the faithful or among the widely spread public who care to buy it at any price that they might have to pay to view in the home. I am thinking, for example, of some political message or other. Where will the designated authority stand on these matters? Are they going to be concerned only with sex, horror, mutilation, genitals and all the things that they are supposed, under this clause and others, to exclude from films to be shown in the home? I beg to move.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for once again his interesting tour d'horizon of the Bill. He reminds me of that beautiful bird, the thrush:
"That's the wise thrush; he sings his song twice over, Lest you should think he never could recapture the first fine careless rapture".
The noble Lord does just that: not just twice, but many times over he goes round the same course.
The simple answer to his point is that in Clause 2(1)(a) the words,
"designed to inform, educate or instruct".
fully cover politics. I am perfectly certain that everything which the noble Lord himself has said in his long and distinguished career in politics has been said with just those motives. It may be that it all sounded like propaganda to me, but I dare say that he would have said the same about what I said. The fact is that in the world of politics we all know perfectly well what

693
it means, and it is just for those purposes: to inform, to educate or to instruct, and to hope that by the weight and logic of our orations we shall persuade people that our cause is the right one.
To ask that politics should also be included in this subsection is, I believe, quite unnecessary to the scope and substance of the Bill, and the noble Lord can rest easy on this. There may be other points of doubt—undoubtedly there are, with 50 amendments on the Marshalled List—which have to be cleared up, but this is one where he can rest assured (as I hope can all of us in the political arena) that we shall be able to continue to express our views with complete freedom and rest confident that Clause 2(1)(a) will completely cover us.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I was most interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said about this amendment. I shall resist the temptation to follow the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in his general remarks about censorshp and the Bill as a whole, although I am bound to say that perhaps a more apt quotation to refer to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, than the one produced by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, concerning the thrush would be the words of Lewis Carroll in the Hunting of the Snark, who said:
"What I tell you three times is true".
I am bound to say that some of the remarks which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has made more than three times seem to me to be entirely true.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said that politics was wholly covered in Clause 2(1)(a), which states that a video work is:
"designed to inform, educate or instruct".
If that be the case, I cannot see what possible harm could be done by inserting the word "politics" before the word "sport" in paragraph (b), so that if the video recording was concerned with politics, sport, religion or music it would have exemption. That surely would make the matter utterly clear.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has said that politics is entirely exempt; it is exempted under paragraph (a). If it is exempted, why not say so? Why not accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and include the word "politics" in paragraph (b), so that everybody knows exactly where they stand?
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, briefly, I am of exactly the same opinion as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I do not wish to plunge into silence simply because there is silence, but I would remind your Lordships that this is Report stage and my noble friend Lord Nugent cannot rise to his feet constantly. It seems to me that if we are to include the word "politics" we ought also to include "geography", "meteorology", and so on. We need a general definition, and that is what is already in the Bill.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, with respect, I do not think that that is an entirely adequate reply.
694
After all, politics is a matter of political contention. It is something which people vote about: it is not in the same category as geography or even history, although, goodness knows, people get pretty excited about that from time to time. I should have thought that the issue of politics is something which ought to be included particularly. After all, to some people politics is a religion. If religion is included, what possible grounds can there be for excluding and not specifically naming the modern form of religion, unless the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is arguing (and I do not think he is) that politics is religion and thus is included?
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, says that politics is information. There are those who think that politics is disinformation. Indeed, one might say that one man's information is another man's disinformation. Therefore, I do not think it is sufficient to say that politics is covered by information. I do not always agree 100 per cent. with my noble friend Lord Houghton, though I am inclined to follow the view expressed on this side of the House that for a good deal of the time he is very much on the ball. On this occasion I think that my noble friend is on the ball, and I hope it is possible that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, or even the representative of the Government, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, might be prepared to say that at least they will look at this again.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am disappointed that neither the sponsor of the Bill nor the Minister is prepared to stand up and defend the right of your Lordships' House to include in this Bill our most noble vocation. Why should politics take a place in the list of exempted works subordinate to sport or, for that matter, music? I leave religion in a more pre-eminent position, but why sport? What special quality is there about sport which claims a particular place here? Politics is something by itself. It is not information, education or instruction; it is an activity, and a contentious one. It receives a great deal of publicity, and can give rise to deep passions—anger, and other human emotions.
Some words are regarded as unparliamentary. Apparently a new one—"fascist"—has been added to the book in another place in the last couple of days. But what if there is a video that begins to hurl that word about? Will that be regarded as being suitable for young children to listen to and view?—because they probably will not understand what it means. Other things could be ruled out because it is expected that children will react differently to them. I am very sad about this.
I do not think that, for the dignity of your Lordships' House or for the activity that we pursue in this House and outside, we should be content to have politics omitted and sport, religion and music included. There is no other claimant for inclusion; no other claimant has been put forward throughout the whole of these debates. In the circumstances, if the House wishes to go on record as having rejected the elevation of its activity to a place of exemption in Clause 2 of this Bill, so be it.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2. line 7, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, under the subsection with which we have just dealt certain works are excluded from the consideration of this Bill. I have not yet become very clear about precisely how they are excluded, but that is a subject for later consideration. As I understand it, the authority will decide what the category of the work is, but I do not know whether the authority will also decide what works come before it or whether a work is exempted. That may have escaped me and it may have been explained previously, but I have not noticed it.
I take it that those submitting the works will argue that they are exempted works. But to whom will they submit the argument of exemption? Will it be to the designated authority? In other words, will the authority decide not only that which it categorises but that which does not need categorisation, as well as those which fall outside the scope and are not to be released at all? That is a preliminary point.
The real point is the question of whether, having exempted certain works, it is then appropriate to draw back from that and say that under certain circumstances although normally such works fall into the category of exemption, works falling into these categories—the categories set out in subsection (2)—are nevertheless not exempted. When one steps into that difficult situation one immediately has problems. From the moment one does that one descends into the question, or rises into the question—whichever it may be—as to what is the purpose of the work. Is it an elevating purpose, or is it a degrading purpose?
It is possible to say that a work may be concerned with human sexual activity and may be designed to inform, educate, and instruct, and that therefore in the normal course of events it should be an exempted work under subsection (2)(a). Now are we going to say that in all circumstances human sexual activity falls into a non-exemption category? A great deal of confusion arises here. Some of the activities which are set out here are obviously repugnant. But if we include in a single subsection,
"human sexual activity or acts of force or restraint associated with such activity"—
in other words, ordinary human sexual activity, and human sexual activity which probably is not regarded as ordinary—then in that single subsection we are saying that something which is generally approved of, generally indulged in, is in the same category as things which are generally disapproved of and are probably not widely indulged in.
We are running into great difficulty here. Having considered it in some detail, I think that the only thing to do is to leave out subsection (2) and to provide that a video work is an exempted work if, taken as a whole, it is designed to inform, and not to seek to make the exclusions from the exemptions which are provided in the subsection. I do not think it would be necessary, because the works will come before the authority in any event, and I think that the authority can be relied upon itself to decide these difficult questions.
Whether something which is presented is in fact elevating and informative, or whether it is degrading and harmful, is a difficult and controversial question. One recalls the early anti-nuclear film "The War
696
Game", which the BBC decided not to transmit because they thought that it would frighten people too much and that it was too horrible. Nowadays, 16 years later, we recognise that nuclear war is much more horrible, and would be much more horrible, than anything depicted in "The War Game". We can now see in retrospect that the BBC were wrong to take that decision, although the purpose of the film was certainly to shock, perhaps even to frighten, people, since there are times when in the public interest it is necessary to shock and frighten people. It is not always wrong to do so.
So far as Clause 2 as a whole is concerned, I think that is a necessary part of the Bill. But so far as subsection (2) is concerned, the Bill would be better without it. It would be less confusing, and on the whole it would be a better Bill. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, will say that, provided he can achieve the central purpose of Clause 2, he will not seek to derogate from it and give the authority too close a guidance, which is what is attempted—and I think unsuccessfully and undesirably attempted—in subsection (2). I beg to move.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for arguing his case so ingeniously. As he knows, this question was debated at length during the Committee stage of the Bill. He is now really asking us to rehearse similar arguments to those we discussed before. I should like to remind him of the wise words of the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy—I am sorry that he is not well enough to be with us—when he said that if we take this subsection out of the Bill, we may as well say goodbye to the Bill. It knocks the heart out of it. This is an aspect of the matter of which we should all take note. There is real substance in it.
Of course the noble Lord is right that if a producer, or anyone producing a video work, wants an opinion about an exemption, at the end of the day he will have no alternative but to present it to the designated authority—the British Board of Film Censors, as it will be—for a classification. There is no other way of being sure. But in a general way this clause, and others, will be a guidance to producers as to what will, and what will not, be acceptable. This of course is an important part of that issue.
The noble Lord says that if we take out this provision, it will then be left entirely to the British Board of Film Censors to decide whether or not they think that a video work should be classified, and how it is to be classified. The general opinion of Parliament, up until now, has been that some guidance is needed on these more precise matters of sexual activity and violence. Where they meet the conditions set out in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) they will, generally speaking, not be acceptable. That is a guide which I think in general, if my judgment is correct, most people feel is one that we should give to the authority, and which has in a general way guided them in what they have done in their work to date in regard to films. It is for those practical reasons that the subsection should remain in the Bill.
Again, without rehearsing all the arguments that we debated before, I would ask the noble Lord to see that

697
there is a cogent reason for putting in this, at any rate basic, guideline. Some people would like to say very much more, and others would like to say less. Again, as with so much of this Bill, it is a matter of balance. But when the noble Lord says that we should take out this subsection altogether, I say that most people would feel that we would be taking out what is regarded as a basic safeguard to prevent the extremes of sexual indulgence, or violence, being shown in this way. I hope that the noble Lord will see that there is another side to it in addition to the side that he argued so cogently.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, I rise on only one small aspect because it illustrates the real difficulty which Parliament as a whole has been in over this whole field. It concerns the difference between films as shown in the cinema, cassettes which may be hired or bought, and broadcasting as a whole. I should like to remind the noble Lord that the BBC did not show "The War Game" precisely because it was thought that it would, or it might, considerably alarm in particular people living alone, old people, and perhaps children. But in fact during all that period "The War Game" has been available as a film to groups of people who wished specially to get together to view. This illustrates the real difference between what is broadcast into the home and what is available on video cassettes for the home, and what is seen in the cinema. Therefore, the same criteria do not necessarily apply.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I refrained from adding my name to the amendment put down by my noble friend to some extent because of the reasons put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. I accept that, in the intentions of the sponsors of this Bill, to take out subsection (2) would cut the heart out of the Bill. I accept that the Bill has been promoted and argued for throughout as a Bill against, the phrase used was "video nasties". The only reason I rise now is to say that although I cannot support the amendment, I think that the attitude of many people, and certainly of myself, towards the Bill as a whole would be totally different if subsection (2) did not include the phrase "human sexual activity" and if subsection (2)(a) said "acts of force or restraint associated with humans or human sexual activity" and if the final sentence in the subsection did not say "designed to any significant extent to stimulate or encourage human sexual activity".
The Bill has been argued for—and this is common ground—as a Bill against video nasties. To extend it to be a Bill against the depiction of human sexual activities, erotography, pornography or whatever you wish to call it, is a very wide extension. It has not been argued clearly before the public and I believe, that if it had been argued more clearly and openly, the public—or at least a significant part of the public—would make a distinction between those two things and would wish to see a distinction in the legislation. Although I do not support the amendment, I do think subsection (2)(a) is significantly defective in that respect.
Lord Ardwick: Surely, my Lords, all the clause says is that a video work shall not be an exempted work if
698
it depicts these things. This surely does not mean that a work which does depict some of these things should not come forward for classification.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if I may add my mite of clarification, I shall be as brief as those who have spoken before me. Starting with Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I think the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, has put his finger on it. The purpose of Clause 2(2) is to provide that a work which would otherwise be an exempt work under Clause 2(1) shall not be exempt from the need to be classified. It does not mean it shall therefore not be shown. The video nasty is normally a very violent thing: that is the creature which is not classifiable and because it falls in Clause 2(2) it would be subject to the need to be classified and therefore would not be marketable.
That brings me to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. If I can take it a little further than he took it, it is about what happens to the unfortunate person who thinks he has an exempt article on his hands, puts it on the market and then discovers that it is not exempt. That is the logic of what he said. My Lords, of course, we all have to take that sort of decision a number of times, and, to take a rather absurd example that comes to mind, you know whether you have a bicycle or a motorbicycle. One needs to be licensed and the other does not and there is no reason for making a mistake here. There are other cases where the choice is perhaps more difficult and there is therefore a defence if you get it wrong innocently. The law is designed to catch those who get it wrong deliberately—in other words those who market without a certificate material which the law requires to have a certificate, because that is the only way they can sell it and they wish to make a profit. If the noble Lord will look at Clause 10(2)(a), if my memory serves me right, he will find that it is a defence to a charge of committing an offence under this section, that is the offence we are talking about,
"that the accused believed on reasonable grounds that the video work concerned"—
I leave a few words out—was an exempted work. In other words, my Lords, if you innocently break the law you are exempted from the penalties of the law, although thereafter of course you would have to get the thing licensed, certificated.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for that explanation.
A noble Lord: Order!
Lord Elton: If I may explain what is going on, my Lords, the noble Lord moved the amendment and he has the right to reply: in other words, he may speak twice.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful, I thought I was in order, although I am not necessarily always in order. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for that explanation, which I think does clarify the issue. It may not be usual to accept explanations given from that Box, but on this occasion I shall breach the rules and do so.
I nonetheless find this clause unsatisfactory. In spite of what has been said—and I recognise the strength of

699
it—it seems to me to be eminently unsatisfactory in subsection (2)(a) to have a sentence which puts in the same category "human sexual activity or acts of force or restraint associated with such activity". That means that it equates a loving human relationship with rape. It makes no difference between the two and it says that either of these is in the same category. I find that extremely unsatisfactory and I think that the public at large, when it comes to see what is involved in this Bill, will also describe that as extremely unsatisfactory.
We have sought, as it were, to exclude a loving human relationship—and there are films which have been produced which seek to depict in entirely acceptable terms what that relationship is—rather than to equate that with the horrible things which we are trying to prevent in this Bill. It seems to me that, in seeking to take out subsection 2(2) altogether, I may possibly be going too far, but I shall cudgel my brains and seek advice to see whether it is not possible at some later stage in the Bill to stop this procedure, which seems to me to be offensive in the extreme, of putting together a willing and entirely desirable relationship, sancitified by law, in the same sentence and of regarding it as similar to what this Bill rightly seeks to condemn.
Having said that, I think that perhaps the total omission of subsection (2) goes too far and, if your Lordships will permit me, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.38 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 19, leave out subsections (3) to (5).
The noble Lord said: This is a paving amendment, my Lords, to Amendment No. 15, to which, with the exception of the last subsection, subsection (12), I shall also speak.
Amendment No. 15: Clause 3, page 4, line 16, at end insert—
("(10) The supply of a video recording with a view only to its use—

(a) in training for or carrying on any medical or related occupation,

(b) for the purpose of—

(i)services provided in pursuance of the National Health Service Act 1977 or the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, or

(ii)such of the services provided in pursuance of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 as are health services within the meaning of that Order, or

(c) in training persons employed in the course of services falling within paragraph (h) above,

is an exempted supply.
(11)For the purposes of subsection (10) above, an occupation is a medical or related occupation if, to carry on the occupation, a person is required to be registered under the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960, the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979 or the Medical Act 1983.
(12)The supply of a video recording otherwise than for reward, being a supply made for the purpose only of supplying it to a person who previously made an exempted supply of the recording, is also an exempted supply.").
My Lords, the thought here is to clarify the exemptions which are specified in subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 2 and put them into Clause 3, which deals with the exempted suppliers rather than the exempted works. Setting them out in this fashion, we shall achieve more precisely what we wish to do, and we
700
have at the same time extended in subsection (11) the list of professional people who will be exempted for this purpose. So we have now included midwives and supplementary professions which would also cover ambulance workers and so on who may very well need to have education which would require works of this kind. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord has fully explained why this transfer of some items from the list of exemptions to the list of exempted supply is called for. This surely is a downgrading to a classification which is subject to the earlier part of Clause 3 of items which in the Bill as it stands are exempt works and receive with the exemption all the freedoms of movement and so forth that an exemption confers on a video recording.
At the bottom of page 2 we see in Clause 3(2):
"The supply of a video recording by any person is an exempted supply if it is neither—

(a) a supply for reward, nor

(b) a supply in the course or furtherance of a business".

But in Clause 1(4) we see that "Supply" means:
"supply in any manner, whether or not for reward, and, therefore, includes supply by way of sale, letting on hire, exchange or loan; and references to a supply are to be interpreted accordingly".
We should not have the discrepancy between Clause 1(4) and Clause 3(2).
It looks as if there is something in the background to "supply" which reduces the status of the work because it can be subject to a more stringent condition under subsection (2) than otherwise. I do not get this at all. I am sure, with great respect to the noble Lord. Lord Nugent, he did not think of this himself. Somebody put him up to it. I think the person who put him up to it ought to explain it so that we know where the truth lies. There is some hanky-panky going on here, and I should like to know what it is.
Why are we down-grading noble things which were exempt works up to now and at this moment we say we shall shovel them all into "exempted supplies" which are of inferior status and subject to different conditions from "exempted works"? After all, I think that there is question of comparable esteem in this matter. Why should some things be written down to be "exempted supplies" from being "exempted works" when such activities as sport are retained among "exempted works"? I think some further and more convincing explanation has to be given about why we have to do this, even though in this process, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said that we are extending somewhat the list of exempted supplies.
Of all the confusions in this wretched Bill the difficulties between "exempted works" and "exempted supplies" will remain to the end of its day. It will not be obvious to many people what it is all about until they get caught by the conditions of "exempted supplies" which are very stringent indeed when one looks at them. Is it because these things which were "exempted works" before might be passed on for reward or might be the subject of business activities? What is it that has led to this reduction in status of these matters? A whole slab of them goes out from "exempted works" into "exempted supplies". I hope that the Minister can throw some light on this.

