Lords Sitting of 27 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 Rochester.

Royal Irish Rangers
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have under consideration any proposals for the removal of the depot and of the training of their regular recruits, the Royal Irish Rangers, from Ballymena and, if so, what these proposals are.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, a recent review of individual training in the British Army covered all depots in the United Kingdom, including that of the Royal Irish Rangers at Ballymena. It made a large number of recommendations, all of which are under current study. No decisions have yet been taken about any individual establishment. It would be premature to detail any particular proposal at this stage.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Quite apart from the damage to the morale of and the recruiting for this particular regiment which might ensue from its removal from Northern Ireland, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government have considered the enormous political damage that might result from taking it out of Ireland? This is the last Irish regiment in the British Army and its removal could possibly be analogous with the withdrawal of HMS "Endurance" from the Falkland Islands, which gave to the Argentine Government the impression that we were about to pull out of the Falkland Islands.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there are of course important considerations, such as those to which my noble friend has referred, which need to be taken into account in making decisions of this kind, and I can assure my noble friend that they will be.
Lord O'Neill of the Maine: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the importance of this depot to the excellent country town of Ballymena, in terms of both the life of the town and employment there?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of the point which my noble friend makes. and that, too, will be taken into account.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I want, if I may, to add my support to the noble Earl in raising this matter,
908
because I had the privilege of visiting the regiment and its predecessors. I think that it would be a very sad day for the regiment as regards morale and other considerations if it lost its depot in Ballymena. It is good to know that as yet decisions have not been taken, and I hope that the noble Earl's proposal will be well considered.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords. I hear what the noble Lord says. These, too, are important considerations. The noble Lord said that he had visited this establishment. I, too, hope to have the chance to do so.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he will pay particular attention to the fact that the Royal Irish Rangers are the only remaining link with Northern Ireland? Other regiments which have the word "Irish" in their titles recruit from a wider range, in Britain itself, and the Royal Irish Rangers have the unique distinction of being the descendants of three famous fighting regiments with many battle honours. They should surely not be relegated to training in England if it is at all feasible for them to remain in their own native land.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we shall certainly want to take into account the kind of views expressed by my noble friend. However, perhaps it is worth pointing out that although the regimental headquarters, as has been said, is presently in Ballymena, the units of the regiment are deployed elsewhere.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the review which he has mentioned, so far as the Royal Irish Rangers are concerned, concentrates mainly on training as part of his ministry's present efficiency drive, or whether it goes more widely than that?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the review to which the noble Lord refers is principally concerned with training matters, and a version of the report is available in the Library of your Lordships' House.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that my Question has nothing whatever to do with the regimental headquarters, which consists of one officer and one clerk, but is to do with the depot and the training and the recruiting of the whole regiment?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am of course aware of the recruiting implications of my noble friend's Question, and that is why I replied as I did.
Lord Blease: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that this matter has given rise to considerable concern throughout the Province during the last few months and has also given rise to rumours about an aspect even wider than the training of the Ulster Rangers? May I ask him whether he will take an early opportunity to have consultations with the local representatives, or take an opportunity. during his visit, to scotch, or to rule out. any of the rumours arising from this particular issue?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, decisions in relation to this matter will be announced in due course. However, perhaps I ought to say that the context in which the report which has been referred to has been prepared has been one in which the size of the British Army has contracted quite considerably over recent years. It was therefore appropriate to look at the size of the Army's training machine, including the establishment that has been referred to in this Question.

Oftel: Staffing Requirements
2.42 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have now made a revised estimate of the staffing requirements of Oftel and of its annual cost.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, because of the additional duties falling on the director general both under the Bill as now enacted and under the licence, provision has been made for the number of staff to increase in the course of the year from an initial figure of 50 to 84. Expenditure this year is now estimated at £2,530,000 and the future annual cost at £3 million to £3½ million.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. May I ask him whether he is aware that during the passage of the Bill through this House, and, indeed, after many amendments had been made to it, he was taxed with the whole question of Oftel expenditure and stoutly maintained the contents of the financial memorandum of the Bill, which of course put the figure for staff at 50? Does that not indicate that the Bill's financial provisions and its planning were ill thought-out prior to its presentation to the House? How does the noble Lord explain the increased cost to the taxpayer, particularly in the light of the fact that the new director general, in an interview that he gave to the Sunday Times on 27th May, said that this number of extra staff would make the total staff rather on the smallish side? Will the noble Lord give a further undertaking that the expense of this quango will he kept under very close review?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am happy to acknowledge the fact that the noble Lord raised this matter on a number of occasions during our proceedings on the Bill. Equally I made it clear that if the provision proved to be inadequate we would ensure that additional resources were made available. For example, if I may quote from column 1340, on 6th February I said:
"I can assure Members of the Committee that we shall keep matters under review, and if in the light of the developments an increase in complement is called for it will be considered very sympathetically".
On another occasion I said:
"If experience shows that the director cannot carry out his duties with 50 people, the staffing level will be reconsidered".— [Official Report, 6/2/84; col 1352.]
910
I said specifically that it would be sympathetically reconsidered. In this instance the noble Lord is right in having raised the matter and I am correct in having carried out the undertaking that I gave. This is an unusual but happy coincidence of views.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that during the passage of the Bill many of us on these Benches also pointed out that, if the regulatory authority was to be truly effective, it would need more people and more money? We are delighted that the Government and the new director general have thought fit to try to strengthen it. May I add that one hopes that perhaps the calibre of the people will be exceptionally good so that they can carry out their very difficult and extensive duties in keeping a monopoly which has 96 per cent. of the business under control and avoiding cross-subsidisation, as laid down in the new licence published this morning.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the support that he gives me. Perhaps I might respond by saying that my noble friend Lord Glenarthur also made it clear that if additional resources were required they would be made available.

The Chamber: Ceiling Repairs
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made on the repairs to the ceiling of this Chamber.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am happy to tell the House that the restoration of the ceiling of this Chamber has progressed according to plan during the last year and is now nearing completion. Work to refix the original painted panels and timber carvings, and to redecorate the ceiling should be completed next month. All that then remains to be done is the cleaning and restoring of the painted stone wall arches and the removal of the scaffolding deck. This will take place during the Summer Recess. By the time the House returns in the autumn, the ceiling should be visible in all its former glory. May I take this opportunity to thank noble Lords for their patience and understanding throughout this project.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can he confirm that the final cost will be within the budget mentioned three years ago? Will he please also convey to all those who worked on the ceiling—and I saw it last week—our congratulations? Can he also please comment on the problems of the new gilding of the ceiling, which I understand will be dulled down as much as possible because of the contrast between the ceiling and the Throne in your Lordships' Chamber?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I, too, should like to pay tribute to the Property Services Agency and to the firms involved in the work. The work should be

911
finished in complete accordance with the timetable we were given three years ago, and well within the original estimate of cost. In fact, I understand that the cost will be slightly less than £1½ million. As far as concerns other decoration that may be required, I realise that the redecoration of the ceiling may highlight the need to redecorate some or all of the remainder of the Chamber. This will be undertaken as and when resources and time permit, but a refurbishment of the Throne canopy is to be put in hand shortly.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, is it not the Magna Carta barons up there above the Gallery, nearest to the ceiling, who will be most in need of refurbishment? Otherwise, the dullness of their gilt will contrast rather starkly with the brightness of the new gilt, I would imagine.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is certainly intended to wash the Magna Carta barons at both ends of the Chamber so that the gilt will become more obvious, but it is not intended at this moment to regild those particular statues where the gilt exists on, for example, the belt buttons.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, may I add my congratulations to those working on the ceiling on the fact that it is about to be successfully completed? May I ask what has happened about the air-conditioning, and whether that will be put in before the ceiling is finished or whether it will have to wait until the ceiling is finished? I understand that the air-conditioning is not functioning.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is a slightly different question. I am glad to say that the position is temporary. The London Electricity Board has suffered a major transformer failure on the Charing Cross supply to the Palace of Westminster. Repairs will take approximately one week, and normal supplies to the Palace will not be restored before 3rd July. The House is being supplied with electricity from the Property Services Agency's standby power station in Whitehall. Until supplies are back to normal, provision of cooling will not be possible in the Chamber, but ventilation will still be available. In order to tie this answer in with my previous answers, perhaps I should say that it will not unduly affect the work on the ceiling. I agree with my noble friend that the work on the ceiling has had a very satisfactory outcome.
Lord Scarman: My Lords, is not the real importance that the ceiling should not fall down on the Cross-Benches?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the real importance is that the ceiling should not fall down anywhere. I agree with the noble and learned Lord.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords. arising out of the question of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, may I ask whether it would not be a nice gesture for the survivor of the knob which fell down that in October there should be a celebration at the same time as the ceiling is unveiled?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I understand that discussions on a small celebration for the reopening of the ceiling are happening at the moment, and I have no doubt that at some stage there will be an announcement on the subject from the Woolsack. I also bear in mind the magic date of 18th October.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, can the Minister assure me that these heavy steel bars and tubes above my head are safely fixed in their place?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes. They are very well fixed in their place, and my understanding is that they will remain so.
Lord Morris: My Lords, might I ask my noble friend whether the ceiling in the Peers' Lobby will be completed at the same time as the ceiling in the Chamber?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no. Regretfully there are great problems in the Peers' Lobby. Additional loading has been placed upon the supporting cast-iron beams, which is causing great concern. As your Lordships will have noticed, a protective scaffolding and platform have been erected, and work above the platform should start this summer. I am afraid that I cannot give the House any information as to how long it might take.

Supplementary Benefits: Heating Addition
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how much assistance was given to the less well-off with their heating bills in 1983–84 and in 1978–79.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, supplementary benefit rates are intended to pay for all day-to-day expenses, including fuel. In addition, heating additions are given to those supplementary benefit claimants who need to spend extra on fuel because of frailty, illness, disability, or because their homes are hard to heat. The Government spent about £380 million on heating additions in 1983–84—about £130 million more in real terms than the £124 million spent in 1978–79.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend the Minister for his very full and helpful reply, may I ask him to illustrate how much the least well off are benefiting from this addition by stating what proportion of those who receive it are supplementary pensioners?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the proportion of supplementary pensioners with heating additions has gone up from about 70 per cent. in 1978 to about 90 per cent. in 1982, and the proportion of unemployed people with heating additions has gone up from about