701
With deep respect to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, I think that on this matter, if I may say so, although the voice is the voice of Jacob I am quite sure that the hand is the hand of Esau.
Lord Brain: My Lords, there is also concern from the aspect of medical photographers and people such as that who have to prepare this. As at present drafted, the Bill makes it quite clear that particular recordings are made for a certain purpose and are therefore exempt. They can be handled in a certain way; they can be catalogued and properly managed. But it also means that any tape can be used in an appropriate purpose without the time-consuming bother of editing it for a particular use. It means that a lecturer can use sections of a tape as he wishes during his demonstration and, if there is a question coming along, he can continue to tape something.
But with the proposed amendments the exemptions can only be decided when the recording is being supplied with a view to use. Who is to keep all the information to show at what stage a view is to be taken as to what a particular recording is to be used for, or a particular length of tape? What happens if a lecturer, having prepared a lecture, wants to use another section of a tape, or another tape, which has been given to him for a particular use which is totally different? I could continue to give further examples, but I will not delay your Lordships now.
The "view to use" wording also may cause confusion again with Clauses 9 and 10, because how does one take a "view to use" of something if it took place? I am afraid it seems to me to be a slightly difficult thing to anticipate the courts to rule on.
Clause 2 seems to me to be based on the idea that recordings are exempt if they are made to educate, inform or instruct. It then goes on to say that, if one brings into this certain matters, "Sorry, they are not exempt and have to go forward for certification". Then one says that, because of the particular nature of the people who are to see these tapes, they can then be re-exempted. I find that this amendment is defective.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I was going to suggest that it might be convenient if we were to take Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 during the course of this debate. But in view of the arguments that have arisen, I wonder whether it might be more convenient if I were to wait for the Minister to make his contribution to the debate. I should perhaps leave it to the Minister to make his contribution to the debate. I thought that to introduce some new amendments would give the Minister the opportunity of speaking again on my particular section of this discussion.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I do not think that we want to get into a muddle with overlapping amendments. I am quite sure that my noble friend, having heard the questions put, is capable of replying to them himself. I was not intending to intervene and thereby protract this debate, which presumably means that the noble Lord will then be himself speaking to his own amendments in a separate debate. Is the noble Lord content with that?
Lord Ardwick: Yes, my Lords, as the amendment is an amendment to that of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, I thought that we might take them both together, but it does not really matter.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I should reply to the noble Lord since he has implied that I do not understand what the amendment is about. As I moved the amendment I have the right to reply to the debate. The justification for the amendments is exactly as I said: it is to ensure that the amendments more precisely fulfil their purpose in that these particular works will go to the professionals for whom they are intended. That is the specific intention. As originally drafted with these exemptions in Clause 2, where there were exemptions for the works, it would be possible for an unscrupulous producer to produce a work of this kind and introduce a pornographic feature to it which could then have a commercial value. The whole object of these exemptions is to provide for the needs of the professionals as set out, now much more clearly, in Amendment No. 15: the medical services, the health and personal social services and, indeed, for the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act—the nurses, midwives and health visitors. This is the object of the exemption and, in so far as this amendment more precisely ensures that the supplies are directed to them and go to them, this is the fulfilment of the Bill.
If the exemption is operated as in the original Bill, then there could be a danger that it could be abused. But by redefining it in this fashion, that danger is removed. I hope that your Lordships will feel that this, after all, is what we are trying to do. We are trying to make proper exemption for these professional services whose needs we recognise.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I would say, with all respect to him, that he has answered very clearly the question raised about the categories of exemption which were intended—the degree to which related medical professions should be involved—but he has not at all answered the question as to why these exemptions should now appear in Clause 3, rather than in Clause 2. After all, throughout the proceedings in another place, and in Committee here, the question of abuse of supply was never raised once. Why should it arise now?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I shall come to my noble friend's aid to preserve the conventions. What we are arguing about is a very simple point, though it is wrapped up in a lot of subsections. In Clause 2 we are dealing with exempted works and in Clause 3 we are dealing with exempted supplies. If you produce a work which is nominally for a psychiatrist, let us say, or, first of all, if you produce one which is genuinely for a psychiatrist, then it will be supplied only to psychiatrists, and that would be perfectly all right. The noble Lord is not worried about that. But what happens if your unscrupulous producer produces something in a sham clinic which is, in fact, a pornographic film of which the public ought to have notice from the label that it is a pornographic film? If it masquerades successfully, it becomes an exempted work and it may be that one or two crooked psychiatrists will justify the production by accepting it.

703
The noble Lord again shakes his head, but I assure him that the people who produce these things command large sums of money and maybe some psychiatrists who have ceased practising may be rather short of funds: and it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that this loophole would be exploited.
I do not like using hypothetical illustrations, but it is possible that an improper supply would take place. That is why it is necessary to transfer this from the category of exempted work to the the category of exempted supply. The noble Lord can then produce it in his lecture theatre and use all or any part of it as he wishes, regardless of the content without fear of being in breach of the law. But if it was supplied to him for that purpose, it is also protected—that is the point; whereas, if it was supplied to somebody else for a different purpose, it would fall foul of the law. That means that works of this type require to be labelled so that people will know what is in them. It is no more sinister than that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.54 p.m.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 32, at end insert—
(" (6) A video is for the purposes of this Act an exempted work if it exclusively contains material broadcast over the transmitter of the Independent Broadcasting Authority or the British Broadcsting Corporation in respect of which the Independent Broadcasting Authority, the programme contractors to the Independent Broadcasting Authority under the Broadcasting Act 1981 or the British Broadcasting Corporation own the copyright, and which is material previously approved for broadcasting over such transmitters by the Independent Broadcasting Authority or the British Broadcasting Corporation respectively.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall inevitably, with the leave of the House, have to make the odd comment on Amendment No. 26, which is also in my name and the names of other noble Lords. I should make it clear that I am not moving Amendment No. 26 at this stage, but I shall have to make reference to it in order to illustrate one or two of the points which will come up.
Amendment No. 26. Clause 8, page 7. line 14, at end insert—
(" ( ) For the purposes of section 2(6) above, the Independent Broadcasting Authority, the programme contractors or the British Broadcasting Corporation, as the case may be, shall label the case in which the video recording is kept to show the time of first broadcast.").
I am sure your Lordships will not be misled into believing that we are trying to delay in any way, or to obstruct, the passage of constructive and necessary legislation. That some of us believe it might have taken another path through other channels and that some of us believe it might more properly have been dealt with under the Obscene Publications Act is irrelevant to what I am now about to say. I. and the noble and distinguished Lords who have joined with me in putting down these amendments, would be the last people to do anything to obstruct the banning of the pernicious trade in video nastier. I use the colloquial term in view of what has already been said about some of the beauties of human sexual activity because I think we can all recognise the difference between such cassettes and others which, while they may contain scenes of sex or violence, are not primarily designed for this purpose. They are not designed to titillate.
704
They may be designed in another way, but they are not designed as pornographic works, if you extend the word "pornography" to include violence, which we must do in this context.
This amendment is designed to deal with a wholly different problem. We hope, by it or some similar provision, to protect the arrangements for the independence of broadcasters and broadcasting. These have stood the test of time and have resulted in a television service in this country which I firmly believe to be, and is generally accepted to be, of a higher quality than that which obtains in any other part of the world.
It may well be asked why a requirement to submit video cassettes made by the BBC or by companies franchised by the IBA. is in any way objectionable and why these should not go through the same hoops as video cassettes made by others, and why, indeed, we are asking for any form of different treatment because it might give us some commercial advantage over those who have to go through these hoops. There may be some delay, inconvenience, or extra cost caused by the procedures laid down in the Bill, but this is a minor matter compared with my real fears. These can be briefly expressed by the suggestion that once video cassettes originated by the BBC and ITV companies are subjected to a form of outside censorship which is not within the control of the BBC or the IBA, this is the thin end of what may eventually become a very thick wedge and may well lead to a demand from the minority for a more general power of censorship over broadcasting as a whole. As gradual realisation comes about that programmes can be reproduced on cassette by recording direct from the air and that these, though not available for hire or sale, are available in the home, this may well increase the pressures to which I have referred.
In my view, particularly in quarters where some of the programmes which come from the BBC or IBA are already unpopular—and certain Members of your Lordships' House take this view—it will lead to a demand for some form of outside censorship of programmes which are broadcast. This may sound fanciful, and I think that many of your Lordships may say, "Do not be silly, this cannot come about. We have had far too long experience of self-regulation in this field for anybody to suggest that broadcast works should be censored in this way". Indeed, I hope that I shall be proved to be fanciful if this Bill, sadly, goes through in its present form. But one cannot be certain of what may result due to the agitation of articulate and vociferous minorities—activities which often result in legislation directed towards the protection of their particular sensibilities, which may well not be shared by the public at large.
The broadcasting scene, with the advent of the cassette, cable, and DBS, is likely to be very different at the end of this decade from that which obtains today. I am trying this evening to take the long view, the view which will protect broadcasting over a period longer than the two or three years which I think some thought of as a suitable period to experiment with what is suggested in this Bill.
I think that at this stage, particularly in view of the support which I have from the chairman of ITN, who

705
for many years (more than anybody else, I understand) was also chairman of the Independent Television Contractors Association, from an ex-chairman of the IBA who cannot unfortunately be in his place tonight, and from a distinguished Member of the Opposition Front Bench, I should say a word about the fundamental differences in this field between the BBC and the IBA.
The BBC originates the majority of its own programmes hut, of course, buys in a certain amount of material from abroad, largely of American origin. At present, the BBC never obtains other than the broadcasting rights to most of its bought-in material, except for a certain proportion, usually of a travelogue or natural history kind, which comes from countries other than the United States. Nor can I see this position really changing. I cannot, for example, see the producers of "Dallas" or "Dynasty" ever allowing the BBC to acquire the cassette rights to their material, even in Europe. Until recently, indeed, the BBC made a point of buying the absolute minimum rights which would enable it to broadcast a programme, in order to try to save money for the licence payer. It is only recently that we have started buying additional rights other than those purely for broadcasting. This has not always been the case with ITV, which I think has pursued a somewhat different line and has often acquired world rights from writers, producers, actors and so on.
So far as material originating in the BBC is concerned, an elaborate procedure ensures that it is examined at different stages, and programmes can be stopped at many stages of their production, from the writing of the script onwards, right up to their final edited form. This kind of arrest of a programme which might be objectionable can happen at many different levels. It can start with the producers themselves and go on to the heads of departments, the channel controllers, the Director of Programmes (Television) and the Managing Director of Television. Even the Director General himself could be involved.
If some of your Lordships who do not like this amendment were to quote examples to me of programmes which appear to have slipped through this net, I think I should rejoin by saying that I can certainly recall, without having to look up the facts, at least two occasions when the Director General himself forbad the broadcasting of fully-finished programmes ready for broadcasting. Cries of "Censorship!" went up from the producers when in fact he was exercising his proper managerial functions in saying that this was not a suitable programme to go into the home—and that, I may say, at considerable cost to the BBC in financial terms. The final longstop is the Board of Governors, which is responsible for all the programmes which emanate from the BBC. Although the board, as a matter of policy, does not view programmes prior to their transmission, it still reserves the right to do so. The reason for this is obvious if you think about it. The board cannot be critical of a programme which it has itself authorised for transmission.
The IBA procedure, of course, is somewhat different, just as the IBA differs from the BBC by being a statutory body instead of a chartered body. The
706
BBC's standards of decency, and so on, are incorporated in the Royal Charter and Licence, whereas the IBA is governed by its statutes. In addition to its work of providing and controlling transmitters, engineering, research, awarding of franchises and monitoring the way in which the companies carry out their franchises, the IBA has an important role to play in the regulation of programmes. It can forbid a programme to be transmitted, both by its own statutes and by its control of the transmitters themselves. Or it can demand changes in these programmes, and has frequently been known to do so. It has in fact a power which it has not been slow to exercise, quite properly in the past.
ITV is also different from the BBC in one other respect, in that rather more—and in the case of Channel 4 a great deal more—of its production comes from independent producers or quasi-independent companies rather than from within its own ranks; and I am not now talking about material brought in from abroad, but of material made in this country. In neither case, of course, are we talking about the numerous cinema films which both the BBC and ITV transmit, since again neither the BBC nor the companies buy the cassette rights of those films. We are therefore talking about programmes which have already been through a fairly stringent process of examination and, yes, indeed, regulation before they were ever broadcast.
Some of your Lordships may have thoroughly disliked some of these programmes. So have I. But this does not mean that they should not have gone out. Some noble Lords may have thought that brief moments, particularly in drama, were of a disgusting or obscene nature, but as a proportion of the whole these episodes have been miniscule. We are, in other words, so far as the BBC and ITV are concerned, using a steamhammer to crack a very small nut indeed. This seems to be an absurd state of affairs, and one which can be remedied by appropriate clauses in the Bill and not by the Bill as it stands at present.
We are concerned here principally, so far as the BBC and ITV are concerned, with programmes which go out after the so-called "watershed"—which in the case of the BBC is 9.30 p.m.—and not with peak-time programmes before that. I appreciate that the purpose of the Bill is so to classify video cassettes which are for sale or for hire that those buying or hiring such programmes will know the nature of their content. The simplest method of doing that would undoubtedly be by reference to the watershed—i.e., by reference to the time that the programme was originally transmitted—perhaps, on occasions, with some warning attached such as is already broadcast, suggesting that certain passages of a particular programme may be unsuitable for children or for those of a sensitive nature. I can, however, see that this might produce certain problems in other parts of the Bill, particularly in relation to the criminal sanctions which are available under it.
There are a number of different ways in which we could solve this problem. The corporation and the authority could perhaps be designated as agents of the certifying authority. The BBC and the companies could be allowed to do their own labelling, and no doubt ingenuity will discover other methods whereby the purposes of this Bill could not be circumvented,

707
and yet they would not introduce all the evils of outside censorship. What I do suggest, however, is that we must discover a way whereby programmes from independent TV and the BBC can be allowed to be self-regulating, which essentially consists of exempting them from certain provisions of the Bill but coupling that exemption with a requirement to label, which could bring into operation the other clauses of the Bill—and this is the amendment to which I am in fact speaking.
With your Lordships' leave, there is an alternative way of dealing with this problem, which I have not put down as an amendment at this stage and which I have not discussed with anyone since it only occurrred to me last night when I was re-reading the Bill in its present form. Briefly speaking, this would consist in designation by the Bill itself under Clause 4 of the IBA and the BBC as the appropriate authorities under that clause for classifying and labelling video cassettes of material which was originated by the authority and the corporation and which had already been broadcast. Coupled with this would be a requirement that such video cassettes would be classified and labelled in the same manner as is to be done by the authority which is to be designated by the Secretary of State, together with a requirement that the IBA and the corporation consult with the authority on criteria and standards, so that a substantial degree of uniformity would exist in their classification and labelling. That is something which I hope the Government and the sponsors of the Bill may well consider with all seriousness.
However, speaking as I am to Amendment No. 4, I merely put this forward as the basis for further discussion, although it is a basis which would retain the independence of the IBA and the BBC while avoiding the necessity for a submission of their programmes to an outside authority and, I believe, would cope with the problems posited by programmes commissioned from independent producers, which I know has much concerned those who have been drafting this Bill. The main copyright in these often does not rest with the authority or with the corporation; but under this system that would not matter. I think this is a way to proceed which may commend itself to those responsible for the Bill.
If this is not done—and I believe it is not beyond the wit of parliamentary draftsmen to achieve this, even in the short time which remains to us before the Bill must leave this House—then I fear there are very sinister implications for the future of broadcasting. We may well end up, unless we are careful, with a fully state-regulated system such as obtains in the majority of other countries. I do not believe that the majority of your Lordships would want us to reach the position, which has obtained in the case of the BBC for 60 years and in the case of the IBA for 30 years, in which we would no longer hear from Ministers, in answer to questions about programmes, that this is not a matter for Ministers but one for the members of the Independent Broadcasting Authority or the governors of the BBC. To destroy the independence of broadcasting at some future date, as a by-blow to an otherwise welcome Private Member's Bill, would indeed be a bitter pill to swallow. I beg to move.
9.12 p.m.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, in rising to support the noble Lord, Lord Howard, I should like to assure your Lordships that I do not intend to speak at length because I have done so twice on two previous occasions when moving this amendment, and everything that I have to say is already on the record. Therefore, it would be wearisome for me to extend the debate. However, I should like to add just one vital point to what I have said before. I understand that there are advantages and benefits in this Bill going through in the form of a Private Member's Bill, because of the advantages of the time-scale and the urgency of dealing with the "video nasties" which concern us all.
The noble Lord, Lord Howard, has said again, as I have said before, how much we support this objective; and everything I have said and what my fellow movers feel is not in any way antagonistic towards the rapid fulfilment of the objectives. I would be happy about it except for one thing, and that is where it impinges in any way on the traditional freedom. independence and judgment of our public broadcasting services. I really think that, after 60 years and 30 years, this is one of the things that are held most sacred by Parliament and public.
I do not believe that anything which impinges upon that traditional independence of the broadcasting services should be attempted in a Private Member's Bill. If there is to be any tampering or dealing with the public broadcasting services and anything which some of us believe might carry grave consequences in the future, with a sort of reverse take-over and ultimate censorship in one form or another, then it is my belief that it should be done only in the form of major Government legislation following a White Paper and prolonged public debate.
To sum up, I should like to say this, with great respect and with due humility. When so many of us with a long life in broadcasting, and especially when supported by former chairmen of the BBC and the IBA, are so convinced after several debates and after several meetings outside the Chamber about the dangers of censorship, we cannot just let it go at this stage and allow ourselves to be steamrollered when we know that we are really looking after the interests of the public. We cannot all be wrong about this and we know that there is very considerable unanimity on the matter on all sides of the House. I therefore urge my noble friend once again to give us, as he has so kindly and considerately done before, some opportunity for continuing to try to persuade the Government on this very vital matter.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mishcon, whose name is down to this amendment, has had to take leave temporarily of this Chamber to expend his eloquence on another gathering which has been looking forward to it for some weeks, but he will be coming back. He will be sorry to have missed this debate. Speaking for myself, on Second Reading I was in complete agreement with him, and with the noble Lords who have just spoken on this subject, and I have great sympathy with the amendment.
The only thing I was worried about was that the time classification was simply not good enough. I thought