913
15 per cent. to about 30 per cent. These increases are probably largely due to the introduction of automatic heating additions for householders whose family includes someone over 70 or someone under five years of age. The extension of automatic heating additions to those over 65 will further increase the proportion of supplementary pensioners with heating additions.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the Minister accept that any assistance is welcome; but, knowing how he likes to be fair and not selective, may I remind him of how his Government have deliberately increased fuel costs in the same period by the continued imposition of the fuel tax? Is he further aware that, according to a report in the Guardian of 23rd June, pensioners on supplementary benefit, already in receipt of heating additions, will lose up to £1 per week from November this year?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the question of the charges made by companies such as the electricity boards and the gas hoards for the provision of their services is something which has been discussed in your Lordships' House on several occasions at Question Time. and the case has been made perfectly clearly for the increases which were made by them. In regard to the article in the Guardian, I think the noble Lord may be referring to the available scale margin. That of course is being increased, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced last week, and there are perfectly sound reasons for doing so.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, are there not two additional means by which the Government can help the least well off—and indeed the rest of us—in relation to fuel prices? First of all, can the noble Lord give an assurance that the Government will not intervene next year to artificially increase the price of electricity, and perhaps gas? Secondly, will he prevail upon Her Majesty's Government to settle the miners' strike, which is costing so much in the use of extra oil, by setting up a court of inquiry to examine the industry?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with respect, both those questions are different questions and they go wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord George-Brown: My Lords, I apologise slightly for moving my position, but I was listening with interest to the Minister. I understood him to say that the case for the boards increasing their charges—that is to say, the gas and electricity boards—had been made clearly. But is he not misleading the House? Is it not true that the chairman of each board has made it plain that the last thing on earth he or his board wanted to do was to increase their charges, because it was unjustified, and that in fact they were required by the Government to place what was a hidden tax upon the charges for gas and electricity?
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, with all respect to the noble Lord, he has had his say, but I think he must know that it has absolutely nothing to do with the Question that was asked.
Lord George-Brown: My Lords, I beg the noble Viscount's pardon. With great respect, it has everything to do with it, because the Minister said it. All I am doing is asking the Minister to justify a statement, which I would have said is clearly not true, by reference to the statements made by the chairmen of the boards. With great respect to the noble Viscount, how can that be not relevant, since the Minister is denying what in fact was said?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, I appreciate what he says, and I did not wish to be unreasonable. But I think the question he is posing should be addressed to the Energy Department and not to the Department of Health and Social Security. If he wishes to put down a Question of that sort, it will be answered in the normal way by the Government.
Lord George-Brown: My Lords, I shall do so.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that that part of the code of practice governing the cutting off of electricity supplies to people in arrears of payment, that part of the code which covers elderly people living alone who should have been in receipt of heating benefits but were not receiving them, will not be put into operation until that business has been sorted out?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is for the fuel industries themselves to decide, within their code of practice, whether or not to disconnect a debtor's supply. and we have no power to intervene in individual cases.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he could compare, in real terms, the rates of supplementary benefit today with those in 1978-79, since we are on the question of trying to plan for the future against hypothermia?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords. Between November 1978 and November 1983 the rates of supplementary benefit were increased in value by 5 per cent. in real terms, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced in another place on 18th June that the rates will be increased in November in line with the rise in the retail price index, less housing costs. In comparison, under the last Administration of the party opposite, no real increase in these rates occurred.

European Council: Fontainebleau
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the European Council Meeting at Fontainebleau.

Judicial Sittings: Precedence
3 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I wish to make a Statement about certain

915
alterations in the arrangements to be followed at sittings for judicial business. As your Lordships know, the practice is that at sittings in the House itself, if present, the Lord Chancellor presides on the Woolsack. If he is not present, precedence is governed by a Royal Commission issued on 22nd May 1969. That Commission, replaced one issued by Queen Victoria in February 1900, and provides that in the absence of the Lord Chancellor one of the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary is to preside over the hearing of appeals.
Before it was changed in 1969, the custom was that in the absence of either the Lord Chancellor or an ex-Lord Chancellor, the senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary would sit Speaker, seniority being based on the seniority in the peerage, so that a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary holding a higher rank in the peerage would take precedence over one holding a lower rank in the peerage.
On 22nd May 1969 my predecessor the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, introduced two changes which, in a Statement, he announced to the House that day. He said that the heavily increased burden of work on the office of Lord Chancellor had drastically restricted the opportunities for serving Lord Chancellors to sit judicially and to gain judicial experience. He therefore thought it wrong that ex-Lord Chancellors should continue to be obliged to sit Speaker when the serving Lord Chancellor was not present, since they were likely to be less qualified by experience than serving Law Lords. He therefore announced his decision that, in the absence of the Lord Chancellor the senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary should sit Speaker. The new Royal Commission then issued had the effect of removing the former precedence given to ex-Lord Chancellors. The other change made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, was that the seniority of a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary for the purpose of presiding at judicial sittings should he reckoned from the date of his first appointment as such and without regard to his rank in the peerage.
Since 1969 this has continued to be the rule. Accordingly. if present, the Lord Chancellor presides and in his absence the Woolsack is taken by the senior Lord of Appeal present, seniority being reckoned from the date of first appointment.
In due course an amendment was made to Standing Orders to ensure that precedence should be the same at sittings of the Appellate and Appeal Committees as in the House itself. Standing Order 82, which is now the relevant order, provides in paragraph (4) that, if present, the Lord Chancellor, or in his absence the senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, is to take the chair. Paragraph (5) provides that for this purpose seniority is to be determined by reference to the date of first appointment to the office of Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, without regard to rank in the peerage.
I believe that there has been general agreement that the changes brought about by my noble and learned predecessor were a considerable improvement. Nevertheless, the position is still not ideal, in that the duty of presiding is still governed by the order in the appointment of the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary.
916
The matter has now come to a head. My noble and learned friend Lord Diplock recently told me that he had decided that the time had come for him to cease presiding as the senior Lord of Appeal. But I am happy to say that, assuming that his health permits him to do so, he still wishes to continue sitting as an ordinary Lord of Appeal. He has therefore authorised me to tell your Lordships that he intends this change to take effect when the House rises for the Summer Recess.
Lord Diplock's decision has made it necessary for me to review the current arrangements. This has persuaded me that the time has now come to bring the arrangements in the House and in the Appeal and Appellate Committees into line with what is now the normal practice in other parts of the judicial system.
I have therefore advised Her Majesty that it would be appropriate for her in future to appoint the senior and second senior Law Lords who, between them, normally preside over two sittings of Committees, or of the House and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to accept this advice. She has given effect to it by the issue today of a new Royal Commission to replace that of 22nd May 1969. This commission provides that, in the absence of the Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, in that order, is to preside. In the absence of either or both of them, precedence among the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary will thereafter continue to be governed, as before, by the date of first appointment without regard to rank in the peerage.
This will continue to be the position until the Summer Recess. It is right to inform your Lordships that, when the noble and learned Lord then gives up his position as the senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, my present intention is to advise Her Majesty that he should be succeeded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, who is next in turn under the present arrangements, and that he in turn should be succeeded as the second senior by my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman.
This of course is confined to the position regarding judicial sittings in the House itself. In my view it follows that the position should be the same in sittings of the Appellate and the Appeal Committees, and for this purpose I intend now to place on the Order Paper an amendment to Standing Order 82 to achieve this end.
If I may, I would like to conclude by adding a word about the position in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Since 1969 precedence there has followed the same rules as in your Lordships' House. My right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council has authorised me to say that he agrees that the time has now come for a corresponding change in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and that he considers that from now on similar arrangements should be adopted there to those which I have described.
I feel that I should not let this occasion pass without a warm tribute to the contribution made to the work of this House by my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock and his predecessor as senior Law Lord, my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce. I have

917
known both since undergraduate days. I would like to say that it is quite impossible to exaggerate the contribution that each has made to the jurisprudence of the United Kingdom and, through the Privy Council, to that of the Commonwealth.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.7 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for making this important Statement and lifting perhaps the veil over what goes on in the esoteric upper circles of the judiciary. For my own part, I would like to express my full agreement with the decisions that have been made and the decision of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as to the future.
I should like to pay my tribute also to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Diplock and Lord Wilberforce, whose contribution to the law in our own country, in the Commonwealth and internationally has been outstanding. They are two among the greatest judges that our country has produced. May I also be permitted—you cannot stop me, my Lords—from expressing my congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, who has already made a distinguished mark upon the judiciary and, if I may say so, upon the proceedings of this House.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I would not want to make any comment on the bulk of the Statement made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I assume that it is made clearly with the full approval of the Law Lords.
In relation to the last paragraph of the Statement, I should like to add only one comment as someone who has occupied the position, which I suspect has never been occupied by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, of appearing before the noble and learned Lords, Lord Wilberforce and Lord Diplock. However formidable that was in prospect, in practice it was invariably stimulating and encouraging. I know that the Bar of England and Wales would want to take this opportunity of saying how very much they wish to support the tribute paid by the noble and learned Lord to those two distinguished Law Lords for the very, very great contribution that they have made to the law of England.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I would like to thank both the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord for supporting me. Of course, I consulted the Law Lords; and I have appeared before both of my noble and learned friends, and I can endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has said.
Lord Diplock: My Lords, while associating myself with the comments which have been so kindly made about the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and dissociating myself from those which have been made about me, I hope that it will not be thought to be out of place if, as the longest serving, by many years, of the current Law Lords, I were to express my full support for the changes which my noble and learned friend upon the Woolsack proposes to make with regard to the office of presiding over the Appellate
918
Committee and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Twenty-three years of sitting in appellate courts, both as a member and during the last nine years habitually as presider, have taught me that the task of presiding over a plurality of judges in such a way as to promote an efficient and expeditious way of dealing with appeals is not the same as producing judgments which clarify and develop the law. The tasks call for different qualities. They may be combined in the same judge, but also they may not. To preside is a more taxing task, and increasing age may well render a judge less fit to undertake it, though still leave unimpaired his ability to produce judgments which clarify and develop the law.
For efficient administration of justice in the highest court in the United Kingdom seniority ought not to be the sole criterion to preside. No reflection is intended on any appellate judge that he should sit in a court presided over by one appointed later than himself. I desire to set an example, and as a consequence I have told the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, as he has informed us, that I wish to retire as presiding Law Lord at the end of July this year, much as I still enjoy the task of presiding. However, if my health permits, I would wish to continue to sit as a non-presiding Law Lord, at any rate for a few months or so, until the fatal, but important, date when the next rise in our salary will be due!

Selby Bridge Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with the amendments.

Judicial Standing Orders
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor rose to move, That the following amendment be made to the Standing Orders regulating Judicial Business: —
Standing Order XIII
Leave out paragraph (2).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name. I must explain that it has nothing to do with the Statement that I have just made, and the Motion to which I then referred will be laid before the House at a later date.
The paragraph which I am now asking the House to delete from the Judicial Standing Orders covers appeals in forma pauperis. By 1973 the only such appeals to survive were those from Northern Ireland. In that year, however, a Statute Law (Repeals) Act was passed repealing the Appeals (Forma Pauperis) Act 1893. With that repeal the last vestiges of appeals in forma pauperis disappeared, and paragraph (2) of Standing Order XIII is therefore obsolete. I beg to move.
Moved, That the following amendment be made to the Standing Orders regulating Judicial Business: —
Standing Order XIII
Leave out paragraph (2).—(The Lord Chancellor).
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I welcome the change. Since those far off days (I shall not call them halcyon days) such a thing as legal aid has—thank God!—come into existence.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Civil Aviation Policy
3.15 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil rose to call attention to current problems of civil aviation policy, including those arising in connection with the forthcoming privatisation of British Airways and the future of airports in the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is the first time that I have had the privilege of moving a Motion in your Lordships' House, and I am particularly glad that it should be concerned with transport. I am glad because it is possible for me to welcome the reassembly of the various limbs of transport which have hitherto been distributed among various Government departments. I am delighted that transport has been delivered from the thraldom of the Department of the Environment, even if it is still confined in that most hideous of all buildings in Marsham Street.
The timing of this debate and, indeed, that which took place in another place on Friday, will perhaps strike your Lordships as distinctly odd. The Government's lips are, of course, sealed. The fact that they are sealed enabled the Secretary of State in another place to adopt a fairly relaxed position about some of the difficult problems which confront him. The Minister's lips are sealed because civil aviation policy is under review by the Civil Aviation Authority. Air traffic movements limits are at present the subject of consultation. Scottish airports are under review. For good measure, the Select Committee in another place is investigating United States airports, and Stansted, I need hardly say, has been the subject of an official inquiry. While we await that report with eagerness, I hope that it may be permissible to comment what very expensive, long drawn-out proceedings these inquiries have become. I cannot believe that, in a country which prides itself on being able to manage its affairs with some order, proceedings of this kind will be tolerated indefinitely.
However, while accepting the fact that the timing of this debate, for the reasons which I have given, is somewhat odd, we must also assume that it is merely the forerunner of others when the Government have reached their various conclusions and decisions. But we must take comfort from the Government's readiness to listen.
Taking 1983 as the base year, air traffic, measured in terms of revenue-passenger miles, is likely to double by 1995. Indeed, the Secretary of State himself has said that the seven airports of the British Airports Authority, which now handle 45.9 million passengers, will be handling over 100 million by the year 2,000. In those circumstances it is surely permissible to ask what plans the Government have, first, to accommodate
920
that growth and, secondly, for this country to participate in it.
First, I should like to make a few remarks about airports. As the Government are inclined to take notice of what is done in the United States, perhaps I may remind the Government and Ministers that in the United States there is a national aerospace plan—an example which I think we could usefully follow here. In another place last Friday the Secretary of State said, at col. 599, that airports:
"should be operated on a fully commercial basis".
I believe that that statement needs some qualification in that there has to be asked the question: to what extent should some airports be obliged to support others, and also what restrictions is it reasonable to place upon airports in the use of their own assets? For instance, at the very time that Terminal 4 is to come into operation next year a limit will be placed upon air traffic movements of 275,000. How reasonable and sensible is the coincidence of those two things?
The Secretary of State has himself said that by 1990 people affected by Heathrow noise will be down to 300,000 from the present level of about one million. What I fear is that in this context, as in others, rules, once laid down, are allowed to outlive their justification, because there is always somebody to be found who wants to stop someone else doing something—and that applies particularly in our country.
I want to ask the Minister, despite all the difficulties that he has in speaking openly today, what other steps the Government intend to accommodate this growth of traffic. I ask that question because some options, it seems, if not finally closed are at least not really very open ones. I refer to such things as Stansted, a second runway at Gatwick, and the possibility of a fifth terminal at Heathrow. There may be a case for the privatisation of airports—and may I pause to join with others in condemning that ghastly word which has so easily passed into our language. It is ugly and misleading. Ministers have it in mind, I do not doubt—and they certainly should—that they will earn esteem or reprobation according to the success or failure of our efforts in accommodating the growth in air traffic.
I should like to pass briefly to the question of communications between airports. It is common knowledge that our air space and our roads are congested, and that rail, save for Gatwick, is not a factor at all. In these circumstances, what view does the Ministry of Transport take of the helicopter? Here I should like to remind your Lordships that as Member of Parliament for Yeovil for many years I was much involved with Westland Aircraft, and I should tell your Lordships that even now from time to time they are wise enough, or foolish enough, to seek my advice. The helicopter is a highly versatile aeroplane. Like others, it is becoming safer, more reliable and less noisy. It has many and varied uses. Incidentally, those who are concerned with its safety should not read just the rather tendentious headlines which arose from a recent report but, to get the true picture, should read the whole report.
The Ministry of Transport, despite its newly-won freedom, is remarkably silent, mute, when it comes to