709
that some advantage would be taken of the time in the interval that has elapsed to translate the time classification into some kind of categories analogous with those used by the British Board of Film Censors. That has not been done, but apparently it is now to be done. I hope it will then prove to be acceptable, because I see all the dangers and all the difficulties of subjecting the broadcasting companies to external censorship.
There are bound to be differences in any other judgment from those which the broadcasting companies take on some occasions, and this can only undermine and rob the broadcasting companies of their self-confidence. So I hope that there will be some successful conversations. There is always a danger from these vociferous and articulate minorities, as they have been described, that a successful plea for retrospective censorship, which is what is being put, will lead to a demand for a pre-censorship by an external authority of things which are to be broadcast. This is dangerous and very much to be feared.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, so that there can be no possible doubt about the extent of support in your Lordships' House for this amendment, may I indicate as briefly as possible that my noble friends and I who sit on these Benches are deeply concerned about the dangers inherent in this Bill, if it is unamended, to the freedom and independence of the BBC and the independent sector of broadcasting—dangers so admirably and succinctly illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton. An amendment of this kind is absolutely essential. Indeed, I hope that it will be pressed, if it is not accepted by the sponsors, or if we do not get some very clear assurance that something will be done.
My main anxiety about this Bill is that in general terms I do not think that it will achieve its purpose. The main thing it will do is to erect a layer of bureaucracy which will cause an immense amount of trouble to sensible and serious people who are doing very valuable work, and the villains whom we are trying to catch will merely go underground. We are dealing here not merely with administrative and bureaucratic trouble for people doing valuable work; we are dealing with the very freedom of broadcasting in this country.
As the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, illustrated admirably, the controls over the two sectors are rather different. In many ways the independent sector is more closely controlled. If the Director General of the BBC, as once happened, decides that a certain programme should not be transmitted, this, it seems to me, is the exercise of editorial discretion. If, on the other hand, one of the independent contracting companies prepares, after very careful thought, a programme which is looked at by all its own authorities and finally the IBA says that the programme must not be transmitted, that, frankly, is censorship. If we are going to have another element of censorship, we are embarking upon a very dangerous course.
I hope I shall hear that the sponsors accept the amendment or, if they do not accept it precisely, that they are prepared to take some steps before the Bill is
710
enacted to make absolutely sure that this very real danger— and the bother and trouble which could arise from the Bill, unamended, quite apart from the danger—is dealt with in some way.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, I should like to assure the Minister that the argument is not all one way. I oppose the amendment for the following reasons. The television authorities are feeling unnecessarily threatened and slighted. We need go back only an amendment or two to what my noble friend Lord Howard of Henderskelfe said: that the classification of videos for home viewing is a totally different matter from the control of material to be broadcast over the networks.
It seems to me to be right that there should be one designated authority to deal with the classification of videos. We are concerned here not with video nastier but with the more general aspect of consumer protection; namely, to help the buyer of a video to have some idea of its nature. If all television programmes were such as to qualify for "U" certificates there would be no problem, but that is patently not so. Some programmes are considered by the television authorities themselves as suitable for showing only late in the evening. Other programmes, while largely unexceptionable, contain some material that is unsuitable for viewing by children.
Many of your Lordships will have seen and enjoyed the wonderful series "The Jewel in the Crown". However, it contained one or two scenes of very explicit sex, which most of us, I am sure, would consider to be totally unsuitable for children. If the videos of these programmes were sold without any indication of their suitability for viewing by young children, somebody might well hire a video of part of the series for, say, a children's birthday party. Imagine the embarrassment of that person if one of the explicit scenes came on the screen. For this reason I believe it to be essential that the Bill should make adequate arrangements for the classification of all videos, including those broadcast by the television authorities.
9.23 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I wonder whether your Lordships consider that the feelings of your Lordships are sufficiently on the record now for me to reply to them. We are addressing ourselves, as both my noble friend Lord Buxton of Alsa and the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, said, to an amendment which is in the same form as when we saw it before. During the Committee proceedings I explained the Government's principal objections to the proposal that material which had been broadcast by the BBC or the IBA should be exempt from the need to be classified under the arrangements set out in the Bill. My honourable friend Mr. David Mellor has since had some very useful discussions with my noble friend Lord Buxton of Alsa, the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, and other representatives of the broadcasting interests to see whether some of the difficulties we see could be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.
We have further considered the matter, in consequence, but I have to tell your Lordships that, despite those helpful discussions, the Government are not convinced that material which has been broadcast

711
should, for that reason, be exempt from the need for classification.
Perhaps I may first remind your Lordships very briefly of the points I adduced in Committee. I was, first, anxious to give—and am even more anxious to repeat—the assurance that our position does not for a moment imply a criticism or lack of confidence in the broadcasting authorities. The reasons for my being able to say that in this context may become clearer as we go on, but we believe that if broadcasters wish to enter the video market—and we see every reason why they should do so—the guiding principle should be that they ought to conform to the same rules as everyone else competing with them in the same market.
Much of the material broadcast by the BBC and the IBA will benefit from the exemptions in Clause 2. These exemptions apply according to the nature to the material in question—not to its source. They will exempt material designed to educate, inform or instruct and material concerned with sport, religion or music so long as it does not fall foul of the proviso in Clause 2(2). We are therefore talking in the main about material designed to entertain. As I have said before, there is no question of such material—if it has been seen already on television—being refused a certificate by the BBFC. But outlawing video works in respect of which a certificate cannot appropriately be given is not, of course, the only purpose of the Bill.
Another very important aspect is that it will provide for classification across the board, so that customers and retailers may know the kind of audience for which a video is suitable. I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, for the illustration he gave of the necessity for this provision. Furthermore, the Bill provides statutory controls to back this up by making it an offence to supply or offer to supply a video recording in breach of the certificate attaching to a video work contained on that recording. A video of a horror movie, say, which might well fail to be caught by Clause 2(2) could be exempted under this amendment and could therefore be supplied to children—even if it had been shown late at night precisely because few children would be watching at that time. It was the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, who, at Second Reading, pointed out how unfortunate it would be if a parent assumed that "The History Man" would help his children with 0-level history.
The amendment to Clause 8 seeks to meet this difficulty but, in our view, it does not do so adequately. It would require contractors to the IBA or the BBC, as the case might be, to label the case in which a video recording is kept to show the time of first broadcast. I am not sure that the time of transmission is always a proper guide to the suitability of the programme concerned and, in any event, it is asking a lot of the retailer and of the customer to have regard to two quite separate and different systems of classification. Furthermore. the amendment would do no more than provide guidance. It would not, for exemple, make it an offence to supply to even the youngest child a recording containing a programme which the broadcasting authorities may have put out late at night precisely because they considered it to be unsuitable for such children. That is a serious weakness.
712
Those, broadly, are the reasons why we are opposed to the proposals in the noble Lord's amendment. But I wonder if there are not various ways in which we can move forward within the Bill as it now stands. Clearly, it would be unreasonable and unnecessary for a designated authority's examiners to scrutinise frame by frame (although that is not an apt term because frames go with cinematographic film and so perhaps I should say "strip by strip") every programme which the broadcasting authorities may wish to issue in video form. That would be a waste of everybody's time. I know that the BBFC fully recognise this point and have it mind to propose the setting up of machinery to ensure that material submitted by the broadcasting authorities can be classified with the minumum of difficulty. The Government strongly support the establishment of liaison arrangements along these lines, and the board will have our full backing in initiating discussions with the broadcasting authorities to sort out the practicalities.
That, I suggest to your Lordships, is a better way forward. The arrangements I have outlined do not detract from the principle that, save for specific exemptions listed in the Bill, video material will need to be classified under the arrangements made by the designated authority before it can be supplied commercially. The full range of controls, including the restrictions on supplies in breach of a classification certificate, will apply to video works comprising programmes which have been broadcast as they will to other material. At the same time, the sensible arrangements which we propose should be looked at would avoid expensive and time-wasting duplication.
The noble Lord went on to speak about what he termed the thin end of the wedge, and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said that the effect of the Bill, because of the necessity for parity with material not broadcast, would threaten the independence of the broadcasting authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, said that it would threaten their self-confidence and my noble friend Lord Buxton said that a Private Member's Bill was not appropriate to a threat of this stature to bodies of such constitutional importance.
With the very greatest of respect—and I take on board the extraordinarily wide and distinguished support which noble Lords have on this amendment—I wonder whether they are not slightly over-stating their case in this regard. Nobody is proposing to touch their product in the medium in which they were principally constituted to operate and in which they have won the outstanding opinions of people throughout the world—and our own very high regard—but only in a medium where, if they embark on it, they will no longer be on that ground. I have expressed that badly, but if they produce broadcast material, they are masters in their own house.
For example, if they produce books which are not broadcast material but which are based on broadcast material, they are subject to the regulations applicable to that medium; such as the copyright laws and the obscene publications laws. I do not think it is a breach of a fundamental constitutional principle if, when they go out of their home medium, as it were, in another direction, that should be subject to the same regulation as other people who are in the same medium.

713
However, I recognise the concerns which have been expressed by noble Lords and I appreciate that they are genuinely felt by the broadcasting authorities, and I understand their reasons. Despite that, as I made clear, I cannot commend the amendment to your Lordships. However, I should like to assure noble Lords that the Government stand very ready indeed before Third Reading to discuss with the broadcasting authorities and other interests, and with the noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment, the possibility of alternative arrangements being made which might meet their concern without, so to speak, damaging the fabric of the Bill. I make that offer without commitment as to the outcome of any discussions. Nevertheless, I make it in earnest, and noble Lords will have access to those with the responsibility directly in their hands, which will be to their advantage.
I can also undertake that if the Bill remains in its present form—and perhaps I make this offer precipitately, because we do not yet know—and when the arrangements have in that case bedded down, if the broacasting interests remain convinced that the arrangements are damaging to broadcasting in the long term, the Government's interest will be the same as that of the authorities. We do not wish to challenge or weaken them in any way, and the Government will be willing and ready, under those circumstances, to re-examine the position and consider whether a change in the arrangements is, indeed, necessary.
I do not think I can go further at this stage and your Lordships will not wish me to take longer. However, if noble Lords will stay their hands, I think that the conversations which I propose they should have with my right honourable friend might very well be the best way for them to proceed.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am sure the House will be grateful to the Minister for what he has just said, but since there is a good deal of mutual respect going around, I shall say to him, with respect, that at this stage in the consideration of the Bill it is incumbent upon the Government to show their hand a little more firmly and a little more clearly as to what they are prepared to do. After all, these discussions have been going on right from the beginning of the consideration of the Bill in your Lordships' House. There was a very unsatisfactory debate on this matter in another place in Standing Committee and, I believe, on Report. This is a very grave matter and unless the House is prepared to show some determination of its own to get suitable accommodation on this question, we shall not get from the Government the response that the matter deserves.
If I may say so with double respect to the noble Lord, what we have listened to is a very rapid reading of a classic example of the Civil Service mind where logic is carried to the extreme. Apparently there is no Minister who can brush it aside and say, "We are having none of this nonsense. There is a limit to what we are prepared to do to achieve the purposes of this Bill and one thing we are not prepared to do is to subordinate the statutory broadcasting authorities to the miserable conditions of the Bill, which is intended,
714
if possible, to prevent throughly objectionable video recordings reaching children in the home".
The trouble is that when you embark on a Bill of this kind you never know where to stop; you want to carry it to the bitter end so that there are no loopholes. When the noble Lord said that the broadcasting authorities who go into the video business should be subjected to the same conditions as everybody else, I would point out that they are unlike everybody else. They are two statutory bodies, one governed by an Act of Parliament and the other by its Charter. They are given statutory responsibilities and appointments are made by the Government of those who are judged to be capable, honourable and wise enough to discharge them. I think both the broadcasting bodies have been treated in a derogatory way. There is something which I am sure the broadcasting authorities can offer by way of indication of when the particular films concerned were broadcast. We have heard that.
Quite frankly I do not think it matters an awful lot that every household has not got the clearest indication of what to show on a video. Have they not got any discretion of their own? Have they not any judgment of their own? Do they not look at programmes themselves and exercise some responsibility? The way in which the whole of this subject is put in the hands of a sort of nanny state I think is quite objectionable, and I think that this is one of the most disgraceful features of the Bill.
Unless the House shows some resistance to this palsy that we listened to a few moments ago, then I think the Government will never come to terms. I think if it is still in the Bill there ought to be a very strong movement in your Lordships' House to reject the Bill on Third Reading and put our foot down. We have already been subject to the whole of the discussion on this Bill—on a Private Member's Bill which contains proposals relating to civic freedom—and the position of the two statutory authorities which are quite unsuited to be included in a Private Member's Bill and sponsored, if I may say so, by a noble Lord of the House, other than of the Government.
The Government should take responsibility for what they are putting in this Bill and not keep up the pretence that it is really nothing to do with them; they are getting up now and again in order to assist the House to reach a conclusion on submissions in response to the Bill. I think it is disgraceful. I cannot understand why noble Lords opposite sit there in a conspiracy of silence, just ready to vote everything down, apparently having no minds of their own or courage of their own to get up and make a stand for liberty and the independence of our statutory authorities. I know that noble Lords opposite do not like this, but occasionally they have to put up with it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Howard, would welcome general support from me for his amendment, but I feel it necessary to respond to one particular point which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, made in his speech when he referred to the fact that BBC publications—the written word—are subject to the Obscene Publications Act. Indeed, they are and so would videos produced by the BBC and IBA be subject to the Obscene Publica-

715
tions Act. Although some of us would feel that the interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act recently has been particularly harsh, I do not believe that either the BBC or the IBA would have objections in principle to that subsection of the Obscene Publications Act which provides for the courts to interpret the law as to what is acceptable to the public. It is quite a different thing from the censorship which is proposed in this Act, which establishes an authority which carries out the classification and by implication, or indeed explicitly, non-classification if a classification is not to be awarded.
Those are the differences. It is not a difference between the printed word and videos. It is not to say that the broadcasting authorities wish to be above the law. It is to say that the Obscene Publications Act does that task very adequately at the moment—some would say more than adequately—and that the imposition of censorship is the thing which is objectionable in this Bill as it now stands.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, may I, with the leave of the House, reply to one or two of the points that have been made. I have personally been convinced during the course of discussions that it is essential to classify, not perhaps in a complicated way, videos that are for sale or for hire and that to do so by the time at which those videos were originally broadcast may—and I only say "may"—not be entirely satisfactory. I do not believe that the present classifications that the BBFC operates are entirely satisfactory. I should not like to see them applied as they stand at present to video cassettes. Nevertheless, there is much to be said for some similar system.
I am in absolutely fundamental disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on only one aspect. If we are entering a new field—over the years we have entered many new fields—we should be subjected to exactly the same constraints, the same hoops and the same impositions as all other entrants. We have not been so constrained in the past. I would remind him that the BBC was given the first two channels on DBS. Certain events have occurred since then which have
716
made it somewhat difficult for advantage to be taken of it. This was not giving everyone an equal start, and this equal start business seems to conflict in some measure with other aspects of Government policy in regard to commercial trading. On that matter, therefore, I differ from the noble Lord wholeheartedly.
I detect a willingness to move some way towards us. I also see that there are problems with exemptions in relation to the criminal sanctions that apply under the Bill. I think that there are ways through. I have tried to suggest that there are various alternatives that we could discuss in the short time remaining to us before Third Reading. As the noble Lord has told the House, I am to see his right honourable friend the Home Secretary next week. This could have advantages. We might be able to devise a system that would satisfy all of us whereby cassettes are satisfactorily labelled but are not examined by some outside censorship body. I cannot promise any more than the noble Lord that I shall carry all my colleagues with me. I shall, however, do my best to see whether we cannot reach agreement to ensure that the Bill leaves the House in a better shape than it entered it. We pride ourselves on doing this to Bills. I see no reason why we should not do so on this occasion.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that I do not lack fire in my belly on occasions. If we are unable to reach some form of agreement and if we cannot see our way forward to something that can satisfy either of us, not fully but in some measure, then I shall be perfectly prepared at the next stage of the Bill to divide the House on the amendments that I shall then put down. I hope that we shall be in a position where the sponsor of the Bill himself will be able to put down amendments that we have agreed beforehand. If this is not so, I shall be perfectly prepared to divide the House on amendments that I shall put down. Obviously, that means that I do not wish to divide the House this evening. I have consulted with my noble friends and supporters, and they agree that it would be inappropriate to do so when we have been generously offered the opportunity of much fuller discussions during the short time that remains. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3[Exempted supplies]:
9.45 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 3, leave out ("The supply of") and insert ("Where a person (in this subsection referred to as the "original supplier") supplies").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 6.
Amendment No. 6: Page 3, line 5, leave out from ("recordings") to end of line 8 and insert ("the supply is an exempted supply—

(a) if it is not made with a view to any further supply of that recording, or

(b)if it is so made, but is not made with a view to the eventual supply of that recording to the public or is made with a view to the eventual supply of that recording to the original supplier.

For the purposes of this subsection, any supply is a supply to the public unless it is—

(i)a supply to a person who, in the course of a business, makes video works or supplies video recordings,

(ii)an exempted supply by virtue of subsection (2) above or subsections (5) to (10) below, or

(iii)a supply outside the United Kingdom.").

The purpose of these amendments is as follows. Clause 3 is concerned essentially with supplies in one direction. In many cases the return of a video recording to the maker of an exempted supply will itself be exempted; but we have realised that this will not always be the case. For example, the return by the broadcasting authorities of a video recording supplied by an amateur producer-that is, one who does not make video works or supply video recordings and therefore does not benefit from Clause 3(4) as it now stands-may not be exempted under either Clause 3(4) or, indeed, Clause 3(2).
The point I am making is that in certain circumstances where an amateur producer of a video recording supplies it, for instance, to broadcasting authorities and they wish to return it to him because they decide not to use it, he does not benefit from the exemptions in Clause 3. Thus the broadcasting authorities may not be able to return to an amateur a video which they decide not to broadcast. There are similar considerations applying to other sorts of exempted supplies.
These amendments deal with this point by ensuring that the supply of a video recording otherwise than for reward, for the purpose only of returning it to a person who previously had made an exempted supply of the recording, is also an exempted supply. The necessary consequential changes are made to Clause 3(4) and the opportunity has been taken at the same time—this is what my brief says—to make the subsection more readily comprehensible. I apologise to noble Lords for the complexity of the matter but I think the point is a clear one. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wish to apologise to your Lordships for the garb I am wearing in addressing your Lordships from this Dispatch Box. May I assure your Lordships that it is not in purported celebration of my carrying any amendments tonight.
I am wondering whether the noble Lord, Lord Nugent—I almost called him my noble friend, and I know he will not object to that—could help me on this,
718
for the convenience of the House. He has just moved Amendment No. 5. May I take it that at this stage he is moving only Amendment No. 5 and is not carrying forward in his speech Amendments Nos. 6, 12, 14 and 15? If he were, then, of course, I would address your Lordships on my amendment to his amendment, and then on the main amendment, Amendment No. 9. I am wondering whether the noble Lord can kindly help me.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I am moving only Amendment No. 5. I am speaking also to Amendment No. 6; but if Amendment No. 5 is accepted I shall then proceed to move Amendment No. 6 and the noble Lord will be able immediately to move his amendment to my amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 6:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6, to which I have already spoken.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved, as an amendment to the amendment, Amendment No. 7:
Line 12 (paragraph (i)), at end insert ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I repeat my gratitude to the noble Lord for guiding me as to the sensible way in which to deal with his amendment and my amendments to it. I have no objection whatever to the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment. My sole reason for moving an amendment to his amendment is that, if his amendment were passed as it is, it would mean that the question of exports of videos from the United Kingdom would in no way be covered by this Bill-indeed, they would be exempt.
As your Lordships will know, it is the purpose of my Amendment No. 9 to see that exports are covered by this Bill. Therefore, I believe that it would be for the convenience of the House if, at the same time as I move my amendment to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, I speak also to Amendment No. 9, which I will move formally later.
Amendment No. 9: Page 3, line 6, leave out from ("persons") to ("other") in line 7.
At the Committee stage of the Bill, I made a plea, which received a measure of support in the Committee, that it would be extremely wrong for exports not to be covered by the Bill, and I gave the following reasons for saying so. First, as the main target of this Bill are what we have termed in shorthand English "video nasties"—and we know exactly what we mean by that—there will be, on the passing of this Bill, (which many of us hope will take place soon) a situation where those who deal in video nastier will find that they have no trade, certainly no legal trade, and if they carry out illegal trade it will be subject to grave perils. There will be no trade left for them in the United Kingdom. That will mean that there will be a great temptation to see that the stocks that are then carried, and that would be valueless in the United Kingdom, are at once got rid of overseas.
Secondly, as it is not usual for people of this ilk contentedly to be put out of business, one can well imagine that their next attempt will be to continue in business and again to see that their goods are exported overseas in future and that fresh videos of this nature are either made or purchased. That is hardly going to redound to the credit of the United Kingdom. In Europe there has already been expressed grave anxiety as to the extent and possible growth of this wretched trade in video nasties. As a member of the European Community—quite apart from exports to countries outside it—I should not have thought that this country would want to be known as being one of the main exporters to the European Community.
There is a third reason. One imagines that the only way in which those videos that have no categorisation and which, therefore, are illegally dealt with in the United Kingdom, will be traced, is when inspectors under this Bill go into premises because they have reason to believe that there are video nasties there. Without exports being covered by this Bill and, indeed, with exports being exempted from this Bill, all the owner of the warehouse or other premises has to say to an inspector is: "You have no right to inspect that pile of video tapes over there; I intend them for export". That means that the inspector has no rights whatever to inspect.
It has been said that there are two answers to this plea for exports to be covered. One answer is that it really is not for us to put classifications on videos for people overseas, that we ought to leave it to their own law to deal with the matter. If I may say so, that is no answer at all to a caring community. We either care for our own people and say that it is necessary in regard to these goods that there should be a warning as to the nature of the goods that are being acquired, or there ought to be some way of preventing these goods falling into the hands of young people and being put before the eyes of young people. Surely we also owe a duty to our export trade.
The second answer that is given is that we shall harm our perfectly proper export trade in video tapes. That is a much more powerful argument and must be dealt with. I was in communication with the association representing the video industry and I told it of my concern. It told me that it shared my concern and I think that I can properly say that it was the hope of that association, of myself and of those who think with me that this situation could be covered by an amendment which would have met with the association's blessing. I must say frankly that that was not achieved, but not because the association did not agree with the spirit of the amendment: rather, it said that there were two respects in which it felt that the very proper export trade might be adversely affected.
One was that very often British firms of repute in this industry are asked to manufacture or process parts of a video production, and that it would obviously be impossible for a classification procedure to be applied there and for an export trade properly to be carried on. I hope my recollection is right when I say that I believe that that is covered by Clause 3(4) of the Bill. If I happen to have quoted the wrong clause, I know that
720
I shall be corrected by those who oppose me on this amendment but who are always extremely courteous and helpful in doing so. However, I think it is Clause 3(4) which would exempt that in any event, even if it were dealt with in the United Kingdom.
The second category of case where British firms thought that they might be hurt if exports were included in the Bill is where they are asked, usually as a very speedy matter, to duplicate, to copy, a tape which is sent over here and which has to be processed in some numbers. They felt that if there were a classification procedure applied to those tapes, there would be such a time lag that the export trade and the orders for the export trade would be adversely affected.
My suggestion in that connection is simple. All that the British Board of Film Censors, if they are to be the designated authority, would have to do would be to see that there was on hand at all times a small branch of the inspectorate—it might be one or two members—to deal specifically with the export trade, or indeed with matters which have to be dealt with urgently. I see no difficulty in that. We all know that in the normal case of the reputable trader all he would have to do would be to tell any member of the inspectorate exactly the nature of the tape and the source of the order. A quick test by the inspector would then obviously reveal whether the description was correct, and there could easily follow classification, or a decision—and a speedy decision—as to whether it was not exempt at all.
We have, on the one hand, some maybe hypothetical difficulties, maybe even a few practical difficulties, but, on the other hand, if we do not include exports, we are passing a Bill in this House and sending it back to the other place completely imperfect in the very realm where we are trying to gain success. In other words, we are radically interfering with the power of inspectors in appropriate cases to inspect, and we are, furthermore, walking into a situation where the unseemly trade which we are trying to stop will in fact be diverted overseas. It is not good enough to say that we do not manufacture at the present moment to a large scale, that we only import these video nasties and get rid of them again. That market will still be there, and one does not know whether or not, if the market is stemmed in the United Kingdom. manufacture would perhaps start here purely and simply for export.
I again emphasise, as I hope I have done throughout the time I have addressed your Lordships on this Bill, that I and my noble friend Lord Ardwick are expressing a personal view upon this matter. We have no right to express anything other than a personal view. But I think I can tell your Lordships that it is a personal view strongly held, and is certainly not on any party lines at all, but is shared, as your Lordships will remember at Committee stage, in all parts of your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Wells-Pestell): My Lords, amendment proposed, line 12 (paragraph (i)), at end insert ("or"). I would remind your Lordships that Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are amendments to Amendment No. 6.
9.59 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord once kindly said that he found me more acceptable after dinner than before. On that occasion he referred to my dinner. On this occasion I refer to his. It is always a pleasure to see him coming back if, as I believe, he has already delivered himself of one speech to rapturous applause elsewhere. I can only say that perhaps he is too eager for success if he comes here immediately expecting a repetition.
I accept that this is not a party point, and that the noble Lord is as anxious as are my noble friend and I that the Bill should be as good as we can get it. I know that is why he has put his amendment forward.
May I first briefly explain how the Bill deals with exports as it is now drafted, or as it will be drafted when my noble friend's amendment is—as I hope it will be—accepted? The effect of the Bill—and I will use the numbering as it is now—is that Clause 1(4), together with Clause 23, ensures that the Bill applies to supplies in this country, whether or not they are for export. That is the first thing: any supply for export within the United Kingdom is caught.
However, Clause 3(4) exempts supplies to a person who, in the course of business, makes video works or supplies video recordings, unless the video recording is supplied with a view to the supply of the tape or disc in question to ordinary members of the public in the United Kingdom; that is those of us who do not in the course of business make video works or supply video recordings. Broadly, therefore, a supply to a dealer overseas is exempted provided it is not with a view to the re-export of the video recording in question to ordinary members of the public here. If it is, again it is caught. Supplies direct to non-dealers overseas are not exempted.
Now we come to the nub of the matter. Finally, as the House will appreciate, the controls in the Bill cannot, of course, apply to supplies which take place abroad, because we have no means of enforcing them. As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has three main concerns. He is worried that dealers would offload overseas offensive material which would be likely to be refused a certificate once this Bill comes into force; that some of those dealers who are prepared to peddle this sort of material will go further and will produce or re-export objectionable videos for overseas markets; and that dealers in unclassified material may be able to circumvent the controls in the Bill by claiming that they have them in their possession for export purposes. I think that was his last point.
As always with the noble Lord, there is a great deal in what he said on each of these points. I am not certain that the picture is quite as bleak as may sometimes appear, however. It will, of course, be possible for dealers to send overseas material liable to be refused a certificate. Indeed, even if this amendment were accepted, they could do so at any time before the Bill comes into force. For most dealers, however, the potential profits would simply not be sufficient to justify their seeking out the necessary markets; nor, as has already been pointed out, are the sort of video nasties which have concerned us all generally made in this country. The noble Lord
722
disarmed that point before I make it. But the Bill will not therefore be forcing existing manufacturers to find a new market abroad, and by closing off the home market we shall, I think your Lordships will agree, make the United Kingdom even less attractive as a manufacturing base for this sort of material than it is evidently at present, because you need a home market to justify an export manufacture.
We then come to the difficulty that would be faced by law enforcement officers who, when searching premises where video recordings are stored, are confronted with a claim that they are intended for the overseas market. The noble Lord argued most persuasively about this. Under the Bill it would be for the defendant to show that on the balance of probabilities the supply was an exempted supply. I should not have thought that a simple claim to this effect would be sufficient to satisfy the court, and of course a warrant could be secured to secure the material so that the person who had it and who intended to supply it would have to justify his having it to the court. Moreover, the noble Lord will no doubt remember that the Obscene Publications Act would apply in many such circumstances, and this will again provide certain safeguards.
There is a further consideration which applies to all the points which the noble Lord has raised. The Bill does not of course apply to supplies made overseas. The noble Lord, with his great experience in these matters, will appreciate why that should be so. I am not quite sure whether I am repeating that point, so I will go on to say that even if this amendment were accepted the dealers would still be able to send the material abroad by the simple expedient of ensuring that the supply takes place overseas. This is the story which could be fed to law enforcement officers in the sort of example which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has cited. I do not really feel that his amendment would suffice to tackle the potential problems to which he has drawn proper attention.
Those are regulatory considerations. We must not forget the commercial considerations. I recognise the hard work the noble Lord has done, which is not always possible or often done from the Opposition Benches, of going to the people directly concerned and consulting them on the matter. Your Lordships will probably all have seen the British Videogram Association's letter of 2nd May addressed to Members of your Lordships' House. This points out, as I mentioned in Committee, that British laboratories earn considerable sums from making copies of video works for distribution overseas. There is no reason why such material should be classified before copies of it can be sent overseas, and not much assurance that people abroad want to know what our classification authorities think of the material that they are importing. Any such requirement could, therefore, tip the balance of foreign producers' preference against British laboratories and lead them to take their work elsewhere.
The noble Lord sought to make little of that, but I would add this cautionary thought. The arguments which I put forward will probably not suffice to persuade the noble Lord, reasonable though be is, that his amendment is not satisfactory for its purpose. But

723
if they do not, I hope he will recall that they appeal to others, including as he has made clear, the trade. Even if the objections appear to him to be hypothetical that interest is not unrepresentative of another place. This argument would have to be re-run there.
I am sure that in considering how it should proceed he will consider the point which I know is of great concern to him, that for those reasons this amendment might not be acceptable in another place. If we were to agree it, we might therefore jeopardise the prospects. If it seems to him that there is possible gain—and it is an attractive gain which he seeks to make in the cause of the Bill—I wonder whether it is not outweighed by the possible risk that it might entail.
I am not counselling your Lordships to make an ill-advised decision which is contrary to their moral instincts, because I sought to show that most of the areas with which the noble Lord is concerned are either entirely or partly covered by what is already in the Bill. I have also sought to show that, where they are not, his own solution is not entirely effective. I wonder whether he would care to reflect on that.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, while walking from my seat to the Dispatch Box I have indeed reflected. I must tell your Lordships that I am extremely unhappy that exports will not be covered by the Bill. The noble Lord, with his usual courtesy, was answering the arguments and said that they were fairly and reasonably presented. So were the answers of the noble Lord the Minister. But I must tell him, in all frankness, that I found them unconvincing, except when he talked to me and to your Lordships about the risks that there might be to this Bill.
The last thing I want, again talking purely personally, is for this Bill to be put in jeopardy. I would be less than frank if I did not say that it is my view—I put it forward most respectfully—that when a serious Bill of this kind is to be brought before Parliament, it is so much better if it starts its life as a Government Bill. Then one knows that the Bill is not in the jeopardy to which the Minister has just referred. Because I know I must take seriously what he says, if he says to the House that there is this jeopardy, that is the only consideration—I tell your Lordships this absolutely frankly—that moves me at this moment to say that I withdraw the amendment. But I do so with great unhappiness.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Amendment No. 6 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
10.15 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 3, leave out from ("recording") to end of line 4 and insert ("with a view only to its use for or in connection with—

(a) broadcasting services provided").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10 and I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12.
Amendment No. 11: Page 4, line 6, leave out from ("or") to ("a") in line 7 and insert ("b").
Amendment No. 12: Page 4, line 11, leave out ("its distribution by").
Noble Lords will remember that at the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, moved an amendment expressing anxiety about certain supplies between the various broadcasting interests of a video recording containing a work broadcast or intended to be broadcast. I saw the noble Lord's point and felt that something should be done to meet it. These amendments are designed for that purpose. We realise that certain supplies among broadcasters are not covered by the existing exemptions in Clause 3. We have had some discussions and I am happy to put down these amendments, which I hope will meet the point which concerned the noble Lord. I believe that they should relieve the anxiety of the interests concerned.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, I should like to say that the corporation with which I was formerly connected has some anxieties about the lack of any such protection for works moving between various parts of it and, therefore, I am grateful to the noble Lord for proposing these amendments.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, may I join in the shower of gratitude which is now being poured upon the noble Lord, Lord Nugent? Praise is difficult to get in this debate, whichever side you are on. I think that I should say that I am grateful to the noble Lord for having taken the trouble to meet us.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 11
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 12:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 4, line 14, after ("purpose") insert ("only").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 13 and I should like to speak to Amendment No. 14 with the leave of the House.
Amendment No. 14: Page 4, line 16, after ("certificate") insert ("or otherwise only for purposes of arrangements made by the designated authority").
This amendment widens the scope of the exemption in Clause 3(9) to deal with a small but important point which is being drawn to our attention by the British Board of Film Censors. Under Clause 3(9) as it stands the supply of a video recording for the purpose of submitting a video work contained in that recording for the issue of a classification certificate is an exempted supply, as we all know. But supplies are

725
sometimes made through the BBFC for other purposes. For example, the board may ask to see a video work not so that it can be classified but so that the board can keep abreast of standards which apply abroad. The board sometimes finds itself considering a video work to see the version of the work approved by an overseas classification authority. In certain cases, such a supply would be exempted under Clause 3(2) as being neither for reward nor in the course of business; but not all such supplies would benefit in this way. This amendment ensures, therefore, that the designated authority can conduct its work without the possible difficulties to which I have referred, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 14:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No.15:
[Printed earlier: col. 699.]
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Authority to determine suitability of video works for classification]:
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 4, line 19, after ("person") insert ("recommended by the British Board of Film Censors").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if, in speaking to Amendment No. 16, I refer also to Amendment No. 19:
Amendment No. 19: Clause 5, page 5, line 38, at end insert—
(" ( ) Before proposing a designation the Secretary of State shall consult with the British Board of Film Censors.").
Although it is an amendment to the following clause rather than to Clause 4, the purposes of the two clauses are similar except that Amendment No. 16 is somewhat more draconian than Amendment No. 19.
What Amendment No. 16 seeks to do is to limit the persons who may be designated by the Secretary of State to those recommended to him by the British Board of Film Censors. What Amendment 19 seeks to do—I assume that I have your Lordships' permission to refer to it—is a more customary and less rigorous thing. It says that:
"Before proposing a designation the Secretary of State shall consult with the British Board of Film Censors."
This is a common form in legislation. It is rather unusual that the appointees of the Government shall be limited to those actually recommended by a particular body and, on reflection, I think that this may go a little far. I felt it desirable to introduce the subject at this stage because I think, more properly speaking, it is the point at which the issue should be raised, although I think the course proposed under Amendment 19 is one more likely to commend itself
726
to the noble Lord who has responsibility in this matter than the course proposed under Amendment No. 16.
The object of the exercise will be plain to your Lordships. There is obviously and desirably in this matter a close association—though we do not know precisely how close or what the particular relationship will be—between the designated authority and the British Board of Film Censors. Whether it is the British Board of Film Censors or a sub-committee of the board, it is desirable that the relationship should be extremely close; otherwise, we could have a complete nonsense between what is being done by the voluntary body and what will be done by the statutory body to be created. It is rather unusual that on one hand we have a voluntary self-governing organisation in relation to cinema films while on the other we are proposing to set up a statutory body to control video films. That is a peculiar relationship and perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity to tell us what the relationship between the two is to be after the Bill is enacted.
In any event the relationships will be close. It seems to me that there ought to be not merely an understanding between the two but a statutory relationship. I think that the British Board of Film Censors, which if I understand what the Minister has said on previous occasions, is to be closely associated with the matter, has already been consulted. If that relationship is to exist, it ought to be given statutory form, and the minimum statutory form which I think it ought to have is that which is set out in Amendment No. 19. But for the moment, my Lords, I move Amendment No. 16.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I start by answering a point which I think I heard the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, make which anyway is of substantive, if curious, importance to his amendments. The British Board of Film Censors is not a body corporate. It is simply a name given to an extra-statutory collection of people. It is therefore not a legal entity as such. The substantive importance of course is that the noble Lord uses it as a point of reference in his amendment. To that extent it is substantive because it makes the amendment effective. But, leaving that aside, I am not certain that I have altogether followed the noble Lord because I take it that his reference is to the principal officers of the board who are to be the designated authority and I do not see why the Secretary of State should be required to consult them about the proposed designation when they are in fact intended to be the designees, as it were. Again, it would be odd, would it not, if, as the amendment proposes, the Secretary of State, in making a designation which could, in theory at least, involve the replacement of the principal officers of the BBFC, were to be permitted to propose only those persons who have in turn been proposed by them. It stretches the imagination to expect such a conflict, but it would be an odd way of tying the Secretary of State's hands. I wonder whether I have set at rest the noble Lord's concern at not finding there a form of words which is perhaps customarily present in other circumstances.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I wonder whether he would be kind enough to clarify this a little further. He says that the British Board of Film Censors, or, rather, their