921
the subject of helicopters. In another place the Secretary of State confined himself to these words on this subject:
"There are helicopters too".
without, I am bound to say, shedding a great deal of light upon the issue to which I am now referring. But the Parliamentary Secretary's handling of the issue was, if I may say so, even more depressing. It overturned, without many reasons, the Civil Aviation Authority's decision to extend for 10 years the Heathrow to Gatwick link. That, I must say to your Lordships, was the echo of a disappointing meeting which I had myself had earlier in the year with the Parliamentary Secretary.
I would now ask my noble friend on the Front Bench whether he will encourage his colleagues to ask themselves these questions. How sensible is it to treat the helicopter in the same way as a fixed-winged aircraft, as is now done at both Gatwick and Heathrow? How sensible is it to treat each landing and take-off of a helicopter as an air traffic movement counting within the quota? How sensible is it to oblige helicopters to fly low over urban areas, thus maximising the noise and increasing, of course the annoyance? How sensible is it to condemn the aeroplane as noisy and not to say what degree of noise is acceptable? Finally, how sensible is it to soldier on without even the plans for a permanent all-weather heliport with adequate land communications?
Perhaps my noble friend would ask his colleagues this question, too. What, incidentally, do they think of the prospects for the civil version of the EH. 101, which the Government as a whole are now engaged in financing jointly with the Italian Government? To take, again, an American example, the United States has a National Rotorcraft Master Plan. Perhaps we might launch ourselves upon such an exercise.
I turn to the question of this country's ability to participate in the growth in air traffic. The Government intend to sell shares in British Airways. They gave to Lord King a remit to repair the airline's fortunes. Of course, the independents would like the Government to carve off a slice of British Airways and give it to them. I do not know (nor, so far as I am aware, have the independent airlines said) how big a slice they are referring to, nor how much they would be willing to pay for it. But I think that your Lordships and the Government would wish to carefully examine the possible implications and repercussions which would attend upon the dismemberment of British Airways.
First of all, there is the possibility—I should have thought the likelihood—that the sale price would, by a measure, be reduced even if the sale itself were not put in jeopardy. It would, of course, involve the Government turning back on the words used by Sir John Nott in 1979:
"I do not propose that any part of British Airways should be broken up or sold off".
There would, of course, be repercussions within British Airways itself. It would look to those engaged in the airline as though their efforts—and very considerable they have been—had made but little impact, and that their reward was going to be further redundancies.
922
I believe that an inevitable consequence of any serious dismemberment of the airline would be to weaken British Airways, which has to compete with other international airlines as large as or larger than itself. This point was well taken in the Civil Aviation Authority's interim assessment in paragraph 2.2.9 where it says:
"In the United States the typical method for dealing with a dominant enterprise under the Anti-Trust laws is to break it up into smaller units. In the United Kingdom this solution has to be weighed against the many advantages to the UK in having a large, strong and highly competitive major flag carrier. British Airways has the muscle to take on the most able and aggressive of the world's largest airlines, some of which have even greater access to highly profitable markets than does British Airways. There is also something to be said for doing nothing to weaken a national airline that has the strength to weather the worst extremes of the economic cycle."
I believe those words are worthy of very careful consideration and should be given due weight.
Dismemberment I believe would be attended by a warm round of cheering from Pan American, Lufthansa, Air France and the rest. Incidentally I cannot help remarking that while I applaud the efforts made by the Secretary of State to obtain Dutch agreement to a reduced fare between London and Amsterdam, nevertheless I doubt the wisdom of allowing KLM free access to this market as a condition of the agreement. I really cannot help feeling that the Dutch minister and KLM must be laughing all the way to the airport.
Sir Adam Thomson has put the case—as one would expect from him—powerfully on behalf of the independent airlines. He has suggested that my noble friend Lord King is conducting himself in the way that Caesar did. Well, those who use Cassius's words must themselves expect to be compared with Cassius: perhaps to have it suggested that they too have a lean and hungry look. It is very hard indeed, for the reasons which I have sought to give, that either the Civil Aviation Authority or the Government will, in these circumstances, opt for dismemberment.
In conclusion, I should like to say this, because I feel that in some of my remarks I may have given the impression that I thought the task of the Secretary of State easy: I do not in any way under-rate the huge difficulties which confront him. I wish him well in facing them. He lacks time, space and money. He has responsibility for transport in a country which has become skilled at protest, and which is much given to inquiries; a country in which people wish to move about freely, but to be as little disturbed as possible by others who are attempting to do precisely the same thing.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

European Council: Fontainebleau
3.33 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister about the European Council in Fontainebleau on 25th and 26th June.
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the European Council in

923
Fontainebleau on 25th-26th June, at which I was accompanied by my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
"I am glad to tell the House that the European Council reached agreement on a fairer and more soundly based system for the United Kingdom's financial contribution to the Community. This is a successful culmination of our long and persistent efforts to correct the budget inequity and to put the United Kingdom's refunds on a lasting basis.
"The main features of this agreement are, first, that it provides for a refund of about £600 million (1,000 million ECU) in 1984, with the new system in effect thereafter. Under the new system the United Kingdom will get a rebate of 66 per cent. of the gap between our share of VAT and our share of expenditure. This means that, in terms of our marginal net contribution, the United Kingdom will be contributing not about 21 per cent. as we are liable to do at present but about 7 per cent. to new Community expenditure. This arrangement is far better than anything previously on offer and far better than the offer of the other Nine member states at the last European Council.
"Secondly, this system can only be changed by a unanimous decision by all member governments and ratified by their Parliaments. The benefits for the United Kingdom will continue unless and until we ourselves agree to change it.
"Thirdly, the advantages of the system will be available to us from 1985. We shall have the arbitrary refund of about £600 million for the single year 1984 only. This is a substantially better situation for the United Kingdom than was on offer earlier.
"Fourthly, the refunds will be implemented, as we have requested, by reducing the United Kingdom's VAT payments to the Community in each successive year.
"The House may recall that at the last European Council we reached provisional agreement that measures be taken on budgetary discipline. We considered it essential that the rigorous rules which at present govern budgetary policy in each member state also apply to the budget of the Community. We went on to add that the Community should fix at the beginning of the budget procedure the maximum level of expenditure which it considers it must adopt to finance Community policies during the following financial year; and further that net expenditure relating to agricultural markets should increase less than the rate of growth of the own resources base. Finance Ministers are now working on the precise measures to guarantee the effective application of these principles.
"In the light of the agreement reached both on the United Kingdom refund and the future control of Community spending, the European Council also agreed that the own resources ceiling should be increased to 1.4 per cent. of VAT. The Government will be prepared in due course, and when the arrangements are in place on budget discipline, to recommend to the House that the own resources ceiling should be increased to 1.4 per cent. of VAT.
924
However, the net effect of such an increase and of the VAT refunds for the United Kingdom is that, although the ceiling will be increased to 1.4 per cent. for the Community as a whole, the United Kingdom will itself be contributing less than we are at present liable to contribute under the one per cent. limit.
"It was further agreed that the refund of about £440 million (750 million ECU) due to the United Kingdom in respect of 1983 should now be released. The Council of Ministers yesterday approved the necessary regulations. It is now for the European Parliament to transfer the funds from the reserve chapter of the budget. We thus have the assurance of the successful implementation of our refunds for 1983 (£440 million), 1984 (£600 million) and for future years, for as long as the 1.4 per cent. VAT ceiling lasts.
"The European Council discussed current world political and economic developments. I described the outcome of the London economic summit. President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl spoke about their visits last week to the Soviet Union and Hungary. It was heartening to find that the four keynotes of the London summit—unity, resolve, dialogue and co-operation—were unanimously endorsed as the basis for a secure and constructive relationship with the Soviet Union which the visit to Moscow by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in July is designed to promote.
"The European Council confirmed that the negotiations for the accession of Spain and Portugal should be completed by 30th September 1984. We also discussed the negotiations for the renewal of the Lomè Agreement with African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. The European Council stressed the importance of bringing these negotiations to an early conclusion.
"The European Council also discussed the future development of the Community. We have put forward specific ideas in a paper which I gave before the European Council to other heads of Government. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. I laid particular emphasis on the importance of achieving a genuine common market in goods and services leading to the creation of new jobs throughout the Community.
"The outcome of the Council is good for Britain and good for the Community. It will result in Britain's paying for the foreseeable future lower contributions than would have been due under existing arrangements with the 1 per cent. VAT ceiling; it will make possible a relaunching of the Community in which Britain will play a full role; will give an impetus to enlargement, thus strengthening democracy in Spain and Portugal; and remove what has been a constant source of friction in our relations with the Community ever since we joined."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating that important Statement. It gives the impression that the agreement is an achievement and that it resolves the outstanding