727
senior officers, are intended to be the designees. Perhaps I am wrong, but so far as I am aware it does not say this in the Bill, and consequently what I am seeking to do is to establish in the legislation that the British Board of Film Censors or their officers are in fact to be the designees. I am not quite sure whether I have gone the right way about it, but it seems to me very important that we should not have a situation arising in which the noble Lord has told us that these people are to be the designees but where, in point of fact, without any breach of the law, a subsequent Minister could decide to appoint Tom, Dick or Harry.
To me it is extremely important that these people should be the officers of the British Board of Film Censors, and what I seek to do is to establish in the legislation in one way or another that it shall be those people, because I regard the link between the two as absolutely essential. Therefore, if the noble Lord can tell us that in some way or other this purpose will be achieved, that it will not be just something that a Minister has said at a particular time but that it will be in some way incorporated in the legislation so that there will be an obligation on future responsible Ministers to ensure that this relationship between the designated authority and the British Board of Film Censors is maintained, I shall be happy. But until that assurance is given I am still not happy.
Lord Elton: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave—I know it is not lightly given—I would say that the proposal in the Bill is that the Government should designate an authority, and that is the designated authority. We have from the outset made it clear what our intention is and we have made it manifest by long discussions with the British Board of Film Censors—which I understand I can refer to in conversation but not in statute because it has an existence which I can recognise but which the statute cannot—that it is our intention to designate their principal officers; but that does not appear on the face of the statute and I cannot bind successor governments. However, I would be very surprised if a body which has survived without a statutory entity for so long a time were now suddenly to fade into insignificance because it is not mentioned in this statute either.
I fear that I may not have convinced the noble Lord. If there is more technicality that I can bring to bear at a later stage, I shall do so; but I have to remind him that what he has on the Marshalled List will not do anyway.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I entirely accept the last point, and, whatever may be future action in the matter, with your Lordships' permission I would seek to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.29 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 4, line 25, at end insert ("privately").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 17. I gave notice during the Committee stage that I would come back to this
728
matter at a subsequent stage of the Bill. What I am proposing to do is to try to restore something of a balance in subsection (1)(a) of Clause 4.
During the Committee stage I proposed to leave out the words which were added in two instalments in the Committee stage in another place, because I thought that these cautionary words were out of place in this clause of the Bill dealing with making arrangements. The words were not in the Bill as originally drafted. The arrangements were,
"for determining for the purposes of this Act whether or not video works are suitable for showing".
That is how the Bill was worded when it received its Second Reading. But in the course of discussion in the Standing Committee in another place it became quite obvious that every opportunity would be taken in the Bill of indoctrinating the censorship authority. They were not to be left to think for themselves. They were to have an indication given to them at every touch and turn.
During the Committee stage in another place the view was expressed by some Members that the words that were added were declaratory—a term which, it is said, lawyers use, which is why it is so long—and that where they were not obvious they were meaningless, so it did not matter tuppence whether they were in or not. Of course, it was in the home. That is what the Bill is all about. Why tell the censorship authority that they must have special regard to this matter in the home? Home, sweet home, is the label on the whole Bill. As to having special regard, nobody knows whether you have had special regard if you declare on your honour that you have had special regard. It is almost a clinical judgment. and no reasonable person can say that you have not had special regard. Nevertheless, these words are here, and I have been wondering what could be done just to put the matter in a slightly different perspective.
There was a report issued by a video working party in January 1983, convened by the British Board of Film Censors at the request of the British Videogram Association. So far as I can recall, this report has never been referred to in the whole of the debates. It was an attempt to find a basis for voluntary regulation of the whole problem. But almost by the time the report was issued the Government had decided that they were going to introduce statutory provisions to deal with the matter. In it went into the manifesto, and the Government had no further interest in a report which dealt most intelligently with the idea of voluntary rating.
That is merely an introduction to what I am about to quote, because they put it very fairly in paragraph 8 on page 3 of their report. They stated:
"Of all the media of screen entertainment, video is the one which permits the greatest degree of private and deliberate choice. A videogram is a physical entity obtained from the shop, much like a bookshop, and selected from a wide choice of available material. It is carried home privately by the consumer to be viewed in private whenever and in whatever circumstances he chooses. There is no common carrier as there is in broadcasting or even in the narrow casting of cable television. Nor is there the sheer theatrical experience of the cinema. Of all the new technologies, therefore, video is the closest to traditional publishing. But"—
they said—
"on the other hand. there are some powerful social considerations to be balanced against this".

729
They went on to say what they were. We are very familiar with them.
They pointed out, for example, that video is viewed on an ordinary television screen and frequently in a family setting and that it is watched in the same physical manner, if not always with the same mental attitude, as broadcast television. They said that there is a need to guard against the confusion of young children as between one programme and another—a familiar line of country—with social considerations to be set against the fact of private and deliberate choice, which confers upon the citizen some responsibility for his own actions.
In that sense there is a balance between the liberty of the person and the social responsibility of what he may do. But the Bill does not recognise any balance. It is pitched wholly one way. It is against freedom and it is for statutory discipline and restraint. The words that were put into Clause 4 were wagging a minatory finger at the censorship authority without the slightest acknowledgment that there was such a thing as privacy in the home.
Noble Lords may say, "Is it not obvious that the home is mostly private? An Englishman's home is his castle—or we think that it is". But the obvious was not allowed to go unstated in their own amendments to the Bill because that did not suit the purpose of those who drafted them. They wanted to say to the censorship authority, "You are making these arrangements, but you must bear in mind the likelihood that the films you are passing will be seen in the home. We want you to have special regard to this fact when making your decisions on classification".
I tried to find a way to put the privacy of the home together with the possibility of dangerous exposures in the home. I thought of the words "the privacy of the home". Then I thought that people would say, "But the home is not so private as all that". Privacy suggests the closet where people are almost in solitude, looking at something alone, whereas the home is not like that. There will probably be three or four children in the home, although we have to bear in mind that today two-thirds of the households in Britain contain no young children under the age of 16. However, some homes still have young children in them.
Then I considered the word "privately". Is anybody going to argue about the factual likelihood that videos will be watched privately in the home? But the critics may say, "You are putting the wrong idea into the heads of the censorship people. You are suggesting to them that they could stretch their judgment a little further than they would otherwise do, because they will be made conscious of the fact that what is shown will be shown privately in the home". Where are we on this use of words? The problem is that when one first uses words which are probably unnecessary and harmful in the first instance one gets into trouble trying to put them right.
The Bill, as drafted by Mr. Graham Bright, was a tolerable Bill which met the wishes of the House of Commons at the time of its Second Reading. But the almost vicious morality lobby drew inspiration from the campaign which had waged at the time they were sitting in Committee and another place rather lost their sense of what was just.
The video industry is now suffering from the smear that the press, Parliament and the public have cast over the whole of the video trade. It is a great pity. I am trying to take a slightly more tolerant approach, so that we manage to get the common sense of this into perspective.
The duty of this House—here as nowhere else in the land—is to hold balances and make judgments which are respected for their wisdom. This clause, as drafted, does not, I think, fulfil that standard. The censorship authorities do not need to be nudged in this way. They should not be nudged in this way. They are given a duty. When they are appointed, they should know what is that duty. If they are given guidelines, then they will have more help still.
No one can deny the factual validity of the balancing word I am trying to introduce. The likelihood is that everything will be seen privately in the home; that is the likelihood. It will not be seen publicly in the home. The chances are that the videos will not be seen by people other than those in the home. Families usually take their enjoyment together.
I am now looking to see whether your Lordships are free from the bias which has afflicted the approach to this Bill in another place, and whether this House will ask another place to adjust their approach by the use of one true and non-emotive word, which will at least indicate that there are two sides to the home. One side is where people may be free to come and go, and where neighbours may come and go. But in general, when videos are being shown in the home, they will be shown privately and will not be open to other people. There may be children in that home, or there may not, but the videos will be seen privately.
If this amendment is objected to, I shall listen carefully to the reasons in a spirit of common sense, in terms of preserving a balance of approach to this matter, and in the interests of truth. I beg to move.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I have listened with close attention to the noble Lord, and yet I am bound to say that I cannot see that his amendment would add very much to the existing subsection. Perhaps I may refer to his own words, which I wrote down: "The likelihood is that everything will be seen privately in the home". That is the case; and so by inserting the word in question we would not be adding anything that could be considered as either guidance or declaratory. The noble Lord himself has objected strongly to including anything that is declaratory. If this amendment had any value at all, it would be only that.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, I must say that he cannot have it both ways. My first proposition was that words as words—not perhaps having any very useful meaning—should be left out. But, no, they had to stay in because they had a significance. Therefore, my word "privately" has a significance. I am adding a word to words. If, with great respect, the noble Lord wants to keep the words, then I want him to add this word. He may say that it does not add very much. All I am saying is that it adds what I think should be added.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, when the noble Lord reads his speech tomorrow he will see that he has said both things that I have said to him. I made a note of them as he said them. But the point he made towards the end of his speech, that the likelihood is that everything will be seen privately in the home, is the fact of it. There is no particular objection or significance in the word, either way. It will not add anything because it is the case that normally things will be seen privately in the home. In the circumstances, I do not think that I should advise your Lordships to accept a word which will add nothing of any kind to the Bill.
I hope the noble Lord will see the logic of what he said. The word adds nothing to the Bill. He does not like the words "in the home" and he has made that point very clear. A great deal of his speech was directed to that. But his amendment is about the word "privately" and he has answered that himself. I hope he will see the logic of that.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, if I am pressing the noble Lord to add a word which has a significance to the mover of the amendment which the noble Lord thinks does not add anything to the words already in the Bill, does he not attach any importance to the desire of someone to put it there? It may be that this is all semantics and that we are only playing with words. If the noble Lord reads his own speech tomorrow he will, if I may say so, see that at the end of it what he should have said was, "Nevertheless, in the circumstances if the noble Lord presses for the word to be there I will accept it, but I warn him that it does not seem to me to make any difference. If he thinks that it does, who am I to stand in his way?" That is what I expected the noble Lord to say. I was waiting for it.
If he had done that it would have been the first concession that has so far been made to the Bill on a straight amendment from this side of the House. I was going to attach great importance to that fact alone. But no, there is no feeling of concession anywhere here. What is the reason? Why is this House betraying its traditional role and just doing nothing except sit quiet and stick to it and let the talking go on? There should be some give somewhere. If there is no give on something that does not matter, how can we get some give on something that does? There is some logic in that, too.
It is extremely difficult to keep calm in this atmosphere. There are no party politics in this. Your Lordships' House is surely not afraid of the House of Commons on a matter of this sort. I believe that the sponsor of the Bill and the Government have got entangled in the procedural problems of a Private Member's Bill. They feel they have no control over it because it is not a Government Bill. But it is monstrous that a Bill of this significance should be subject to all the problems of a Private Member's Bill, either here or elsewhere. It is much too important for that. Why do the Government not come out into the open and say they will take over the Bill and provide the necessary time for adequate discussion and do the job properly?
732
There seems to be no point in dividing the House on this or anything else. Some Divisions have to take place in order that those of us who take a point of view should be able to have it on record. I am gravely disappointed in the noble Lord if he is arguing, as he has done, that the word adds little or nothing. Of course, what he says is true and it would be done privately. Whoever said it would not be? I said earlier, when I wanted to take words out, that of course it would be done in the home. Why are we saying that it will be in the home when everyone knows that it will be in the home?
But would the noble Lord agree to the words being taken out? No, of course he would not. When we said, "having special regard to the obvious", that is really what we are talking about: special regard to the fact that it is in the home. Would he take out the words "special regard"? No, he would not, because he wanted this minatory finger to be pointed to the designated authority. I am not going on chastising the noble Lord. I must say he puts up with it with remarkably good humour. I am glad that my noble friend appreciates the nobility of his character, but I feel very angry.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 18:
Page 5, line 11, at end insert ("or a licensed video shop").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not move this amendment at this point. The reference to a sex shop in Clause 4 is very much out on a limb. I hope your Lordships will allow me not to move Amendment No. 18. I do not think that the whole debate on the licensed video shop proposal should take place at that point. Where I propose to move the major amendments will be at Amendment No. 30 when a number of amendments, all related, follow and a reference is made to the schedule in which the full proposals of the scheme are set out.
If, by any good fortune, the amendments that I want to make are accepted, then it would be possible to come back at a later stage and just deal with the reference to a video shop in Clause 4, which would only require the addition of just two or three words in order to tidy it up. That would come on Page 5, line 11. So I think it would be for the convenience of the House, and it would certainly make it easier for me, if I deal with the main issue on Amendment No. 30.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Parliamentary procedure for designation]:
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 19:
[Printed early: col. 725.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in stating that I do not propose to move this amendment, I should like to express my appreciation of the manner in which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has this evening reinforced the assurances which have been previously given and expressed the hope that some way will be found of legislatively giving effect to those assurances.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Annual report]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 6, line 17, after ("Act") insert ("together with a statement of accounts").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this may be superfluous but I wanted to make sure that in the annual report of the censorship authority we could see something of their finances because they are going to operate at the expense of consumers. I feel sure that in any adequate report to Parliament and to the public information about where they got the money from, what they did with it, how much they paid out in salaries, and the conventional contents of a financial statement should be available.
I do not know what the British Board of Film Censors do now regarding their finances. It is not a public body and they are not answerable to the public. Therefore, for all I know they may circulate all the relevant material within the industry itself. However, I beg to move this amendment. It seems to me that it goes almost without saying that there would be a statement of accounts; but in a Bill which, in order to get anything done at all it has to be written into the Bill. this provision may be desirable. In any event, I beg to move.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, the noble Lord is right in saying that the amendment is superfluous. The provision in Clause 6(1) gives the Secretary of State power to require the report to be made in any form he wants. It is perfectly obvious that he would want a statement of accounts because, among other things, somewhere else in the Bill he has to approve the tariff that will be charged for the classification function. So the noble Lord is right.
However, if it will not upset the noble Lord for the evening, I shall be prepared to accept the amendment so that he may feel that he is playing the very constructive part which, indeed, he is playing, in helping us to get this Bill in the best shape possible when it goes on the statute book.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Classification certificates]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 6, line 29, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

("(a) a statement that the video work concerned is suitable for viewing by persons of any age; or

(aa) the statement mentioned in paragraph (a) above together with a statement as to the particular suitability of the work for viewing by children; or

(aaa) a statement that the video work concerned contains material which may make parental guidance desirable as to the viewing of the work by young children; or").

The noble Lord said: This is an attempt to straighten out in better form the requirements of a certificate under Clause 7(2)(a). The paragraph as it now stands contains a long description, part of it within parentheses, which combines several different classifications, and does so all in one gulp. The purpose of my amendment, supported by my noble friends, is to pull out the concertina, so to speak, and to identify the classifications separately and more clearly.
This may be thought to mean that the classifications for the purpose of the Bill will be those used by the British Board of Film Censors: that there will be "U" meaning universal; "PG" for parental guidance; "15" meaning passed only for persons of 15 years and over; "18" meaning passed only for persons of 18 years and over; "18R", which is the restricted 18 classification; and "Universal UC", meaning particularly suitable for children. It is quite a good idea when the whole purpose of the Bill is directed towards preventing children seeing things they should not see that the British Board of Film Censors should indicate what is suitable for them to see.
The amendment proposes only to separate and identify the components of subsection 2(a)—that is to say,
"(a) a statement that the video work concerned is suitable for viewing by persons of any age; or
(aa) the statement mentioned in paragraph (a) above together with a statement as to the particular suitability of the work for viewing by children; or
>(aaa) a statement that the video work concerned contains material which may make parental guidance desirable as to the viewing of the work by young children".
We then come to the existing paragraphs (b) and (c), which are clear enough and do not need amendment.
It may be that the main problem here is PG (parental guidance) but I see no reason why the classification used by the British Board of Film Censors in that particular respect should not also be used for videos seen in the home. To get this clear in this way would be so much better than leaving subsection (2)(a) in this rather jumbled condition. It may be put there to enable the British Board of Film Censors, as the designated authority, to have some room for flexibility in shades of differences or classification, but I am sure we all understand that if the classification for videos in the home is the same as the classification for the cinemas, it simplifies the matter and everybody has a clear recognition of what are the distinctions.
That, of course, does not remove from parents their own discretion in showing to children films that may have the classification which means young children would not see them in the cinema; but we cannot have a detective in every home. I hope, therefore, that this proposal simplifies the situation, clarifies it, and makes it understandable to all concerned that we have one set of standards and that they can be followed for videos as well as for films. I think also that if there is to be a classification given to films that have been shown by the broadcasting authorities, it would help if, in any identification that was thought to be needful, they would follow the same standards and degrees of classification.
I hope that appeals to the House as being a desirable improvement to the subsection as it is at present. It does not detract from it; it adds nothing to it. It just makes it clear, orderly, and well understood. I beg to move.
11.2 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing us succinctly to ground on which we are in discussion with the British Board of Film Censors. As it now stands, Clause 7(2)(a) deals with