925
problems. The Prime Minister said yesterday, "We have now ended the long series of weary and debilitating wrangles." I am bound to say that she herself contributed very substantially to the wrangling and that there is room for speculating whether a better agreement might not have been achieved before this if the negotiations had been conducted rather more sensitively. The right honourable lady the Prime Minister promised a better balance. I am afraid that we have not had a better balance; that is, a balance between refunds and contributions.
A number of matters need to be made absolutely plain at this stage. First, is it not the case that the difference between the new arrangement and the previous ad hoc arrangements is that the calculation for the rebate will be based on a lower figure, taking account of the proportion of Britain's VAT contribution to the budget? Will not this be 20 per cent. lower than the full amount? Further, does not this mean that we shall in effect be paying more in three years' time and that the reality of the situation is that the Government have made very substantial concessions? Are not the rebates less than those granted to this country between 1980 and 1983? Furthermore, do not the figures, based on the Government's own calculations, suggest that the British contribution could double over the next two years? In these circumstances, how can the right honourable lady or the noble Viscount say that Britain will he better off as a result of this agreement in the longer term?
Secondly, can the noble Viscount tell the House how permanent this solution really is? The Statement refers to placing our refunds on a lasting basis. Will the noble Viscount confirm that the rebate is valid only during the period that the Community keeps its spending inside the new higher limit and that when the limit needs to be raised, as obviously will happen, when Spain and Portugal accede, the whole question of Britain's contribution will inevitably come up for further negotiation, and that in a very short time to come? That, my Lords, is not a lasting basis, even to the most optimistic politician.
Does the noble Viscount agree with the commentators who over the last 24 hours have been saying that the ceiling will need to be raised within three years or so, and is it not the case that this year's budget is likely to be £1,400 million overspent? Would the Minister not agree that the forthcoming enlargement of the Community provides a useful, indeed, an essential, starting point for radically shifting the emphasis of European agricultural policy so that attention is directed at food requirements, rather than producer demand?
Thirdly, can the noble Viscount say what are the implications for this country of increasing Community resources? Is he absolutely satisfied that the increase in own resources will not go towards further increasing agricultural support which would, in turn, result in further surpluses? Does he not agree that without some discipline in this area the Community will soon find itself in further trouble? Does he not agree that additional resources should be concentrated on Community industrial development and on energy problems and other acute problems, including unacceptably high unemployment?
926
Finally, does not the noble Viscount think that the meeting of Finance Ministers next month is of crucial importance, because their success in agreeing a formula for the control of spending will decide whether the budget stands or falls? And does not the whole unstable exercise once more underline the urgent need for a radical reform of the common agricultural policy, as Select Committees of this House have so frequently recommended?
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I, too, on behalf of my noble friends and colleagues, thank the noble Viscount for repeating this very important Statement in this House. May I say to him that we give it a rather warmer welcome than has been indicated by the noble Lord who speaks for the Labour Benches. We give the Statement a rather warmer welcome because although we are very conscious—and anybody who knows my past history will not challenge this—of the need to control expenditure and fix budgets, and to work within those budgets and not to be sloppy about it, as appears to have been the case, we nevertheless take the view that what is important in all this is that we cease to have a business haggle and that we turn to working together as partners for the good of Europe, to decide the future of Europe, and to decide the Europe of the future. That is what the Economic Community is about.
May I ask the noble Viscount one or two questions to clarify the situation and to put an end to arguments which might otherwise arise? The noble Viscount's right honourable friend has, of course, put her best foot forward, and one would not expect anything other than that. But the Statement says, towards the end, that the agreement
"will result in Britain's paying for the foreseeable future lower contributions than would have been due under existing arrangements with the 1 per cent. VAT ceiling".
Nobody quarrels with that statement. But is it not also true that if the arrangements which the Prime Minister has now accepted, subject to the approval of Parliament. had been in force over the past four years, there would have been received by this country approximately £144 million per annum less than has been received? To that extent, there is a considerable difference between what has been hoped for and what has been achieved.
Nevertheless, I hope that I make it absolutely clear that figures of that dimension, however important they are, rank as very small beer indeed in relation to the possibilities for improvement in international trade, in European trade, in European influence, and in developing policies to diminish unemployment, as well as all the other matters which are mentioned in the Statement. To that extent, we give it a modest, but reasonably warm, welcome.
3.50 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their contributions. Perhaps it would not be unreasonable to say that I am more grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for his contribution than I am to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for his, but they will not be surprised at that.

927
On the general point of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, about the contributions—about what has happened over the three years, and about what might happen in the future—I think he is being somewhat less than fair to this Government. I have to point out to him in the crudest party political terms that the agreement means that since 1979 this Government will have secured £3,000 million in refunds from the Community. This means that we have contributed £3,000 million less than if Labour's arrangement had still been in effect. That is a fact. The noble Lord is entitled to say that maybe they, too, would have made efforts to get refunds since then, but those are the facts. I think that they put his comments about what has been achieved and about what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in a somewhat churlish light. I do not think I can accept what he said.
When it comes to the question of whether the system is durable, I have to tell the noble Lord that it can be changed only by the unanimous decision of the member Governments and the national Parliaments. I think that is a pretty considerable safeguard. I do not suggest that anything in life is ever a complete and total safeguard, but something that can be changed only by the unanimous decision of the member Governments and the national Parliaments is surely at least entitled to be described as durable. That I believe it is, and I believe it is very important for that reason.
On the next point, about the Finance Ministers' meeting, that is of course very important because they are going to work out the details of the financial discipline which, very properly, is needed, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, himself referred. When it comes to the agricultural position and to the agricultural arrangements, I would have thought that this Government had gone a long way at some considerable difficulty and with some unpopularity in various agricultural circles to seek to play their part in reducing the amount of agricultural expenditure. I think that that is important and has to be faced as necessary.
As for the question of where the increase in Community resources will go, perfectly plainly it will go, as the noble Lord wished it should, in large measure to the regional and social funds. It will be a failure of the Finance Ministers and of the Community as a whole if it goes to agriculture, and not to those funds. Clearly it should go to the regional and social funds, and for some part, no doubt, to the enlargement as well, both of which will contribute, I think, to democracy from the point of view of enlargement and, through the regional and social funds, to employment.
I have already said that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for the somewhat warmer welcome that he gave to the Statement. I would agree with him entirely that, beyond the settlement of the actual budget contributions, an improvement in relations, an improvement in the work towards partnership and an opportunity for enlargement in the Community must be good for the Community, must be good for the countries of the Community and must be good for democracy in Western Europe. One has to put the whole agreement very much in that context. The noble Lord gave some figures about what we
928
might be getting in the future compared with past years. I think he said £114 million less each year. I am bound to say to him, with his very considerable financial knowledge, that much of that must inevitably be somewhat hypothetical. I can remember him in his days as Chief Secretary in another place saying that such figures would be hypothetical, and so who would never aspire to such a position, will turn round now and say that I think such figures are hypothetical, too.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, will my noble friend convey to the Prime Minister, on behalf of at any rate many in the House of Lords, our congratulations on a negotiation stubbornly conducted but reaching such a successful conclusion? Will he also recognise that many in this country would prefer determined negotiations by people who are genuine in their desire to stay and work within the Community to, on the other hand, weak negotiators who are utterly uncertain as to what their role there would be?
Lord Barnett: My Lords, will the noble Viscount—
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords. I think it would be correct for me to reply to my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft first. I will seek to answer the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, afterwards.
I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has said. I totally agree with him; and I am sure that when he describes as he did my right honourable friend's conduct in the negotiations he is much nearer the mark than was the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, who I think was a little unkind and perhaps unreasonable, because I do not believe that we would have reached this settlement—it is certainly far better than anything that has been on offer before—unless the negotiations had been conducted as my noble friend indicated just now.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, on the question of durability, of which the noble Viscount spoke, does he accept that there is no way that this can be thought or said to be durable without control over expenditure? Nothing whatsoever has been done or said in this Statement to deal with that vital area, and in particular the common agricultural policy.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord may I say, first, that it has been made perfectly clear. The Statement said:
"Finance Ministers are now working on the precise measures to guarantee the effective application of these principles".
Those principles, of course, are proper budget discipline. In addition, efforts have been made and are being made—this country has been in the lead—so far as agricultural expenditure is concerned. Those efforts must continue; and that is the purpose of the Finance Ministers' meeting. The Statement says that. The noble Lord may shake his head and say that the Statement does not say that, but I have just read out what the Statement does say. so he cannot shake his head.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, will the noble Viscount confirm that we have agreed to increase VAT own resources to 1.4 per cent. regardless of what happens at the Finance Ministers' meeting?
Viscount Whitelaw: Certainly, my Lords, that is part of the agreement, but it is also a part of the agreement that the Finance Ministers will deal with budget discipline. The noble Lord may not think they will, but it is clear from the Statement that that is the intention.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that every reasonable person would have to concede that the Statement he has made means that the Prime Minister has achieved better terms for Britain—that must be conceded—with no help at all from the party opposite, who did all they could to undermine her prestige and her general style when she was trying to get something even better?
Having said that, I made a note of the phrase in the Statement, "lasting basis". Can it be a "lasting basis" when the position is that if own resources have to be increased beyond the 1.4 per cent. this arrangement falls to the ground and will have to be renegotiated all over again? That does not seem to reflect a "lasting basis". Does my noble friend also recognise that there is some disappointment in many quarters that what was promised was that we would not increase our contribution under VAT or anything else until the expenditure which brought about the surpluses had been ended? That is, not merely a promise to end them, which we have been promised for the last eight years, but that they had in fact been ended; and that has not happened yet.
I wish to put two questions to my noble friend. Will both Houses of Parliament have to affirm these alterations, as set out in the Statement, before they become effective? Will both the other place and this House have to affirm them? If the answer to that question is, "Yes, they have", will my noble friend make it certain that neither House is asked to affirm them until we have the result of the meeting of Finance Ministers, which takes place next month? If at their meeting they can show that the financial discipline will be compulsory and will have to be carried out, it could well be that these alterations could be accepted without a qualm. But if as a result of their investigations they merely say that it might be or ought to be, would there then be time for us to have second thoughts as to whether or not the increase in own resources—the 1.4 per cent. —is proper at this stage until the discipline of saving money on agricultural spending has actually been put into practice?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has said about the negotations and about the deal which has been achieved. On the question of own resources, the Statement says:
"The Government will be prepared in due course, and when the arrangements are in place on budget discipline, to recommend to the House that the own resources ceiling should be increased to 1.4 per cent. of VAT".
Therefore, it has to be put before the House of Commons. I have yet to check, because of its financial implications, whether it would also have to be approved by this House, but, of course, I undertake to the House that I shall do that. Naturally, the House will expect to debate any such proposition, and I can certainly undertake that your Lordships will be able to do that. I shall have to take advice on whether this
930
House, too, will have to approve it. I am sure the House will understand that, and I will do so as soon as I can.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, this agreement (though, as we think, much overdue) is certainly very welcome to all those who believe in the development of greater European unity and indeed in the future political development of the EEC. The next step, as has already been said by several speakers, will be to get agreement among the Finance Ministers as to the so-called budgetary discipline. This, we all admit, will be difficult though not impossible. But on the assumption that real progress is now at last possible, I would simply ask the noble Viscount whether the scheme recently approved by the European Parliament is going to be discussed in this House and in another place. It may not be totally acceptable, but we think many of its features are clearly desirable—if not essential—if we are to advance towards the political goals which have already been accepted by all the governments concerned. Notably of course the system based on the continuous and abusive use of a national veto must be greatly modified if we are to avoid complete stalemate when the EEC is enlarged by the addition of Spain and Portugal. So I repeat my question, my Lords: when, if at all, is the European Parliament's scheme going to be debated in this House and in another place?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said about negotiations, the Community and the hopes for the future. On the question of debating the European Parliament's report in this House, that is something which will have to be considered through the usual channels and it is quite separate from my undertaking on being able to debate, whatever the actual rules. So far as the results of this negotiation are concerned, that is a separate matter. On the European Parliament's scheme, that will have to he considered through the usual channels.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount a short question? It may have a profound effect on the whole process of budget discipline to which he has referred. Is he aware that the expenditure under Titles 1 and 2 of the operating budget, which mainly concerns agriculture, is open-ended expenditure and demand-led expenditure which, to a very large extent, depends on the result of the price review? Will the noble Viscount call to mind that in the last price review Britain's veto was overridden? Therefore, how can he say that there are likely to be satisfactory budget disciplinary arrangements until he re-establishes the right of British veto at the price review and also takes some active steps to control all obligatory and demand-led expenditure?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, who makes a very important point. This clearly must be considered by the Finance Ministers. The noble Lord elevates my position very considerably if he thinks that I could have the sort of influence he has suggested on those. But I will certainly make sure that his remarks are brought to the attention of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the

931
Exchequer, because they are extremely important. I accept that. Certainly the agricultural expenditure is demand-led and does depend on the price review. It is true that our veto was over-ridden on the last occasion. These are matters which have properly to be considered by the Finance Ministers when they come to decide on the budget disciplines.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: May I personally presume to congratulate the Government, through the noble Viscount the Leader of this House. on the fact that at last this book-keeping wrangle has come to an end, whatever may be the merits of it. May I ask the noble Viscount, in the context of the latter part of his reply to my noble friend Lord Diamond, whether he would advise or consider that more attention should be paid by the Government to co-operation in the EEC on science and technological matters, and particularly in their support of the ESPRIT development introduced by Viscount Davignon so as to assist British industry and to give more confidence to British industry that the Government, in the context of the EEC, will be able to increase jobs and reduce unemployment?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. We have throughout said that the important reason for settling the budget problem—I would not describe it as a "book-keeping wrangle"—is that I do not think one can have it both ways. There are some who seem to suggest that they would have got a better deal than my right honourable friend the Prime Minister but I am quite certain that was not on offer and would not have happened. At the same time, if one is critical of the deal, one cannot at the same time refer to it—although I do not think the noble Lord did this—as "a book-keeping wrangle". It is certainly more than that and considerable sums of money are involved. As for the science and technological developments, certainly these are matters which are now open to the Community to pursue with more vigour than many people have felt has been done in the past.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, May I ask the noble Viscount a simple but I trust a fundamental question? Is it the policy of Her Majesty's Government to continue, as indeed all successive governments have sought to do over the past 11½ years since our entry into the European Community, to seek to bring about fundamental changes in the constitutional structure of the common agricultural policy which many members in all parts of this House regard as both inequitable and repressive? Is it the case that such efforts as have been carried out by successive governments will no longer be pursued in the future so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am not quite sure of the answer to the noble Lord's point about the constitutional changes to the agricultural policy. If he means that we will continue to work to change the basis of the common agriculture policy, the answer is, "Yes". I am just doubtful about the word "constitutional": but, on the face of it, "yes".

Civil Aviation Policy
4.8 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, with his ministerial experience, for initiating this debate on the important subject of civil aviation. I think it will be agreed that we have had a frank and challenging speech from the noble Lord. I was very pleased to see that his Motion covers aviation policy and airport policy, because both are complementary.
The noble Lord referred to the different inquiries and consultations which are taking place: the CAA consultation. the examination by the other place's Select Committee into airports, and the Stansted inquiry. Would it not be better to await the results of all those inquiries before the Government come to any firm decisions? Moreover, would it not be desirable before the Government implement any policies, that there should be debates on all three issues, before going ahead with any policy implementation?
The Government are proceeding with their plans for—I have to use this word—privatisation of BA. The Government seem to see privatisation and competition as a panacea for all our various problems. The Secretary of State in the aviation debate last Friday in the other place said (in column 597 of Hansard):
"Competition comes first in the Government's policies, but it must be fair competition,"
But it is understood that there is little opportunity for two British scheduled airlines to compete with each other on the same routes. World aviation is not run on the basis of laissez-faire competition, yet the Secretary of State complained in the same debate (at column 596 of Hansard):
"The evidence of the benefits of competition are overwhelming."
Where, my Lords, is there such evidence in the United Kingdom context?
Of course, we all wish to see lower fares wherever possible and must work towards that end, including action within the EEC. These can be achieved only by agreements. Any fares policies must be consistent with a licensing system which ensures the best use of capacity, the maintenance of a network of services, achieves the highest possible standard of safety, but also takes into consideration the question of employment and proper conditions of service for employees.
The experience of the United States on deregulation is quoted frequently by the Secretary of State to justify similar proposals for deregulation here. But I was pleased to see the cautionary statement by Mr. David Mitchell. the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, in winding-up the debate in the other place, who said at col. 654:
"We do not seek total deregulation … Total deregulation would mean that some would grow and that the weakest would go to the wall".
How true!
The CAA have produced two very useful documents—on a comparison between European and USA fares, which they published in May 1983, and on

933
the deregulation experience in the United States which was published in May 1984, just last month. These stress that making genuine comparisons is very complex. The United States is not Europe, with its some 30 sovereign states, and certainly is not akin to conditions in the United Kingdom. One of the reports cautions that failure to compare like with like will inevitably end in misleading conclusions.
In the same debate, the Secretary of State said, at col. 598:
"To realise the full potential for market responsiveness and innovation, it is essential to transfer British Airways into the private sector".
Where is the evidence for that claim? At present British Airways is being showered with congratulations for pulling things round, but it is pulling things round in the public sector. Why change, except for doctrinaire reasons? No positive evidence is advanced. In its submission to the Civil Aviation Authority, British Airways claims that it is now a greater force to be reckoned with because it has achieved, largely by its own efforts under public sector ownership, a degree of efficiency in terms of cost and performance that puts it very high indeed in the international league.
We know that both BA and BCal are not their sole masters. They are restrained by inter-airline and intergovernmental agreements, mostly of a bilateral nature. We face the fact that in Europe most national states will undoubtedly wish to maintain their own national airline and in Britain to change the procedure of the award of licences by the Civil Aviation Authority by the alternative of deregulation and a free market is not possible. Indeed, it is just not available and it could be against our national interests.
I was pleased to see that the Civil Aviation Authority in their interim assessment stressed that their consultation is about strengthening the ability of British airlines to compete with foreign airlines and about what is best in the national interest. That we must keep in mind—what is best in the national interest; not what is best in any particular airline's interest.
I would remind the House of the last major review of civil aviation in the Edwards Report of 1969, which confirmed state airlines as major operators of British scheduled services; encouragement was given to the private sector to create a "second force" airline licensed to operate a viable network; encouragement was given to the development of inclusive tours and other passenger and freight charter operations. We Know that since 1971 14 airlines have failed and we praise BCal as being the sole survivor to those British airlines who sought to operate long-haul scheduled services.
Let us look at the position of British Airways. In its response to the CAA, British Airways stated in paragraph 1.8:
"Whether structural changes in the industry are desirable is an issue almost wholly unrelated to the ownership of British Airways".
It said much the same in paragraph 2.10:
"The fact is that ownership is substantially irrelevant to the ability of British Airways to deploy such market power as it possesses and to operate effectively".
It put the position very clearly in paragraph 6.7:
934
The relevant point is that both British Airways and British Caledonian face competition from foreign airlines on all international routes. The ownership of British Airways has no bearing on this fact of life".
Whether in the private sector or in the public sector, I must ask: should British Airways be reduced as Britain's national carrier? In whose interest would that be? Certainly, fragmentation of British Airways would be disastrous. Should British Airways' dominant role be undermined? We have to bear in mind that on most international routes British Airways itself competes with foreign airlines. Does the strength of BA give it market power in making the necessary bilateral agreements and in facing intense competition with other airlines?
The Civil Aviation Authority stated at paragraph 2.2.10 of their interim document that—and I paraphrase—a major consideration is whether BA's dominant position is a strength or a weakness in terms of transport policy objectives. It is interesting to note that much of the criticism from the independent airlines is that monopolies in public ownership are likely to attack the market share of competitors more vigorously than are state concerns, and that the position in that respect could worsen with the privatisation of British Airways.
We know that only a few international routes can sustain multiple designation from countries at either end of the particular route. It is one thing to consider transfer of routes as a matter of considered airport policy, but exclusion of British Airways from some routes and substitution by another carrier cannot be justified on principles of competition. In that case, competition would be in the allocation of routes and not in the actual standard of service operation. Again, I find that the CAA document states at paragraph 2.1.6:
"Of the 76 countries to which British airlines fly scheduled passenger services, only 13 are served by more than one British carrier—only 13 destinations overseas are served by more than one British operator".
Noble Lords will have seen a letter in the Financial Times of 20th June from Mr. Roy Watts, the former chairman and chief executive of British Airways, who wrote:
"International civil aviation is government business operating under government bilateral agreements. Licensing many UK carriers against a typical foreign carrier weakens rather than strengthens the British position".
The issue seems to be: how to develop BCal as a second force airline while, at the same time, not weakening BA in any way as a national carrier and in its efforts to make agreements with other airlines.
I said at the outset that it is important that we are considering aviation policy and airports policy together. Both are interdependent. Airports must satisfy not only the needs of British airlines, particularly those of our international schedule services, but also the needs of other countries' airlines. I understand that at the moment some 174 of the world's airlines are handled by the British Airports Authority. Who will deny that that authority is a successful organisation? In fact, it has been a success since its establishment in 1965, yet the Government's policy is to sell off. I must ask again: why dispose of a successful public sector organisation which has proved itself? What will be gained?

935
A number of noble Lords were present, as I was, at the topping out of the fourth terminal. It has not been sufficiently stressed that the cost of the fourth terminal has been met not from Government funds, but from the internal resources of the British Airports Authority—a great achievement. However, if it is to be in the private sector, it will be in the best interests of British aviation, and of the nation generally, if all airports at present under the BAA are kept together in one organisation. We welcome the statement by the Government that they recognise the necessity to keep together the three South-East airports of Heathrow, Gatwick, and Stansted. That is essential. However, it could have an effect on Scottish routes and Scottish airports. My noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove will deal with this aspect when he sums up at the end of the debate.
As the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, stressed, Heathrow is nearing the maximum of its air transport movements each year. There is little possibility of further expansion. In my view, there will be considerable opposition to any suggestion that there should be a fifth terminal. I note that the Secretary of State is to issue a consultation paper on the maximum of 275,000 air transport movements. There seemed to be a suggestion that as a result of the control of noise order which we passed recently, there might be a relaxation of the maximum. May I ask whether there is any extra runway capacity at Heathrow to cater for any future growth of traffic? If there were to be any increase in the number of passengers beyond the present projected limit of 38 million, even if it could be handled with the existing four terminals and the present runways, would any increase beyond that figure bring problems of road congestion? Incidentally, London Transport—which now that the London Regional Transport Bill has received Royal Assent, will be separate from the GLC—ought to be congratulated on the speedy action it took in extending the Piccadilly line right into the fourth terminal. I understand that it will be in use by the time the fourth terminal at Heathrow comes into operation.
Gatwick is also an important airport. I understand that a statement has been issued during the last few days which shows that Gatwick has now achieved the position of being the world's fourth biggest airport. Previously it was the fifth biggest. Transport movements at Gatwick are limited by runway capacity to 160,000. It seems, however, that there is spare capacity which would allow for some build-up. We understand that with the opening of the second terminal in three years' time, the number of passengers which can be handled at Gatwick will be doubled to 25 million. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. stressed. by the mid- 1 990s the expectation is that there will be a need for additional capacity in order to handle the expected increase in the number of passengers. With the existing constraints at Heathrow and Gatwick, how will that be done, and where will it be done? I echo the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil.
The report of the Stansted inquiry is urgently awaited. At the end of the day we must consider not only the needs of British Airways and BCal, but also
936
the needs and wishes of the airlines of other countries. It seems that at present most of the airline passengers of foreign countries—not necessarily the airlines, but the passengers—wish to use Heathrow. I understand that no foreign competitor has yet been persuaded to leave Heathrow. What would induce a foreign airline to move from Heathrow to Gatwick? Perhaps the Minister can tell us. What we do know is that we must avoid foreign airlines looking favourably towards continental airports, such as Frankfurt, Schiphol, and Paris.
We also need to consider very carefully the role of the regional airports. Clearly there must be feeder services from regional airports, but we must not overlook the fact that the domestic market is only a very small part of the total scheduled services of British airlines. How far can Heathrow handle further domestic flights? In the light of the present maximum of 275,000 air transport movements, any extension of domestic flights could chase away foreign carriers. Therefore, whatever the Secretary of State may say about deregulation, there must be regulation of at least domestic services. Deregulation would not be feasible. It would be absolutely impracticable. We are faced with the situation that many domestic services in Britain cannot support economically more than one operator.
In conclusion, I am concerned also with the position of the five regional airports owned by the metropolitan county councils which, as noble Lords know, are to be abolished if the Government get their way on the abolition Bill. The Government never thought out what was going to happen to the airports, any more than they thought out anything else, other than their political decision to abolish the metropolitan county councils. The Secretary of State hopes to get the district councils to agree to take them over. If the regional airports are to be disposed of, surely it would be in the best interests of everyone concerned if the airports were placed in the hands of the passenger transport authorities in those areas. They, albeit, will be joint boards under abolition. They will be considering all transport matters—road matters and other traffic matters, which are very important.
In the light of all the reviews and consultations. the results of which we await, I can understand the Government's difficulty in replying to many of these points, but it is essential that airport policy and aviation policy should be considered together. It is in the interests of all users. The national interest, environmental considerations, road congestion and other traffic problems must be taken account of in all these policies.
4.27 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, every one of us speaking today will, I am sure, be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important matter. It seems to me that it would have been most unfortunate, when the other place had had an opportunity to debate this issue, if we had not had a debate. I believe that there is a wealth of experience in this House. I hope very much that what we say today will contribute to a solution of the problems.