735
the PG category as follows. It makes clear that PG certificates must contain a statement that the video work concerned is suitable for viewing by persons of any age, with a qualification—I emphasise the words, "with a qualification"—as to the desirability of parental guidance with regard to the viewing of the work by children.
The PG category was introduced by the board for the cinema some 18 months ago. The Bill was drafted with the intention of allowing the board to continue to award such certificates to works in video form as they would for the same works in relation to the cinema. In our view, the form of words contained in Clause 7(2)(a) is the best way of reflecting the PG category in language appropriate to legislation and in a form consistent with the Bill.
Under the Bill as it stands, PG material is to be made available to persons of any age. Both the BBFC and ourselves are agreed on this. But certificates will contain a specific warning as to the desirability of parental guidance. The PG classification is therefore a half-way house between, on the one hand, U certificates awarded under Clause 7(2)(a) and, on the other, the categories dealt with in Clause 7(2)(b) and (c) for material which is not to be supplied to persons below a certain age.
Thus, in awarding a PG certificate the designated authority will be saying, in effect, that they do not think it is necessary to stipulate in the certificate that the work is suitable for viewing only by persons of, say, 15 or 18 years and above, but that they consider that parental guidance is desirable with regard to the viewing of the work by children. "PG" therefore carries with it the connotation that parents may feel that the work is unsuitable for their particular child; or unsuitable at that particular time for their child; or may wish to ensure that their child does not watch the work, or does not watch it on his or her own.
Under the Bill as it stands, therefore, a PG certificate does not mean that the video work concerned is suitable for viewing by all persons. Instead it means that it is suitable for viewing by at least some persons of all ages with a qualification as to the desirability of parental guidance.
Turning to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, paragraphs (a) and (aa) reflect provisions already in the Bill and our difficulty is not with them. Like the Bill, your Lordships will see that they state the extent of the suitability of the work in question for viewing by particular people. That is to follow the scheme of the Bill.
Where we still find ourselves in difficulty is as regards paragraph (aaa) of the amendment, because that paragraph does not mention suitability—it only mentions that, so far as children are concerned, parental guidance may be desirable. That, of course, is a description that could apply to a very wide range of material indeed—much wider than that to which I am confident the designated authority would, in fact, apply it. In this context, your Lordships may regard as a molehill what the trained legal eye detects as a mountain. Laymen among your Lordships can fairly ask why—if we are confident that the authority will
736
only put what we and the public already know so well as PG material in this category—it is necessary to get so fussy about the language.
As we demonstrated earlier this evening, in legislation language is important and a statute that does not say what it means is, in an important sense, not as good as it should be. However, your Lordships will by now have realised that the difference between the parties in their discussion is a narrow one and that we have the common objective of getting the categories in the cinematic and the video fields as similar to each other as is possible. It does not seem possible that this difficulty will not be overcome. Therefore, I am obliged to the noble Lord for this opportunity to explain where we are.
We will continue to be in discussion with the British Board of Film Censors on this matter. We are. of course, always ready to improve the Bill if that appears to be possible and there will, of course, be an opportunity to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading if, in the event, it seems possible to express the PG category in the Bill any more clearly.
I hope therefore that, on the basis of this explanation and of the assurances that I have given, the noble Lord will, with his customary forbearance, not now press his amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord really meant it when he talked about my forbearance. I accept his compliment with humility. I certainly do accept what the noble Lord has said, and I look forward to the result of further consideration of the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 6, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) In any statement made under subsection (2)(b) above no age shall be specified above the age of 18.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am encouraged by the recent words of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in my belief that this amendment does not propose anything which is at variance with the Government or the sponsor's intentions, but does make clear what might be an anomaly at some time in the future, although I understand from what the noble Lord has said that it is not in the Government's mind at the moment.
Your Lordships will recall that at the Committee stage it was not initially clear whether there was a possibility of an age older than 18 being specified as part of a classification system. On further inquiry the noble Lord, Lord Elton, did say that the Bill, as drafted, does not actually rule out the possibility, for example, of a classification being at the age of 21. I drew attention to the fact that, although 18 is the age of consent and has been, I would think, universally accepted as being the age at which cinema censorship and video censorship ought to stop, the age of 21 still has legal significance as the age at which homosexual practices between consenting males is permitted, and that it would be possible for a future government or a future designated authority to take the view that,

737
because the age for homosexual practices is 21, there would be an argument for introducing a classification for the depiction of those practices also at the age of 21.
I do not believe that that is the intention of the sponsors of the Bill. I do not believe that it is the intention of the Government. I believe that it would be repugnant to have censorship for any other than those who have not reached the age of consent, and I hope that the Government, either by indicating that they can find a better way of doing it or by accepting this amendment, will give effect to what I believe ought to be the universal wish of the House. I beg to move.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, this is a point which was discussed in a slightly different form at some length at the Committee stage, and I quite understand the noble Lord's anxiety that he does not want to see this age limit raised from 18 to 21. I can assure him that the Government's intention is that it shall be introduced at the same levels as are now being used by the BBFC—that is, the ages of 15 to 18—and that there is no intention of changing it in any way.
We should prefer not to put ages into the Bill. We think that the right thing to do is to leave the board of film censors to make such changes as they think are necessary from time to time. However, I am bound to say that, if they raised the limit, it would clearly be a matter which all governments should closely examine. As the noble Lord knows, the Home Secretary has an overruling hand on this body and apart from his contacts in the meantime, he receives a report which he can look at every year. Therefore, I do not think that it is very likely that the kind of change which the noble Lord fears would take place. In the meantime, we should prefer the Bill to remain as it is without specifying age limits, and I hope that, with the firm assurance that the 15 to 18 age limits, as now, will be continued in the future, the noble Lord may feel content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the assurance that the noble Lord has given, and I share his view about the undesirability of having an age older than 18. However, I am afraid that the noble Lord's firm assurances are not good enough. If we are in agreement, that is excellent for the proposed designated authority and the existing Government. My point is that, under the terms of the Bill as drafted, it is possible for another designated authority and another government—a more censorious government, if I may put it that way—to do something which would be legal within the terms of the Bill and yet would be profoundly repugnant to those who have come to accept that the age of consent is 18 and not an older age. I am sorry that the noble Lord has not felt able to accept this amendment, and I am sorry to say that I think it is necessary to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before the noble Lord tests the opinion of the House, I think it would be as well to pause for a moment to consider. I am not clear what are the grounds on which be thinks the age of consent might appear to the Government to be more appropriate at a level higher than the age of majority. The age
738
of majority is clearly fixed at the age of 18 by statute. I have always thought that that sort of change was on account of the ratchet effect. I cannot see voters of 18 flocking to the polls to deny themselves the vote until they are 21.
Therefore, I wonder whether the noble Lord could explain a little more fully what it is that leads him to fear that this change might commend itself to a future government, to the extent that they would not merely believe that it was in the public interest to raise the age of consent, or whatever, above 18, but would actually direct an independent body to introduce this into its policy. The Bill is careful to avoid Government censorship and does not give the Government power to direct the authority in this sort of matter. I wonder whether the noble Lord would feel that this was something on which he could reflect further and perhaps return on Third Reading if he is still not content.
11.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I take it that that was an intervention in my speech and that I therefore have your Lordships' permission to speak again. I realise that this is not normal, but it was a direct challenge to me.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is only abnormal in that I forgot the customary preface of, "Before the noble Lord sits down". I add it posteriorly, perhaps.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. The position that the noble Lord describes is not one that I recognise. It is true that the Bill deliberately puts the Government at arm's length from the process of censorship. That is agreed. The Bill provides for the appointment of a designated authority which determines the categories of censorship. But although the Government have some responsibility for it, it is the designated authority which determines the classification, and it is possible for a Government, in one of this country's periodical fits of morality—I think that is the Victorian phrase—to seek to advance the limits of censorship.
That is happening now. We are seeing the limits of censorship advanced in this Bill and in the application of the Obscene Publications Act. I am not satisfied that there is no chance that this would happen in the future. I am confirmed in my lack of satisfaction by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. He said that it was very likely that the age of 15 would be the age used for classification purposes. For this purpose "very likely" is not good enough. I beg to move.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, may I offer two or three observations here. The danger in the Bill as at present drafted is that it leaves open the possibility that at some stage the classification of videos might be pressed to run, with certain restrictions, to the age of 21. In another connection entirely the adulthood of persons at the age of 18 has already come under some criticism; this has been in regard to marriage between persons of prohibited degree. I am referring now to the marriage of a person to his stepdaughter. In the consideration of that proposed legislation there was a distinct movement to

739
put the age of marriage in those circumstances at 21, notwithstanding that it is lower than that for people in general.
It may be that a Government even more reactionary than the present one might wish to put certain video material beyond the reach of people until they are 21. I believe that the more flexibility the sponsors of the Bill wish to keep in it, the more room there will be for manoeuvre, which may be used in undesirable, as well as desirable ways. I believe, too, that that will later make the stronger my case for setting a limit of five years to the lifetime of the Bill without renewal by expressed wish of both Houses of Parliament. Otherwise we shall be putting into this Bill a provision which may last for many years to come and which could be dangerous in the hands of people who had a different sense of responsibility.
If the age of 18, as a numeral, raises difficulties, why cannot it be stipulated that the age limit should be that at which a person reaches manhood, or womanhood, within the law, expressed in terms of ability to sign contracts, to vote, or whatever it may be. There is an age at which a person at present reaches adult status, and that is the age beyond which we do not want any of this to go. That is the point. If it is not there, if it is an age stipulated by the authority, it can be any old age that they like to think of.
Again, I cannot understand what the difficulties are. I know that in drafting Bills advisers say, "Keep it open, don't commit yourself, don't get tied down, leave room for manoeuvre. We don't want to have amending legislation; be able to do it within the ambit of the discretion left to you". and so on and so forth. There are, however, some things that do have to be stated clearly, and I think this is one of them.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I started off with no very strong feelings either way about this amendment, but having heard all the arguments I simply cannot understand why it is being resisted, if it is simply a question of dotting the i's and crossing the t's. Like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I am becoming rather suspicious and therefore will certainly support him in the Division Lobby if need be.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps, with the leave of the House, I could say just one further word. First of all, I did say to the noble Lord—not that it was very likely that the ages of 15 to 18 would be the ages used by the BBFC—that they would be, definitely. So let us get that on the record.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if I misunderstood the noble Lord, I beg his pardon.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I hope that will have reassured him, but at any rate we shall start on the basis that he, and I imagine his noble friends, would wish. However, the point is again a very small one, although I agree that the significance the noble Lord. Lord Houghton, has attached to it makes it seem a very great one. I do not think any government or any Home Secretary would ever wish to see the age raised above 18.
740
However, I am willing to look at it in the circumstances, as these grave doubts have been expressed, to see how it should be amended, if we are to put it in, and come back to it on the next stage. Perhaps with that undertaking the noble Lord would be willing to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that undertaking. I take it as being somewhat stronger than simply considering the position; I take it as saying that it is a question of the appropriate wording, and I hope I am correct in that. If I am, then I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 6, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) All films classified prior to the date of this Act by the British Board of Film Censors in the categories (U.) (P.G.) or (15) shall receive a similar video classification certificate from the Authority without further examination.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is quite an important amendment because there are, I understand, some 4,000 to 6,000 titles already on the market and, if no such clause as this is included, all those films which may become videos which were classified prior to the date of the Act by the British Board of Film Censors would have to be reviewed afresh. In order to make the amendment noncontroversial, I have in fact removed from it the controversial category of 18. Therefore, it is only those in the non-controversial categories of U. PG or 15 which are, under this amendment, required to receive a similar video classification—not the same video classification because it may be that the authority will decide to adopt some different nomenclature or wording—without further examination.
If this is not done, upon its constitution the authority will be, so far as I can see under the Bill as it stands at present, required to reclassify everything which comes on the market irrespective of whether it has already been classified by itself under another hat—by the British Board of Film Censors operating under another hat.
What this amendment seeks to do is to make the work possible, to prevent a great hold-up, to enable the new authority to get on with the job and not to put it to the necessity of re-examining every film which comes out as a video which has already been classified in a non-controversial area by the British Board of Film Censors.
I move this amendment in the confident expectation that it will be accepted, if not in its actual sense in the spirit in which it is moved, by those responsible for the Bill.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I recognise an amendment which is intended to be helpful when I see one. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his good intentions. It is aimed at reducing the considerable backlog of existing video works which the board will have to examine. It seeks to do so by requiring video works which have already been classified U, PG or 15 for cinematograph exhibition to be given the same classification under the arrangements set out in the Bill without further examination.

741
I have great sympathy with that approach. It is in everybody's interests that the board should be able to get through the backlog of existing films as quickly as possible. We do not want the British Board of Film Censors to give a meticulous examination to every piece of obviously innocuous material where it is possible to avoid this. We hope that this will be avoided in connection with the backlog of video material in the same way that we have said we hope to help it in the matter of broadcast material.
Unfortunately, although the designated authority will be required under the Bill to keep records of video works which it classifies, the British Board of Film Censors does not, at present, have comprehensive records of works which it has classified for the cinema. Therefore it will not have a means of knowing if a video work submitted for classification is in the same form as the work originally classified for the cinema. It gives me real regret to have to say that, because it would be a tremendous saving in work if this was not necessary. But I hope that a great deal of effort can be saved by establishing, where works are in common format, that there can be the most cursory examination.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I felt a little uneasy about this. The amendment does not actually ask for the same video classification as the noble Lord just suggested. It asks for a similar video classification, recognising that it is not absolutely certain that the authority will adopt the categories of U, PG, 15 and so forth, but that the new authority should be able, if it so chose, to say, "We know all these films, or large numbers of them to be completely innocuous and we would therefore he able to say that they can go through." Such films would be Mickey Mouse and all kinds of thing of that sort which are quite likely to be reproduced on video. It would seem to me to be absurd to put the board under the necessity, as I believe is the case under the Bill as at present drawn, to re-examine every single film which has already been passed by it. I wonder whether the noble Lord can be a little more reassuring than he has been on this question.
Is it the case, as I rather suspect it may be, that the new authority will be under the necessity of reexamining every video, even if it knows, before it is examined, from the nature of the film and from the nature of the applicant in question that it could do a complete en bloc classification and thereby could get on with the real job and not spend an enormous amount of time looking through films which are of no offensive nature at all?
11.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I wonder whether it is possible to find agreement on this matter, in which everybody is agreed on intention. Surely, not necessarily the British Board of Film Censors but film archivists of the British Film Institute maintain records of what films have been classified and the length in numbers of minutes. The risk of seven minutes of inoffensive material being taken out and exactly seven minutes of offensive material being put in is. surely, not very high. If the number of minutes is the same and the title and description are the same,
742
surely it would be satisfactory for the British Board of Film Censors to give a similar certificate, without examination, with no significant risk whatsoever.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether I could assist my noble friend in order that we may proceed, though not with undue rapidity for there are material points to be made. I see nothing in this Bill—and I stand to be corrected—which says that the designated authority has to carry out any examination at all. The duties of the designated authority are set out in Clause 1. All that they have to do is to determine, for the purposes of this Act, whether or not video works are suitable for classification. Quite obviously, the designated authority will not be anxious to give itself unnecessary work, especially at the commencement; and, if acting at all intelligently, what it will do is to say, "There has been a classification in the past. What we will do is not to give it a similar classification because there may be differences in classification, but to use the words, possibly, 'a similarly appropriate classification'." That, quite obviously, would be done.
I repeat that there is no duty to examine every inch of the tape. There is no duty, in fact, to examine one inch of the tape. The discretion is that of the designated authority, for them to determine, in all the circumstances, in all their discretion and in all their wisdom, what the classification ought to be.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will your Lordships permit me to speak briefly? I think the Minister is allowed sometimes to speak twice if your Lordships are willing. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has been extremely helpful and absolutely right. It is in Clause 4(1) that the need to determine is placed, and it is up to the authority to decide how it determines. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has suggested both an ingenious way of doing this and an ingenious way of circumventing it. But the fact remains that it is up to the board to decide, and we are anxious that the process of determination should be as rapid and practical as possible. In other words, the Bill does allow what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, wishes it to allow. I do not wish to offend him in any way, but perhaps I cannot stand up again and if he is still wedded to the idea I have to say that were I to return to my feet I would tell him three matters in which the amendment that he has put down is defective, so that it would be necessary for him to return at a later stage anyway.
I may have been too precise in what I said about the records which the BBFC keep. They do not keep comprehensive visual records although they have comprehensive written records. The point is that you could not tell from the piece of paper what was on the piece of cellulose or tape. I have gone on for far too long. What I want to say is that, as Lord Mishcon has said, the Bill allows the board to operate in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, says he wishes it to operate.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful. I had no illusions about the beauty and excellence of the drafting of the amendment. It was my intention originally to leave the question of the ultimate drafting to those responsible for the Bill. However, in view of