937
I was very interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, refer to the expense of these long-ranging inquiries. I could not agree more. I have always felt very strongly about Stansted. This is the third long-ranging inquiry that there has been into Stansted, a matter which I have already raised in this House. It is most unfortunate for the residents of Stansted that, after the matter had apparently been settled, it should have been raised again. The expense is enormous. Having said that, I should like to pay a tribute to the inspector who is conducting the Stansted inquiry. In common with many other noble Lords, I have read a good number of the submissions and have admiration for the way in which the inspector has handled them.
Turning to the Motion which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, has put down on the Order Paper today, I think we would all agree that the current problems are many and varied. Most of us who are to speak today would probably compile a similar list. Equally, most, if not all, of us have been the recipients of a great deal of paper, which I, for one, have found useful. But without wishing to receive no paper at all in the future, may I say that we have had a lot, and leave it at that?
Having read the submissions—I have read all that have come to me—I have decided to await the report of the Civil Aviation Authority before coming down on one side or the other of the many difficult decisions which have to be taken. It seems to me that it is for the Civil Aviation Authority in its forthcoming report to advise the Government on this opportunity to create a prosperous and well-balanced—I underline "well-balanced"—civil aviation industry. Obviously, any final decision must rest with the Government.
I want to deal in more detail with the future of airports, but before doing so I should like to comment on what to me, anyway, must be one of the most important problems—indeed, I believe it to be basic: the question of routes allocation. The Government are committed to the privatisation of British Airways in, I believe, the spring of next year. In the magazine Flight of 23rd June last, I read that the Department of Transport is unlikely to reach a decision on any implementation of the CAA recommendations before December. I am sure the House would agree that that is not an undue amount of time to take in looking at some very important matters. But can we be told whether it is the Government's intention that both Houses of Parliament should have an opportunity of debating the civil aviation report before any Government decision is announced—or are we to be presented with a fait accompli? In my view, should the report advise restructuring, then the actual privatisation would probably have to be delayed because, I would submit to the House, any restructuring must precede privatisation. In so vital a matter, surely the Government will welcome advice from Parliament too.
I must just say something about European air fares. It is high time that some were reduced; many are far too high. I would be asking for undue time today, however, if I were to attempt to speak on this subject in detail. But I do want to congratulate the Secretary of State (Mr. Ridley) and the Government for what they
938
are trying to do in this respect. I should like to congratulate also the airlines involved —British Airways, British Caledonian, and Air UK—and the Netherlands, whose Government have agreed to participate. But I have a "but". The "but" is the price that Britain has paid. I note that this agreement is described as being a milestone towards cheaper fares in Europe. I hope that this is so. We need all the allies we can get in our endeavours to breach a wall constructed mainly by nationally-owned state airlines.
Is it true—and I am asking the Minister this question—that the state airline KLM can now fly to any airport in the United Kingdom that it does not already serve and can take passengers via Amsterdam to destinations on its worldwide network in direct competition with United Kingdom operators? If it is—and I would ask this also of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne—do we not face considerable loss of traffic from United Kingdom airlines? I shall be grateful, as I am sure the House would be, if the Minister will comment on this matter when he comes to reply. In other words, have we given away sixth freedom rights to secure these cheap fares?
There are many speakers to come, and so I will leave my own list of problems—including debatable topics such as over-capacity, discounted tickets and air charters—and move on the airports and to Gatwick. I hope that the Minister will provide the House with a considered reply—in writing if not at the end of this debate. Perhaps I may stress that I do not mean a favourable or an unfavourable reply but one that is really considered. I will begin with a categorical statement: Gatwick Airport will not be developed to its full extent or to its full potential without a second runway. Apart from repetition to the effect that the Government have no intention of laying down a second runway, which we all know by heart, will the Minister state whether he accepts the truth of what I have said; namely, that Gatwick cannot be developed to its full potential or its full strength without a second runway?
Going on from there, I suggest that we have to consider four aspects. First, there is the position of the Government. I have no wish to embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne—at least, not too much—but I have been concerned with this matter for some time, and on 8th March the Minister was honest enough to admit to me that on 24th January 1979, being on a different side of the Dispatch Box, this subject had produced from him a different answer. Leaving 1979 aside and coming up to date, to 23rd May 1984, I asked the Government whether they considered themselves bound by the agreement entered into in 1978 between the British Airports Authority and West Sussex County Council to the effect that no second runway would be built at Gatwick Airport. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, replied (and I quote from col. 221 of Hansard):
"The present Government were not consulted about the agreement and are not parties to it. That being the case, the Government cannot be bound by its terms".
Moving on to the second aspect—namely, the environmental reactions of residents of the area surrounding Gatwick—I have received a letter from the chairman of the Gatwick area conservation campaign. This is dated 2nd April and conveys regret

939
at what I am trying to bring about. It is a courteous letter and I hope that I replied in kind. I endeavoured to explain I did indeed understand that nobody could be expected to welcome a development that might bring additional air traffic overhead; the difficulty was that I did not believe that 25 million passengers per annum could properly be serviced by a single runway. That must apply to residents anywhere who are close to any airport or to any projected airport. This raises the question of Stansted with, additionally, the problem of losing some of the best agricultural land in the country today. Hence, those of us fortunate enough not to live under a flight path or close to an airport can only say, with what must seem a selfish attitude, "If there has to be expansion, this expansion must come somewhere".
The third aspect is that of air traffic movements, to which a reference has already been made. They are generally known, in this world of initial letters, as ATMs. They are proving a headache in the light of a further limitation to a maximum of 275,000 ATMs per annum at Gatwick when Terminal 4 becomes operational next year. With Gatwick having only one runway, where are the surplus traffic movements to go?
On 5th April (at col. 791 of Hansard) the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, told the House:
"The Government are presently considering how the allocation of movements will be awarded, but we hope very much that so far as is possible it will derive from agreement among the operators".
The phrase "so far as is possible" envisages a certain amount of disagreement. How do the Government propose to deal with this matter? Equally important, when do they propose to deal with it? Can we be told what progress has been made and how far in advance of Terminal 4 being operational next year will these decisions be finalised and announced? After all, any airline has to plan its movements well ahead.
I understand—and I am sure that the Minister will tell us this when he replies—that we are soon to have a consultation paper from the Government on this matter—but perhaps he will give a date. As the Government were not consulted about the 1978 agreement, were not partners to it, and do not consider themselves to be bound by it, then surely they must give some thought to the weight of opinion against the maintenance of a single runway.
I come now to the fourth aspect; that concerning finance. Even the Government, and through them the British Airports Authority, must consider whether the cost of a second runway at Gatwick, bringing the airport to its full potential and resultant additional finance, should not be weighed against the cost of another major airport—and one in South East, as regional interests will certainly stress.
In conclusion, I have tried to set out my case and I await a considered reply. When considering what that reply is to be, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, to bear in mind three points? First, on 8th March the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, told the House that when Gatwick was originally planned it was always intended that there should be two runways. Further to that, he maintained that the two runways had absolutely nothing to do with wide-bodied aircraft
940
development but with the protests of residents around Gatwick. I will only say that there will be protests against any development anywhere—and the Government cannot shuffle out of them by saying that there will be protests at Gatwick.
Secondly, will the Minister in his reply please not resuscitate the arguments supporting the upgrading of the taxiway at Gatwick? Those arguments were discredited in this House on 23rd May and 5th June. I am informed that the British Airports Authority has awarded a contract to Costain Civil Engineering for the upgrading of the taxiway in the sum of £5,100,000.
I am not for one moment casting aspersions on the ability of Costain Civil Engineering, but I think this is an absolute waste or taxpayers' money. The Government are refusing to admit they have been wrong. I cannot see the point of spending £5,100,000 on an upgraded taxiway which cannot serve as an alternative runway, being unsuitable for fully laden transport planes to take off or to land. I ask the noble Lord the Minister even at this late stage to consider the financial implications.
Gatwick Airport has enormous potential. I read today in the newspapers and in what has been sent to me how very greatly Gatwick could extend. If we consider the possible range of European destinations, the level of service frequencies and the ease of interlining, they all speak for themselves. Taken together, they would develop Gatwick into a well-balanced hub of air traffic. In order to accomplish this, two runways must be provided.
Do the Government intend to deny Gatwick its full potential? If so, the ultimate responsibility will be theirs because the decisions rest with them, as admitted by the noble Lord. We all want a prosperous and well-balanced civil aviation industry, and I hope that our debate today will help to bring this about.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, for the few moments that I intend to speak I wish to deal with one subject only. and it was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. twice in his remarks—the question of safety in the air. Many years ago—more years than I care to remember—when I started my flying career I was reminded of two things: firstly, that what goes up must come down; and, secondly, if God had meant us to fly he would have given us wings. I have always remembered those two truths. They particularly apply to flying today, just as they applied to flying in the past. There is today always a risk present when any of your Lordships defy the laws of gravity.
There is only one question: is it an acceptable risk? We all take risks in our lives. We take a risk when we cross the street, but it is an acceptable risk. Is flying today an acceptable risk? The answer is, yes, when you think that British Airways carried some 14 million persons last year in safety, all the time challenging the laws of gravity. I think we can say that it is safe. There is also the other side of the picture. In 1983 approximately 2,000 people were involved in serious crashes. Over 1,000 people were killed, and crews as well. That is an awful lot of lives to lose.
We are now entering into a new, highly competitive area in our passenger flying. Economy at the expense

941
of safety must never appear in our flying studies. Risk must be accepted, but right down the line where costs have to be cut, from the board down to the man who is cleaning the aeroplane, there must never be a risk of cutting down your maintenance on grounds of economy. I am quite sure that the board of British Airways is firm, and, indeed, the boards of other companies are firm, in that determination. But we are all human, and perhaps down the line there may be a temptation here and there to cut corners. That temptation must be vigorously resisted.
We have seen a revolution in safety thanks to the pioneering work of British Airways in blind landing. There used to be a saying in the old days of flying when the weather was bad, "Visibility is nil: even the birds are walking". Today, if visibility is nil the birds may still be walking but Tridents and other British Airways aircraft continue to operate. That is an example of the distance we have gone in developing safety.
I should here like to pay tribute to those ground control operators who do such a responsible job, particularly when the weather is difficult. They deserve our praise and recognition thoroughly as invaluable technicians. There is only one field where I think there is room for our safety standards to improve. There is, if you fly in a helicopter, five times the risk compared with normal flying. That has come from the Civil Aviation Authority's own document. Helicopters are still developing. I think they have a great future, particularly in Scotland. As the helicopter becomes cheaper I hope we shall be able to operate without miles and miles of concrete and the removal from agriculture of valuable land.
I particularly want to say a word about the North Sea and the Isles of Scilly/Lands End regular helicopter services. We have a long way to go in helicopter safety development regarding flotation gear and being able to escape into boats. We very often read about a helicopter disaster, and we hear that people were unable to get into the rafts for various reasons which I will not develop. Over water emergency landing is a very dangerous proceeding, and new regulations and orders are needed to match the development which is possible today.
British Airways maintain in their North Sea services an absolutely admirable standard so far as knowledge goes today—and it will go further in the future. But that standard is not mandatory at the moment; there are other operators who feel that the equipment required, which will undoubtedly mitigate against the profitability of services, is just a frill, a surplus which is not required. Until the Civil Aviation Authority lays down—and I hope they will do it very soon—firm regulations regarding helicopter safety, we run risks which we should not accept.
I want to say one more word about Civil Aviation airports. Some European airports—I am not talking about British Airports—are worse than others. They are what I call "grey" airports which operate only in the daytime, only in controlled hours, and only in terms of laid down minima. They are the airports where there are needed the kind of restrictions with which our airlines comply. When I hear passengers grousing at British aircraft landing later than some rival airline that has come from the same place, I
942
rejoice at their cursing because it is a sign that we have standards, to which we are keeping, which other people, I regret to say, do not have.
Some countries have wonderful and fine radio systems for guiding aircraft into their airports; others do not. We have read recently that in Europe—I shall not mention the airlines in question—there is no satisfactory radar at a particular airport. It is to be installed next year; but the promise of radar next year is a menace in operating today. There is a risk to safety which would not exist if it had full radar today.
One more point on radar concerns the lack of standardisation. Your Lordships will be surprised to hear of this example of two airports in different countries in Europe. I shall call them airport A and airport B. The governments of the countries in which these airports are situated have spent enormous sums of money putting in the latest air-to-ground safety measures. Unfortunately, each airport has a different system and they can communicate with each other only by telephone. That is the measure of the failure to obtain standardisation of equipment.
I hope that I have not dwelt too long on this question of safety, but as regards situations such as airport A being unable to talk to airport B except by telephone, as Euclid said, this is "absurd" and must be put right. Let us remember that ground control is an integral part of air safety. I finish as I started: in air travel safety is all.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the civil aviation industry, as well as your Lordships' House, is very much indebted to my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil for both introducing the subject of this Motion and, if he will allow me to remark, the most admirable speech with which he did so. One of your Lordships—I am not sure whether it was not my noble friend—observed that the timing was odd. I think that the timing is just right. It is one of the strong merits of your Lordships' House that, on any subject one can think of. it is able to stage a debate in which there take part Members of the House who have very great practical experience of the subject under discussion. It is particularly useful, therefore, that your Lordships should debate subjects, including this one, not so much at a time when Government policy has been formed and formulated, but at a time when it is in course of formation.
I think it is a fact—and I have some reason for believing this—that, more than is often admitted or known, debates in your Lordship's House influence the development of policy through Ministers themselves and their advisers, and through the media, in the direction your Lordships like. Surely this is just the time when the wisdom of your Lordship's House, its knowledge and expertise on this subject, can most usefully be mobilised; the time, frankly, when the Government are considering the whole issue and have not yet come to any decision. This was exemplified by the extremely interesting speech to which we have just listened from my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye. As your Lordships know, my noble friend is one of the pioneers of aviation. Not only is he a former Minister of Aviation; he also has the distinction, of which your

943
Lordships may not be aware, that when he was Under-Secretary of State for Air he was the only member of the Air Council, including the air marshalls, who could actually fly an aeroplane. That kind of distinction and practical knowledge came out in his speech.
As regards civil aviation policy, we are at a time when policies are being reassessed. We are, as my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will recall, back in 1969 and the Edwards Report and those discussions. There are two reasons for this. One is the forthcoming denationalisation of British Airways. Like my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil, I prefer the word "denationalisation" to the hideous word "privatisation". Whatever view one takes of that, obviously it affects the situation. The other new factor is the breakthrough at long last being achieved as a result of the efforts of many people, including many Members of your Lordships' House, on the subject of international air fares, particularly in Europe. We are, therefore, at a very relevant moment, when it is right that the Government, with such assistance as your Lordships can give them, should formulate policy as to what should be done for the next 10 or 15 years, or so.
Let us take the first of the new factors: the forthcoming denationalisation. There are people who say—and most of your Lordships will have received documents arguing this—that if one simply denationalises British Airways and otherwise leaves things as they are, all that one will do is substitute a private monopoly for a public one. Therefore, those persons argue, one should transfer some routes from British Airways to the present private sector. I see very great difficulties in that kind of approach. British Airways has made itself enormously more efficient than it was a year or two ago. This is due to two reasons: the dynamic leadership which they now have from my noble friend Lord King of Wartnaby, and the stimulus of forthcoming denationalisation. It has shed the over-manning which undoubtedly was the subject of the reproach which many people directed at it in years past. It is highly efficient. It is doing extremely well. Its staff have responded to the very fine leadership which they now have. It would be a very grave step indeed to oblige it to undertake further redundancies by enforced transfer of some of its routes to other airlines.
That does not conclude the issue. It would be foolish to pretend that it did. I am inclined to think that a solution is to be found in respect of future routes through the licensing procedures of the Civil Aviation Authority. Some of your Lordships may recall that in 1972 the then newly created authority was given the guidance—a technical word which always sounds to me (there is no right reverend Prelate here) somewhat theological in its formulation—that it should, in any appropriate case, give preference to the development of British Caledonian. It may be, when we come to the final decisions, that that 1972 precedent, in one form or another, may well seem worth repeating. I emphatically share the view expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, that one would be foolish to express any final view on this issue until we have the report and the advice of the Civil Aviation Authority. I say that with due respect to my noble
944
friend and his department. After all, there is there the greatest knowledge of the needs and problems of British civil aviation. My own view is that it would be foolish to try to lay down any very definite rule or idea until we had the advantage of their report.
They are extremely well led at present. In their chairman. Mr. Dent, we have a very wise and skilful man, and they have the advantage of the head of their economic and licensing department of Mr. Ray Colegate who, I think my noble friend will agree, knows more about the problems of route licensing than any living man in the world today. I have been very much inclined to await their views before coming to any final view myself. I would counsel your Lordships that there may be something in that.
However, there are one or two further thoughts that I should like to leave with your Lordships', for the Government's consideration and perhaps for the authority's consideration. The problem—and it is a real one—of one very large. privately-owned airline confronting a number of smaller ones is accentuated by the advantage which British Airways undoubtedly enjoys from being, so far as British airlines are concerned, virtually the monopoly operator out of Heathrow. Heathrow has more international aircraft movements than any other airport in the world. Therefore it is an enormous advantage to operate into it because you attract what is technically called the interlining traffic. It undoubtedly gives to British Airways a very great advantage. If other British operators are to be given a chance also to operate out of Heathrow without handicapping British Airways in their operations two things need to happen. First of all I think that the 275,000 movements a year rule has to go. It was formulated years ago when aircraft noise was quite different from that emitted by modern aircraft. An arbitrary figure applied to our principal airport must involve us in some loss—not least in diversion of traffic—not to Gatwick or Stansted but to Schiphol or to de Gaulle. Therefore I hope that the problem will be eased by doing away with the 275,000 rule.
I am as conscious as anybody of the problems of aircraft noise. I was deluged for five years with protests about it. However, the fact is that Heathrow Airport has been there for longer than most of the houses that surround it. It is equally true that a very large number of those who live near the airport live there for the very good reason that they earn a very good living at the airport.
Another proposal I suggest to the Government to help other British Airlines to have room to get into Heathrow, would be to carry out the decision taken by another Government quite a number of years ago to transfer all services to the Iberian Peninsular—both British and foreign—to Gatwick. That was a decision of the Government of the day some eight years ago. It was never carried out, largely because Iberia and TAP, the Spanish and Portuguese Airlines respectively, protested loudly and the Government of the day, in my view very weakly, gave way to them. I suggest this project be revived. However, I should point out that if any civil aviation in the world is not particularly entitled to any particular consideration from us it is that of Spain, which still to this day interferes with access to our own airport at Gibraltar, and whose own

945
traffic control arrangements are—and I use the language of moderation—subject to some criticism. So may I make that suggestion.
As regards Gatwick, I hope it will continue to develop. I must declare an interest because some 30 years ago I was the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation who took the decision to go ahead with the Gatwick development. I share fully the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, that Gatwick requires a second runway, which was included in the original plans and was very weakly abandoned by the then board of the British Airports Authority some years ago.
The other day, I asked my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, a question: given that as a matter of Government policy Gatwick is to be developed to take up to 25 million passengers a year, was there any airport in the world today which had that number of passengers with fewer than two runways? My noble friend said that there was none. It is really quite clear that the Government must face one or two things. Either—which I would regret enormously—abandoning the decision to go on with the further development of Gatwick, or grasp the nettle and go ahead with the building of a second runway there. I fully agree with the noble Baroness that the development of the taxi-way, though it may be a palliative, is no answer. As she said, it cannot take fully laden aircraft either on landing or take off; it cannot he operated while the other runway is in use because it is too near to it. I hope—the sooner the better—that a decision will be taken to build the second runway. I say to my noble friend that the longer this decision—which will have to be taken one day—is delayed. the more expensive it will be at the end of the day.
May I say one final word, which is addressed as much to British Airways—particularly in their new guise—as to my noble friend. I hope that British Airways are going to make more use of Concorde. This marvellous aircraft has proved itself in service. It has been a very great success over the North Atlantic, and I am very glad indeed that its schedule is being extended to include Miami. Some years ago it operated through Bahrain to Singapore, jointly on the last leg with Singapore Airlines. I used the service on a number of occasions. Although I was told at the time that it was unprofitable, I found the aircraft full whenever I used it. I have a personal interest in that, as chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, I negotiated a further leg for Concorde through from Singapore to Melbourne where the Australians—particularly those who have to come regularly to London—enormously welcomed the idea.
I think this all went wrong because of the rise in oil prices. However, now that oil prices have in a way been caught up with by general changes in prices, I hope that the board of British Airways, under their very enterprising and effective leadership, will have another look at this matter and see whether the immense saving of time for busy and responsible people which Concorde can give on the route, not only to Singapore but through to Australia, can be revived.
Looking further ahead—and this is perhaps a matter for the Government because of the expenditures
946
involved—is the time not approaching when there should be planning of new and larger supersonic aircraft? It cannot be a law of nature that civil air transport stops at 600 miles per hour whereas military transport, as your Lordships know, sometimes goes up to 3,000 or more miles an hour. The technical problems are enormous. The Americans have had very great difficulty with it. However, a joint effort between Boeing, Aerospatiale and British Aerospace might well take us over the next step to a larger Concorde with at least the same speed but with a greater range and carrying capacity. May I leave that thought with your Lordships?
Finally, may I say that I am very happy that this debate is being wound up by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. As some of your Lordships know, his experience in this matter goes back years before he went into government. When I first met him he was in a highly responsible position in an airline at Gatwick. He knows this subject perhaps better than any of your Lordships. Although I appreciate that he is constrained by his departmental responsibilities, I know that he takes a lively interest in the subject; and he has one very great advantage which has been briefly referred to this evening. It is that civil aviation is back departmentally where it was 30 years ago and where it always ought to have been—in the Department of Transport—and is no longer overlaid by the manifold and sometimes conflicting responsibilities of the Department of Trade.
With a Minister who knows his stuff on the subject and with a department which is the appropriate one, at a time when we are all agreed that policies must be reviewed, I suggest that this is the moment for bold and progressive action in due course by the Government. If your Lordships in this debate are able to help them in that respect, my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil will have been particularly justified.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Energlyn: My Lords, the pioneers of air transport are now seeing their visions come true. They had the vision to see that, as Britain was once the ruler of the waves, she has now become one of the major rulers in the skies; and this island has now become the focal point of air transport for the world. That, it seems to me, is the signpost to the future.
In the immediate post-war era I had the singular pleasure and privilege of meeting up with Frank Whittle, Andre Houberechts and Lord Hives. These were great visionaries and they were really the pioneers visualising the approach of the jet era. We are therefore extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, for giving us the opportunity of expressing our several points of view regarding the future of this very important aspect of our industrial life.
I am not competent to judge one way or another which commercial option is the best for our industry as a whole. On the other hand, I have always taken a deep interest in the location of airports and their relationship to commercial patterns. Therefore I am very concerned about the Government's attitude to the future of the British Airports Authority. Here we have a success story without parallel among our