743
the assurances that have been given it may be that it will be found that no further drafting is necessary. I intend at this stage, at any rate, to leave the question in abeyance and to seek your Lordships' leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Supply or possession of video recording on certain premises]:
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 8, line 34, leave out ("a licensed sex shop") and insert ("premises licensed for the purpose").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Bill as presently drafted seems to me designed to assist sex shops which are in difficulty. By deciding that only existing sex shops shall be licensed for the purpose of selling these videos we are really giving to the existing sex shops or future sex shops a monopoly for the sale of this particular product. I find this a most extraordinary provision in the Bill. Why on earth should we decide that sex shops should suddenly have this additional benefit thrust upon them? Why would we not create in the Bill the term. "premises licensed for the purpose"?
It might be appropriate that a sex shop should be the premises which would have the ability to deal with videos. It might be appropriate that some other premises should be designated. But should we decide in this Bill that all existing sex shops are apparently to be the premises which are to have the privilege (if that is the right word) of selling this product, which may turn out to be extremely profitable?
If your Lordships are a society for the preservation and the enhancement of sex shops, the Bill as presently drafted is no doubt an excellent one. But I rather suspect that that is not your purpose; and if it is not your purpose to be regarded as benefactors of sex shops and as a Chamber which exists for the purpose of encouraging and supporting them, I suggest that your Lordships accept the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I find myself very much in sympathy—
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, may I raise a question of order? I beg the pardon of the right reverend Prelate, hut, beginning with Amendment No. 30, I have a whole string of amendments on this point, including a new schedule which is set out on the Marshalled List, and which is essential if premises other than a sex shop are to be included with a sex shop, or otherwise, in the Bill.
I do not mind where we take it. The main arguments have to be deployed somewhere. I have let go already two references to a sex shop in order to concentrate on the main group of amendments which begins with Amendment No. 30 and goes on to Amendment No. 38. I wonder whether my noble friend would feel that Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29, to which both our names are attached, should not be moved so that we can get on to the substantive amendment, Amendment No. 30, which then deals with a whole
744
group of amendments, and then on to the schedule. Otherwise, I think that we are going to deal with this in penny numbers.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am sorry to say this to my noble friend, but I do not feel entirely happy with that suggestion, for the following reason. Both our names are attached to this group of amendments. I think that they are all alternative. On the one hand, the first series of amendments suggests the substitution of,
"a licensed sex shop",
with the words,
"premises licensed for the purpose".
That is one series of possibilities. If that series of possibilities were proved to be acceptable to the House, then what follows would be unnecessary.
On the other hand, if those series of possibilities proved to be unacceptable, it might be necessary for one to proceed to the other possibility which is,
"a video shop for which a licence is in force under this Act",
as suggested by my noble friend. It seems to me therefore that one ought to deal with Nos. 27, 28 and 29, which deal with the question of premises, before dealing with the series of amendments which I think suggest an alternative to the first three amendments.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I wonder whether I may add a word to this little procedural discussion. I do feel that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is right. There is a major point here and it is of course related to the schedule. I should have thought that it would be for the convenience of the whole House if we debated the issue as one. In the schedule is set out an alternative scheme which would make other licensed premises, at any rate in principle, workable; and therefore I would strongly urge the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, who I think has the ball in his court, that it really would be for the convenience of everybody if we proceeded as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has suggested. so that one debate could then cover the whole issue.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if that is the general wish of the House, I would see no objection to a general debate covering the whole field; but I think it ought to be agreed that, if the position arises in which the matter is put to the Question, then the amendments would be separate and would not form part of the whole.
Lord Denham: My Lords, if I may intervene at this point, of course the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, is absolutely right. The matter before the House at the moment is the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. It is quite possible to debate other amendments, but the one we are actually considering is the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins', and when the debate is finished his amendment will be taken before any other. Of course. with the leave of the House, we can discuss any other amendment on the Marshalled List, but what I think we must be careful about is that this is Report stage and any noble Lord, other than the mover of the amendment is entitled to speak only once on any particular debate.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if I may intervene—only to be helpful, I hope—I personally, if I may respectfully say so, agree with every word of what the Government Chief Whip has said. I think that what we want to achieve is one debate on the whole issue of whether or not this should be limited to licensed sex shops; and, as my noble friend Lord Jenkins said, there are alternative ways of looking at this.
I think the proper procedure is what has been outlined already—namely, that there should be one debate on whether or not they should be limited to the licensed sex shop, and which alternative is the better alternative. It may be the one moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, or the one moved by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, but I think the House wants to avoid—and this is why I am rising—that there should be a misunderstanding and that there should be a debate on this series of amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and a further debate hereafter in respect of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton's amendments. Therefore if we can have one debate and then the House can express its approval or disapproval of both alternatives, or one alternative, by the separate amendments being called, I think that would be desirable.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, may I pursue this point of order just one stage further? What I am anxious to avoid is Amendment No. 27 being put to the House and decided upon, which might preclude me from putting my subsequent amendments to the House. Sometimes the Lord Chairman says: "If Amendment so-and-so is adopted (or rejected), it will not be possible for me to call Amendment so-and-so". If I am under no such disqualification, then we can start the main debate at any moment. There will be one debate; but when we come to decide on which alternative the House may choose to have, we would reach separate decisions on separate amendments.
Lord Denham: My Lords, of course that is right. Just to put ourselves in order, all this discussion is taking place before the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, sits down, so that none of us is precluded from taking part in this debate at a subsequent stage. Of course, this happens very often in the Committee stage of a Bill. Two amendments are mutually non-compatible and this is, I think, the case here. So the debate takes place on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. We discuss all the other amendments. When, eventually, the Question is put, the House decides whether it is going to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—in turn, as they are on the Marshalled List—or neither, or an alternative. So perhaps we can accept that the debate takes place on this amendment, with a general debate on this issue.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I find that entirely satisfactory and, as I have already moved the amendments in my name, perhaps it would be in order for someone else to proceed to move subsequent amendments or to take part in the debate which I have initiated on my amendments—
Lord Denham: Unless, my Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, wishes to deal with the subsequent amendments on this point, which he has not yet had an opportunity to do.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, it might be convenient, then, if, before I hear other views expressed, I were to say why at the moment it seems to me to be better to deal with the point in the way I suggest, rather than in the way that my noble friend subsequently suggests. One of the reasons why it is better to deal with it in the way I suggest—although my noble friend and I are close together on this, as has been seen by the fact that our purpose is identical, because we have signed each other's amendments and are therefore involved in suggesting alternatives—is that my amendment is simpler. It removes the sex shop from the scene and simply substitutes the words, "premises licensed for the purpose". In some cases it may be decided that the premises will be a sex shop. In some cases it may be decided that they will be some other premises. That seems to me to be simpler than the other method, which is more complicated, of introducing the words,
"or a video shop for which a licence is in force under this Act".
I do not think I need spend a great deal more time on this amendment. We both seek the same purpose, and at the present moment, before hearing anybody else on the subject, it seems to me that my way is the easier.
11.48 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I have much sympathy with the amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Jenkins of Putney and Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I should like to apologise to your Lordships for not being here for the first two hours of our debate. I was, in fact, at the BBC doing a recording of three hours about fascinating work on the Video Recordings Bill which should come out next week, all being well. But it brought me back post-haste to the House at 10 o'clock, ever more eager for us to make sure that we have this Bill as well as we can make it in this way.
It is delightful to find both the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, with these amendments on what can only be called the vicious morality lobby, because it looks as though they are both determined to do down these sex shops. As I have always wanted to do the same, I am rather delighted. At the same time, I have a feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has a few shots in his locker and has reasons for restraining us from doing down these unpleasant sex shops. So I shall hold my counsel until I hear the reasons why I should not be swayed into the vicious morality lobby by the noble Lords opposite.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I prefer the version on this matter that I already have on the Marshalled List, because, if I may say so to my noble friend, his amendment requires a very long tail to it. The conditions under which the premises shall be licensed are required to be spelled out for inclusion in the Bill. That is an intricate task, as my noble friend will see if he peruses the long schedule which is the necessary accompaniment to the proposal to

747
alter—and extend, for that matter—the supply of material which, for films for public showing, is classified as 18R.
In an earlier debate the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that he did not know the difference between 18B and 18R. There is a good deal of misapprehension about what 18R is. 18R is short for 18-restricted. There are two categories of videos and films which may be regarded as appropriate for viewing by people who are aged 18 or over. One is 18, simple, and the other is 18R. What is the difference? The difference was made clear by the Minister at col. 196 in the Standing Committee of the House of Commons. He quoted from the Home Office circular of 1982 which said this about the classification:
"The classification will be applied to films which, while not portraying illegal acts or extremes of sexual perversion or horror or violence, are likely to be more explicit than films at present given an 'X' certificate".
This means that 18R is not a definition of video nasties; 18R is open to viewing either in a viewing booth in a sex shop or under club conditions outside a sex shop.
That is the position regarding films. Nobody has suggested that 18R material, classified as such by the British Board of Film Censors, includes what can be described as horror nasties. When I hear noble Lords saying that we all know what 18R is and what video nasties are, may I, with great respect, say that there is a good deal of misunderstanding about it. I have just read out what 18R is. 18R was a classification created on the recommendation of the Cinema Consultative Council and it obtained the consent of the Home Office. The words I have read out were part of the Home Office circular on the subject. At the same time as giving the description of the classification of 18R, it stated where they could be seen. They would be for restricted distribution only, through segregated premises to which no one under 18 would be admitted. These films are to be seen in club conditions and in sex shops.
But now we are dealing with videos. At present, 18R material in video recordings is available at video shops. It can be sold or hired from video shops which offer this material, though not all of them do so. Under the guidelines generally followed by retailers, these videos are available only to people over the age of 18. Under the Bill, 18R material is to be available only in licensed sex shops. This applies both to video recordings of classified films as well as to the new material which may be put on video only.
The amendment which I favour and the one which my noble friend moved removes the exclusive point of availability of 18R videos from the sex shop. Under my proposal, I do not deprive the sex shop of its part in the distribution of this material, but I add to it "or a licensed video shop".
The 18R material has excited a good deal of controversy. The Standing Committee in another place spent more time on this issue than on any other. Indeed, my calculation is that it spent more than half its time dealing with this issue. The reason was that many people had confused 18R with video nasties. But I want to emphasise that 18R is a classification
748
given by the British Board of Film Censors to films—and it will be given to videos. The question is: from where should one be able to obtain 18R material?
When Mr. Graham Bright's Bill was first introduced into another place, it referred to this material as being available only on premises entry to which was restricted to persons over the age of 18. It said nothing at all about sex shops. or about licensed video shops. It just stated that they should be available on premises restricted to people aged over 18. That is how the Bill went into Standing Committee.
When the Standing Committee was in the middle of its deliberations on this matter, and just before the fifth sitting. the Home Secretary made an intervention which created a great deal of trouble inside the committee. On 20th January the Home Secretary—according to press reports available on 21st January—said this (and I am quoting from The Times):
"The Government will support an amendment to the Bill to be debated next Wednesday which will make unlawful the sale to any person, adult or minor, of sexually explicit material in the so-called restricted 18 category".
That was his proposal: to outlaw 18R altogether, giving it no classification and leaving it to the Obscene Publications Act 1959 to deal with any material that it was thought should be taken to court.
This created some consternation in the Standing Committee. After a very long debate over three sittings, it finally rejected the Home Secretary's proposition by 11 votes to 5; the reason being that the public would not stand for the complete banning of 18R material, which they can now obtain from video shops and which the Home Secretary was proposing to outlaw altogether. That is why such a decisive vote of the committee retained 18R material within the classification for video recording purposes.
Then came the day of 16th March and the Report stage of the Bill and its Third Reading. At a quarter past one on the afternoon of Friday 16th March an amendment was proposed to restrict 18R material to licensed sex shops. By a quarter to two, that amendment had been passed. That is how sex shops got into the Bill. I submit to your Lordships that Members of another place did not realise the consequences of the decision that they took.
I am not saying that the decision of the House of Commons was not substantive. When the sex shop proposition was put to a Division in another place at Report stage, the proposal to restrict 18R material to licensed sex shops was carried by 98 votes to 3. So the House was certainly doing it firmly, but it was doing it in haste and it probably thought it was doing something more sensible than it turned out to be. It is the decision to restrict 18R material to the licensed sex shop that I believe your Lordships' House should reconsider and we should ask the other place to have another look at the consequences of what it did.
First, a person over 18 is an adult. He or she has the vote, the right to marry, enter into contracts, take out a mortgage and is a grown-up person who does not need the guardianship of the state censor. Secondly, the decision of the House of Commons on the final

749
hurried stages of the Bill on 16th March took little account of the divergencies, attitude and policies of local authorities in granting or not granting licences for sex shops. On reaching this decision Members of another place had never looked at the map of licensed sex shops. There is not one. I have tried to obtain one. I have asked the Home Office and the Department of the Environment how many licensed sex shops there are, but they cannot tell me. They say there is no central information about them. The best I can get through the trade is that there are about 100 licensed sex shops in England and Wales. There is certainly none in Scotland or in Northern Ireland. There is certainly none in West Derbyshire and I am informed that there is none in the county of Hampshire. That is the disparity of distribution of sex shops.
Mark you, to go from outlets which at present run into thousands to 100 sex shops in England and Wales and none in Scotland and Northern Ireland is a very drastic curtailment of availability of 18R material whether we like it or not. It could not have been understood in another place that its decision would be as restrictive as it turns out to be on the availability of this material.
Another point is that sex shops are not video shops in the sense we are considering here. The licence for a sex shop depends mainly on its having for sale what are euphemistically called sexual articles. That is its main trade. To make the sex shop the exclusive supplier of 18R material is inappropriate. It seems to me that at the time the decision was reached in another place on Report, on 16th March, Members of another place could see no ready alternative to the sex shop which they were able to deal with in the Bill. Therefore, they turned, unwisely in my view, to the licensed sex shops without knowing how many or how few they were or what their distribution was throughout the country.
In my amendment I extend the right of lawful supply to video shops expressly licensed to sell or hire 18R recordings. Most of the provisions in the schedule follow closely, or even precisely, the conditions laid down for sex shops in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. No video shop need seek a licence, but all who wish to supply 18R recordings must have a licence from the local authority. Many shops which supply videos alone with other goods will not wish to embark on this line of business at all, with all the strict conditions applying to it. Videos are on sale at garages, newsagents, booksellers, and are available in all sorts of places. But any video shop which wants to sell 18R would have to restrict entry to their premises to those aged 18 or over and their premises would have to be completely segregated from others, with separate entrance, exactly the same as sex shops. The local authority granting a licence would have control over the degree of exhibition of this material in the shop and in the window.
Where I have departed from the provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 is in the right of appeal. The Act of 1982—and this amendment was carried in your Lordships' House—empowered local authorities as a matter of policy to decide within the discretion given to them that they would grant licences or refuse all licences.
750
Some local authorities have done that. There were two sex shops in Glasgow and the local authority refused licences to both of them. There was one in Aberdeen and the local authority refused it a licence. There were two in Edinburgh: one has been refused and the other is at the present time under appeal. But if a local authority decides, as a matter of policy, to have no sex shops at all, then there is no right of appeal against that decision by any applicant. It is only if they discriminate between one applicant and another that the right of appeal may be granted.
I feel that in this matter some right of appeal has to be given where a licence is refused, more especially as steps are taken in the granting of licences for other purposes which do safeguard the applicant against any capricious or arbitrary decision of the local authority. For example, for the premises of betting shops, gaming establishments, bookmakers, betting agencies, licences are required but it is not the local authority that grants them. The licences are granted by a committee composed of not less than five nor more than fifteen of the justices who sit for the relevant petty sessions area. They must sit at least four times a year, and there is a right of appeal to the Crown Court. Local authorities do not have the power to ban all licensed premises from serving alcoholic drinks whether on the premises or off. Those applications are dealt with by the licensing justices.
I think that in the circumstances it is reasonable, when dealing with applications for a licensed video shop, that there should be the right of appeal if necessary to the magistrates' court and also to a Crown Court if so wished, because the video shop will not be dealing with a whole range of sexual articles, or even exclusively in 18R. If they stock any 18R material, they will be banning entry to their shops except to persons over 18 years of age. For the local authority to decide, as a matter of policy, that they will not grant any licences to video shops in these circumstances I think would be quite unsuitable.
So I am suggesting that in common fairness to the consumer and to the industry, we must provide more outlets for 18R material than 100 shops spread throughout the whole of England and Wales, with none in Scotland and none in Northern Ireland. I think it is unfair and contrary to the original proposal in the Bill to impose distasteful and irksome conditions upon the citizen who wishes to acquire lawfully and with reasonable convenience a product that he may choose to have for his own personal use in his own private home. The existing sex shops would retain their rights under the Bill.
The question is, how many video shops would be likely to apply for licences to sell 18R and thereby have premises exclusively open only to people over 18 and entirely separate from any other premises whatsoever? The best estimate I can get from the trade is that between 1,500 and 2,500 throughout the country might apply for licences as licensed video shops. We have to bear in mind that, in making that application, they close the shop to young people under the age of 18, that it means adult business only, and that they have to weigh up where their interest lies. Many of them, as I have said, will decide that they do not want 18R because they want free entry into their shops for

751
other purposes and at a younger age. That is the best that I can do with this amendment. I commend it seriously to your Lordships' House.
I warn the House that there is going to be trouble when the public realise that, under the Bill, material that is now freely available to them if they are over 18 will not be there, that it will be miles away or inaccessible altogether. There must be more than a hundred outlets for 18R, when there are thousands at present. Otherwise, this is a form of censorship that was refused in principle in Committee. It becomes a form of censorship by restricted opportunity of acquisition. That is not the straight way of proceeding. If Parliament wants to make this material unlawful, it should do so by law. It should not just push it away and have such restricted opportunities of acquiring it that it really amounts to a form of censorship by deprivation.
That is, I think, all that I can say, and it is quite a lot. I do stress, however, the importance of the matter. We do not want an underworld of video work to start and to be widened. It has to be borne in mind that the underworld can take place in the field of 18R just as it can take place in the field of videos given no classification at all. It would be a great shame if lawful 18R material went into a kind of black market simply because of the restricted opportunity of buying it over the counter in a lawful fashion in a licensed video shop. If there is anything left in your Lordships' House that is worthy of respect, it is surely to consider what has been done and to reserve to ourselves the right to send something back to the other place if we believe that circumstances which were not known to it, which were not debated there and which, in my opinion, were imperfectly understood, should be reconsidered.
I stress that the material we are talking about is not nasties. It is classified material restricted to people over 18, who have a restricted opportunity of gaining it. I draw the attention of the House to the recent survey of British social attitudes, the 1984 report, which showed that in 1983 48 per cent. of people were in favour of pornography being available in special adult shops but not displayed to the public. One notices that the proportion of those in favour rises substantially in the younger age group and declines among those aged 55 or over. This rather suggests that the viewpoint of noble Lords might well be more consistent with the lower level of approval to be found outside among the 55s and over than that among the 18 to 35 age group. Whichever way one looks at it, there is a substantial body of opinion that believes that even what is called pornography should be available at special adult shops, but not on display.
The display would not be there if they obeyed the conditions of the granting of the licence by the local authority. When the time comes I shall move my amendment in the hope that it makes a complete job of it, and the House may feel that it is in the sort of shape that could be added to the Bill for reconsideration in another place.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can be tell us whether he found out from the trade how many club cinemas there are? These are the only cinemas where the 18R films can be shown.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I have not got any information about that. I realise fully that the club cinemas are the only places where it may be shown publicly. Bear in mind that a club cinema is open to the public if they are members of the club. The difference is between showing in a club to a number of people or in a viewing booth at a sex shop, and having it in the home.
The Bill says people can have it in the home. The Members of another place decided that it should not be made unlawful. All I am dealing with here is whether the opportunities the Bill gives for acquisition of 18R films are reasonable in the circumstances and will give contentment to those who desire to have the arrangements, quite properly and lawfully, on a convenient scale for their own personal use.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, I want to be very brief. I have some sympathy with the thoughts behind these two groups of amendments. I must say that I thought licensed sex shops were set up in 1982 for the very purpose of dealing with this sort of material we are considering. I do not see that Amendment No. 27, by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, is a runner until we know more about it. Who is going to do the licensing? Under what arrangements will the licences be given? What is the actual purpose for which they would be licensed?
Lord Monson: My Lords, both the series of amendments are extremely important and worthwhile. On balance, I prefer the series headed by the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, is no friend of sex shops; I do not think there is any secret about that. Yet if this Bill remains unaltered it will mean enormous profits for certain sex shops, especially those in areas of the country where they are thin on the ground in consequence of earlier legislation with which the noble Lord had something to do. The huge profits will come about because of their quasi-monopoly position.
But there is a much more important factor. Some of your Lordships may have had a letter from a video dealer in Essex—a responsible-sounding individual who was strongly in favour of the Bill as a whole but who had important reservations. This dealer revealed that, contrary to popular supposition, the main customers for 18B or 18R films were not, as might be imagined, single people, mainly young bachelors. On the contrary, they were married couples who bought or hired these films in order to add spice to their sex life.
Generally such couples are interested only in normal, straightforward heterosexual sex. But if they are driven to sex shops in order to secure these 18B and 18R videos, is there not a danger—this was pointed out by the dealer in question—that for hardheaded commercial reasons the proprietors of these shops will try to interest these married couples in

753
much of the other material that they sell, a great deal of it nowadays concerned with perverted sex? Surely this is not something that we should wish to see.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I listened with close attention to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I have spent a good deal of time studying his schedule, because that is the substance of his proposition. While I take the point which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was making, his amendment does not have substance until we suggest how we are going to license, how the licences will operate and how they will be controlled.
Therefore, I regard Lord Houghton's amendment as a very serious amendment. I have spent a great deal of time studying and thinking about his schedule. Our difficulty is that in one way the noble Lord approaches the point, but in another way he does not. He speaks at length on the point about R 18 videos and their handling by the Bill. It is a fact that the R18 point is the most sensitive point in the whole Bill. That was certainly the case in another place, the history of which the noble Lord recounted very fairly and at length. It was clearly a matter of great difficulty in the Commons for a consensus to be achieved, but it was finally achieved.
The fact is that many noble Lords in this House, as well as many honourable Members in another place, wanted to see R18 videos excluded from classification on the grounds—and they were perfectly sound, practical grounds—that the viewing of films with that classification is legally limited to adults of 18 and only in licensed cinema clubs, and converting them to video tapes for viewing in the home or anywhere would allow them to be seen by anyone and by children of any age. So there was a perfectly logical point made by those who put forward that contention.
However, as the noble Lord had reminded us, the contrary argument is that the Bill is primarily a classification Bill and not a censorship Bill, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, says from time to time. Thus it was that those who objected to R18 being classified were persuaded to accept that R18 should be included in classification. But they did propose the safeguard of limiting the sale or hire of such video works to adults by confining it to licensed sex shops, where such regulations already exist.
As the noble Lord has rightly recorded, this amendment was put in by the House itself by a very large majority. I am not sure that the noble Lord was on very good ground when he said that the House of Commons did not understand what they were doing when they did it. They did it. The point here is that they felt that they had got to achieve a consensus somehow. They felt that classification was needed, and, therefore, they had to achieve a balance; and this is the way in which they did it.
I must say that throughout the conduct of this Bill in this House—and I will certainly admit to all noble Lords that this is a very complicated little Bill; indeed, as the sponsor I should apologise for its ever-growing complexity—I have tried to maintain that balance. I am perfectly certain that that is the only basis upon which either this House or the other place would accept it. It is a very delicate balance.
754
That is the background to what the noble Lord is now proposing. The conditions applying to the licensing of sex shops by local authorities are very tight indeed. Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, in the discussion of which many noble Lords took part, was completed after many hours of debate in this House to get it, as we thought, entirely right.
Local authorities were insistent that they should have the decision as to whether or not there should be a sex shop at all in their locality. Therefore, that was included in the schedule: they could decide that there should be a nil provision; they could also decide exactly what were the physical conditions with regard to the location of a sex shop. They were particularly keen that it should not be located alongside a school or anywhere like that. They were very strict that only adults over the age of 18 should enter, and that breach of that regulation would incur a penalty in that schedule of up to ₣10,000. Now I imagine that it is ₣20,000.
Although a great deal of work has been done on the new schedule (and that I recognise) which the noble Lord proposes in Amendment No. 51, it sets out a much looser control. It is true that the licensing authority may prescribe standard conditions applicable to licences, but those are not specified in the tight fashion that they were in the 1982 Act, and there is no obligation in the schedule with regard to limiting window displays. The age limit of 18 is there, but no penalty is mentioned as to what would happen if the regulation is broken. This means that the safeguard in that respect is greatly weakened. This is what it is all about.
Furthermore, the attitude of local authorities, which presumably would be the licensing authorities (although we do not know precisely), is that they are completely opposed to any extra duties without the certainty of the cost recoupment, and it is most unlikely that a fee of ₣350 would recover all their administrative costs.
However, much more serious from the point of view of local authorities is the lack of adequate power for a local authority to reject an application if it so desires. I can imagine that local authorities would have very much the same feelings about this as they had about sex shops. Of course, there would be no appeal. They were very firm about that. They realised that they were dealing with people who had vast financial strength behind them, and that if these facilities were made available, their legal costs would be infinite. Therefore, the House agreed that the proper way was for there to be no appeal.
Therefore, there are some very substantial practical points, which I am sure the noble Lord fully understands, involving the difference between his kind of licensing scheme and the scheme for the licensing of sex shops which now exists. I do not believe that in this delicate balance, to which I referred at the beginning, a change from the tight control of sex shops under the 1982 schedule regarding the sale of R18 material would seem the same to noble Lords here who are interested, as well as to honourable Members in another place. I think that they would regard this as a major change in the balance of the Bill. I am bound to

755
say that I regard it as seriously weakening the purpose of the Bill unless one could be absolutely sure that the licensing conditions were as effective as they are for sex shops. I do not think one could be sure on a schedule, even if local authorities were willing to do it.
Therefore, I believe that the objections which I have mentioned are of such gravity that if we proceeded to amend the Bill in the way in which the noble Lord wishes to amend it, we would endanger the passage of the Bill here and, most certainly, in another place, because we would disturb the balance on which a consensus was achieved in the other place. I believe that we would then lose the Bill itself.
I recognise both the hard work which the noble Lord has done in drawing up this schedule and the reasons that he has adduced to us for the way in which he has drawn it up. But I do not believe that, in these very difficult circumstances with which we are dealing, something which is so different from the very tightly regulated conditions of the 1982 schedule would be satisfactory. Therefore, I must advise your Lordships that we could not accept this amendment.
12.30 a.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I appreciate that the strong feeling in the great majority of Members of this House is of almost instinctive disgust at the kind of videos which the Bill is concerned with, and, from some of the sotto voce interjections this evening, at the things which are sold in sex shops. I appeal to the House not to allow that feeling of disgust to cloud its judgment when considering this series of amendments. As my noble friends have said, and indeed as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said, none of these preceding amendments makes any sense unless we are also considering Amendment 51 which brings in the new schedule.
It is necessary to look at the context in which these amendments are put forward. These amendments do not challenge the categories of film which are to be covered by the Bill. They do not challenge the classification. They are not concerned with those films—I take it they would be the video nastier—which are excluded from any classification by the designated authority. In other words, they are not concerned with those types of videos for which Members of this House feel this unfeigned disgust.
They are concerned with a different category, the category 18R, which in the terms of this Bill—which failed to be amended in another place—is approved of for selective viewing in certain places. The more general issues of morality which arise when considering the other categories, and those which fail to get classification, do not arise when we are concerned with this amendment.
The issue here is whether, having formed this category and allowed certain people to see those films under certain circumstances, it is right and proper to restrict that possibility to those who have access to—I must take my noble friend Lord Houghton's figures because I have no others—the fewer than 100 outlets in the country. Is it right to restrict it to those outlets
756
when, as has been said, also in those outlets are other materials (sexual aids and printed materials, and so on) which may well disgust those people who see no objection to the films in the 18R category?
It is a question here not of defining what is a proper thing to be shown. For the purpose of these amendments that is taken as read. It is a question of saying—having defined it, having said that it is acceptable for certain kinds of people—is it now the right thing to do to restrict it to a small proportion of the population simply dependent on where they live and on the attitude of their local authority to the wider range of materials available at sex shops?
I cannot see how the firm defenders of the Bill can defend this particular final restriction on the availability of material which they themselves wish to be available for certain categories of people. I cannot see how in the general terms—although in the fairly expressed general terms—in which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has objected to these amendments it can be possible for Members of this House to object to the principle behind these amendments.
I do not know whether the differences between my noble friends Lord Jenkins and Lord Houghton are important. I do not know whether the final drafting of the schedule, or of some of the preceding amendments, is perfect and beautiful. I know that it is not inconsistent at all with the purposes of the Bill, and it removes from the Bill the possibility that there is in effect a rationing by price to be introduced if these amendments are passed. I shall support whichever amendment is put to the vote.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, before I briefly give the further views to which I believe I am entitled, I should like to say to the right reverend Prelate that I do not go along with him in his wholesale condemnation of sex shops. I just see no reason at all why they should be selected out for special privilege in this fashion and given a monopoly of a new development which will no doubt increase their prosperity enormously. For that reason, I think this matter must be persisted with. But between them, my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, have convinced me that there must be a schedule to the Bill. One cannot provide for licensing without providing the means whereby the licensing may be carried away. I am therefore persuaded, having listened to the discussion, that my noble friend's amendments are more compatible with the schedule, because they were designed with the schedule in mind, than are my own amendments.
It would therefore be my view that, since this matter is one where I share my noble friend's views so cogently expressed just now, this matter must be pressed, and under those circumstances it would be my desire to withdraw my own series of amendments in favour of those in the name of my noble friend Lord Houghton, and to express the wish that he will seek the opinion of the House upon them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 8, line 36, at end insert ("or a video shop for which a licence is in force under this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 30.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if I understand correctly that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is not intending to speak more than those few words, I would only respond that I think my noble friend has spoken so ably on this Motion and given such cogent reasons, it is not necessary for me to speak further.
But I would just say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who said that the honourable Members in another place had acted, in effect, in ignorance and haste, that, as he rightly said, they spent a very long time discussing the matter of the 18R issue. That was exhaustively discussed in the committee. Then, at the end of it, my honourable friend, Mr. Graham Bright, came to the House at Report with the sex shop provision, and that was debated for exactly an hour. It happens, my Lords, that your Lordships debated the same issue for almost an hour a moment ago, and, if the subject was not completely exhausted, I think it very nearly was, and I think some of your Lordships nearly were too. So to suggest that the other place had acted in haste and ignorance, my Lords, I am afraid is simply not the case.
What the noble Lord is inviting your Lordships to do is to take the opinion of the House, and he seeks to persuade the House to fly in the face of the considered and long-gestated opinion of another place. Your Lordships will know what effect on the fate of this Bill that decision would have.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I want to add a plea, if I may, and I do it in all frankness. There has been a complaint made, as it were, by my noble friend Lord Houghton, that there are some local authorities—indeed, in Scotland, Northern Ireland and my own very dear county of Hampshire—which have decided that there should in fact be no sex shops.
This House has listened to many eloquent speeches from all Benches—and certainly not least the Benches on which I proudly sit—for the independence of local government and for the rights of local people and their representatives to decide what ought to be done in their locality. I am sure, therefore, that my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby will at least respect—whether or not he pities the people of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Hampshire—the fact that local, democratically elected representatives have decided what should happen in their area.
My noble friend Lord Houghton, as well as my noble friends Lord McIntosh and Lord Jenkins, all of whom have served in local government, or Government, or both, know that there are also democratically elected representatives who sit in another place representing the views of the people. They are the elected representatives of the people. That is supposed to be one of the reasons why complaints are made about the composition of this House. That is certainly not an issue that I intend to debate at this hour, nor on this subject. But the noble
758
Lord, Lord Houghton, has already said that this matter took up one half of the whole of the Committee's time which was given to this Bill. That democratically-elected House, through their representatives at Committee stage and, even more vocally, at Report stage—
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Oh, come, come, my Lords.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, my noble friend asks me to "Come, come". I certainly will "come, come" with the figures in the Division Lobby: the answer was 90-odd to three. If my noble friend does not like Division Lobbies and Division votes because he feels that they are automatic, I would remind him that to try to take any decision of a democratic nature at twenty minutes to one in the morning with a diminished House is hardly a way to test opinion in a Division Lobby. But the directly-elected representatives of the people decided by that 90-odd votes that this is the provision that they wanted in the Bill and that they did not want these 18R films to be procurable in any place other than licensed sex shops.
The third point is the last one that I make in an appeal to my noble friends, all of whom are as democratically minded as I am. I give myself no superiority to them at all in that regard; that is a matter on which we are completely united. The other place, having decided after that debate, both at Committee and Report stages, on the present provision, having debated all the issues, made their decision. My noble friends know as well as I do that it is impossible to envisage that the other place will change their decision if an amendment is put tonight and passed. It may be—and my noble friends, I am sure, realise it—that not only would their amendment not be passed tonight, but, because of numbers, it might succeed in adjourning the whole of the proceedings, which would hardly be a democratic thing to do. It would be done in the face of knowing perfectly well that this amendment, if passed, would not be accepted in another place. I speak again personally, as I have the whole time.
What would happen is that at nearly a quarter to one in the morning, with this sparse House, this Bill, which the majority in this House favour and want to see passed as soon as possible, would, by undemocratic methods, be defeated and would stand right in the face of the opinion of the majority of the people in this Chamber, not only tonight but on previous occasions.
I appeal to my noble friends in these circumstances not to press this matter to a Division when they know that the result will be a completely negative one in the face of the democratic wish of this House and another place, and of local government as a whole. In those circumstances, I can but make the plea. If it fails, I shall be disappointed in my noble friends; but then my noble friends are often disappointed in me. I shall therefore have to go away from this place with that feeling of disappointment. But I do make that plea because I know that I am talking to democrats and if they force this issue in these circumstances, it will be the most undemocratic thing that they have done.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Really, my Lords, no one would think that I had been in two Houses of Parliament for 35 years, would they, after having listened to this patronising lecture from my noble friend. I am fully aware of all the problems and circumstances here. But your Lordships' House will be urged by my noble friend in connection with the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill to send things back to the House of Commons knowing just as firmly that they will not have them on that Bill as he believes that they will not have them on this.
This House does not pay regard necessarily to the attitude of the House of Commons. What it does is to send something back to the House of Commons for reconsideration in the light of new circumstances or of different opinions. I claim to have brought before your Lordships' House conditions which were not known to Members of another place when they reached their decision on 16th March. The main point of the debate in the Standing Committee was not whether 18R should go to a sex shop but whether they should support the Home Secretary who wanted to ban it altogether. And they were expressing good reasons from the point of view of representations made by the constituents why they should not ban it altogether. Nothing was done in Standing Committee about sex shops, and the consideration came in the afternoon of Friday, 16th March, when the Report and Third Reading were completed in another place.
I can only say that when the House is sitting, those who are not here could be here if they chose and were able to be. Democracy has not excluded anybody. Therefore, decisions have been reached one way or another at all hours of the day and night on matters of great importance. One can only follow the procedures of the House. What does my noble friend think I am going to do by not pressing this to a Division or withdrawing it or surrendering it?
I will not surrender on this matter. I believe that this is of profound importance to those who are entitled under the law to reasonable convenience in the procurement of something which at the present time is open to purchase freely in shops up and down the country. And let me just remind him finally of this. The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, which gave local authorities the power to ban sex shops altogether from their areas, was at variance with the provisions made in the past on similar controversial activities which sought to open up in local authorities up and down the country. Betting shops were one instance. The publicans do not go to local authorities; the off-licencees do not go to local authorities; the betting shops do not go to local authorities; the gaming shops do not go to local authorities. Some local authorities would probably stop the lot if they had the opportunity of doing so.
But there are some things which rise above the so-called democratic decision of a local authority—very often capricious, very often on party lines, very often for all sorts of other reasons which we need not discuss. But the issue is plain. This House is not asked to pass changes in the Bill in its final form. This is what this House should traditionally do if it so feels; that is, send something back to the other place and say, "This is what we think. Do you agree?" If they do not, it comes
760
back here and, traditionally also, we give way to the final view of the elected Chamber. My noble friend is seeking to deny some of us the opportunity of doing this. With great regret, I must say that I did not deserve his lecture. I will not accept it. So far as I am concerned, I am going to say. "Content!" until I cannot speak any more.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, with the permission of the House and before my noble friend takes his very honoured seat, I say only this to him. I do not impose any lecture upon him. I merely talk to him as one colleague to another, and I hope with due respect. If a democratic decision upon this issue is really wanted, my noble friend has a completely obvious task; it is to withdraw the amendment at this stage—
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me to finish, I shall give way. The task is not to try to impose a Division at this time, with this meagre number and with the obvious result, but to withdraw at this stage and bring it forward if he wishes at Third Reading at a respectable hour and with noble Lords present who could not be present at 12.50 a.m. only because they do not have the agility of my noble friend even though they may be considerably younger.
That is the appropriate thing to do so that a proper vote can be taken without the defeating end which taking a Division at this hour would have. I can only make the appeal to my noble friend. He has rights, and all noble Lords know it, but I do make the appeal because I know that when I am talking to my noble friend I am talking to a democrat who has sat with great distinction in two Parliaments.
12.51 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 30) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

McIntosh of Haringey

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Monson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Long, V.

Attlee, E.

Mishcon, L.

Beswick, L.

Morris. L.

Buckmaster, V.

Norwich, Bp.

Denham, L.

Nugent of Guildford, [Teller.]

Elton, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Grantchester, L.

Rugby, L.

Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

Saltoun, Ly.

Lauderdale, E.

Swinfen, L.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, as it appears that fewer than 30 Lords have voted, in accordance with Standing Order No. 55 I declare the Question not decided, and the further proceedings on the Bill stand adjourned.

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments.

Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments.
House adjourned at one o'clock.