947
nationalised enterprises. This is due, I suggest, in no small measure to the dedication, foresight and skill of its pioneer chairman, Mr. Norman Payne—a man who has probably been responsible for the construction of more airports than any other single person in the world. It gives me great pleasure, although I do not know him personally, to render this token of praise for his chairmanship of this remarkable authority.
If I may quote him from the Airport News No. 152, he states:
"I am aware that the possible privatisation of the BAA continues to be of real concern to our staff".
That indicates that the man is deeply concerned with the future of the personnel of the BAA. He then goes on to say:
"the Board's position on privatisation is unchanged. We regard the policy as a matter for Government but remain committed to the principle of retaining the authority as a single unit".
Norman Payne and his board have for me demonstrated in their publications that fragmentation would make a less attractive proposition for potential investors. It would saddle the Government and the taxpayer with smaller, and usually loss-making, airports. It would erode the Government's ability to balance traffic distribution among airports through international agreements. It would lead to higher landing charges; and, with little doubt, fragmentation would lead to a deterioration in the high standards of safety which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, stressed are so important in aviation. These standards in no small measure have been created by the BAA. It would, I think, be wise for the Government to heed the considered opinions of the BAA, guided by such a famous pioneer as its chairman.
There is little doubt that commercial aviation is already playing a significant role in our industrial recovery. This is evidenced by the steady increase in air freight. The value added products of countries can be moved more efficiently and often less expensively by air. It is now possible, for example, to consider the movement of 2,000 tonnes of processed cobalt out of Zambia. This is a payload of metal which is now fetching between £20,000 and £30,000 a tonne. This is a very interesting payload, which is vital to Zambia's economy. With air freight it can be taken out of the country unembarrassed by what is happening in the unstable countries surrounding it.
There are other cargoes which are equally glamorous, but it is important to realise that there is an enormous growth in the transport of chemicals, biochemicals and mundane things like fruit, and so on, which emphasises the growing importance of cargo freight in the aircraft industry. Therefore, certain arrangements will inevitably have to be made in the construction of airports to accommodate the growth in the future of cargo transport. Authorities like the BAA are to me the only ones which could cope with such a form of development which is so vital for the future of our aviation industry.
These are just the few remarks that I should like to make, because I feel rather strongly that it is quite senseless to destroy something that has been unquestionably successful. Therefore, I plead with the Government to retain the BAA in its present condition.
5.17 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, for bringing this subject for debate today. I listened to the contributions of the other noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, with great interest. My comments will be on the airports and on the need for greater co-operation and liaison among the various bodies directly involved for the benefit of what I consider is the essential ingredient in all this—the passenger.
Heathrow has the highest passenger movement in the world and at the moment is handling just under 27 million passengers a year. The capacity is 30 million a year, and when the fourth terminal is opened in October 1985 it will rise to 38 million a year. We are all now wondering whether there will be a fifth terminal—and I know that those on the flight path very much oppose that; whether it will be at Stansted—and I agree with the point that, if you have had two inquiries, it seems rather hard to be up to the third: or whether we shall have that other runway at Gatwick. Gatwick of course is handling just under 12 million passengers a year.
I can really speak personally only on Heathrow and Gatwick. as those are the two airports that I use a great deal—and I do a lot of travelling. But being Australian, I am also constantly welcoming friends and family from that country down under. Therefore. I get a lot of indirect comments on the airports, as well as my own direct experience.
There are a number of problems. Luggage handling is a major problem both in the time that it takes to get one's luggage and in the damage that is done to luggage at Heathrow. I am sorry to say that it has a very bad reputation for damage to baggage. I remember recently having my own suitcase quite smashed to pieces, and while I was there claiming from the airline the woman next to me was in great distress because she had bought a beautiful marble piece. She had put it on the plane at the Germany end and had been told that they would carry it personally on to the plane for her. Of course, no one told her that when it got to the London end it would just be put on the conveyer belt. As it crashed off it in the middle, it smashed into two pieces. I would say that it was almost irreplaceable.
They were very helpful about my suitcase. They said, "You can either take everything out and leave your suitcase now and be paid instantly for it"—I do not know what they imagined one would do with the contents of a huge suitcase—"or you can bring it into the airline office any day next week and have the compensation". I chose that. When I went there I said to the girl, "What suitcase would you advise me to get so that I wouldn't have this trouble again?" She said, "It makes no difference. Every suitcase, every make, comes into this office for a claim. I have seen them all." There is a case for Heathrow, in particular. to look into some better method of handling the baggage so that we do not develop a bad name in that respect.
When one speaks to the British Airports Authority, they say to one. "The airlines handle the baggage: it is not the airport authority". I accept that. It was interesting that in the report of the British Airports

949
Authority—because I was asking about complaints—there was a little statement which said:
"Although non-British Airports Authority complaints which can be identified are excluded"—
there is a graph about what the complaints are—
"the performance of airlines, customs and immigration authorities and others, over which BAA has no direct control, contributes to the overall impression of an airport and is reflected in the level of complaints".
I think this is absolutely so.
Having dealt with the luggage, I should like to go on to the immigration situation. I am quite sure that Members of your Lordships' House have little problem, because they all fly through with their UK passports. But if one is queued up on another passport, there can be very long delays. In terminal 3 on a Saturday morning it can take two hours to get through the other passport section. That is not a very good introduction for people coming from the United States on a jumbo jet.
Airports are run by transport authorities. If there is a tidal flow on roads and all the traffic is going one way, more lanes are converted over. In the same way, why cannot more of these immigration authorities be converted over to wherever the flow of the public is coming through? One man could remain on the United Kingdom job and the rest could move over to wherever the pile of people are arriving.
When, eventually, I got to the man, I said to him, "This seems terrible; is it often like this?" He said, "Oh, no. it's only at the week-ends". I said, "Really? Can't you do anything about it?" He said, "Oh, yes; these people shouldn't be coming here". I found that an amazing answer. Surely we are welcoming travellers who are meant to be coming armed with loads of cash to spend on goodies here in Britain, and on no account is the solution to discourage them from arriving. That is bad for the airlines, the airport, and our whole economy. There should be more liaison with the Home Office, who apparently are the people responsible for those immigration officers.
When the British Airports Authority say that the airlines handle one's luggage they do not realise (or did not remark on the fact) that the passengers also handle their luggage. Perhaps they handle it even more than do the airlines. It is a quite major effort to collect it, put it on a trolley and eventually wheel if off to wherever one is going. I always wondered how I got the one trolley with the defective wheel, but as this has happened to me so often I have decided that maybe they all have a defective wheel. Recently I was rather pleased to note that I got a new trolley with marvellous wheels. It worked just as well as any on the continent, and I can only think and hope that this means we are gradually having a replacement of those rather antiquated and not very effective trolleys.
Then one wheels one's trolley, and if one chooses to go by the airbus, fine; all is well. I have the greatest admiration for the airbus service and I think it has been a great success. Of course, it is difficult if one wants to use it to go to the airport at a time when there is very heavy traffic; one can be delayed. This is where, on the days of heavy traffic, the Tube is the answer. But the Tube at Heathrow is cleverly designed to prevent one from ever being able to get off it anywhere with luggage.
950
As a member of the Greater London Council, I drove the Tube to Heathrow in that first opening week. We got out there, we were shown all over, and we asked lots of questions about it. They had a marvellous indicator that one pressed and it told one just what station to go to. I said, "Does it tell you which stations you can get off at easily, where there is a lift?" They said, "Oh, no, it doesn't tell you that, but, on the other hand, this isn't designed for people with baggage". I said. "Why isn't it?" They said, "Oh, well, people shouldn't have baggage". Again, I was amazed by this. I said, "Really, if you are travelling the whole world you must have baggage". They said, "Oh, well, those people shouldn't be using the Tube".
This is unrealistic. It is important that this great capital should have a very good service and a way whereby one can conveniently collect one's baggage and take oneself to the Underground. I must say again that I was pleased to have a meeting a couple of weeks ago with London Transport. They told me that this point is now realised, although I cannot think how many years it is since that first meeting. This point is now realised and they are giving thought to introducing just a small number of stations, round the centre of London, where passengers would be able to get off, and then taxis could be available there. All of this integration of transport is very important to get one's patients—I mean passengers; I say "patients" as a dentist: it becomes a habit—comfortably in and out of London.
There is also a need—I would emphasise this—for the continuance of the porter service. There are still an amazing number of people willing and able to pay for a porter. At Gatwick in particular, the porter has access to a lift and can take one's baggage right down to the platform. He usually meets one at the platform, with one's bag, and there is no problem. When one arrives at Gatwick an announcement is made at the station saying that this service exists and it comes to one's plane. Again, that is very good.
I must voice a little complaint about the duty-free shops. The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, described KLM as being a challenge. So is Schiphol. That is the best duty-free shopping in the world. I know many people who go to the trouble of routing their flights via Schiphol, simply to be able to go to the duty-free shopping there; whereas every woman in London could tell one that the perfume at Heathrow can be bought cheaper locally, at some sort of discount place. That really is not good enough. People do not like to be taken for a ride and charged as much at the airport, in a duty-free shop, as they would be anywhere else. I know that those duty-free shops are let out on tender. I do not know exactly how that works, but it is in the interests of the airports to allow people to make a fair profit but not to make the prices totally unrealistic. The spirits and other things are not such a problem.
Having told your Lordships the grim side of the story, I should like to tell you that complaints at Heathrow are down by 24 per cent. in the last year. That is good news, and surely must indicate that things are getting better. I would say also, particularly after mentioning the transport difficulties, that the one marvellous way to be transported is in a wheelchair. The airports look after marvellously anyone who is in a wheelchair. Someone said to me the other day, "If

951
only you could get yourself a wheelchair on some sort of false grounds, you could carry all your baggage on your lap, and all your problems are solved". But I am not suggesting that solution. They look after disabled passengers in a marvellous way.
I should like to place on record that at Gatwick there have been awards from the British Tourist Association and the building for the disabled national award scheme for the construction and improvements that have been made for disabled people. I know how much Members of your Lordships' House appreciate that, as do the disabled people who are using these facilities.
Our airports have many things that could be improved by co-ordination of these various systems, but there is a lot of good there and a lot of improvements have taken place in the recent past. I look forward to greater improvements in the future.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I should like to join in the tributes paid to my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil for enabling us to discuss a most important subject. Airports are always a matter of top interest. One of the worries at present is the verbal or written battle taking place between the chairmen of two of our major airlines which has to some extent clouded the issue as to what really matters about our airports.
I do not fly from Heathrow as nearly as much as some of your Lordships. But one only has to go to Heathrow to wonder how on earth it sometimes operates at all. Yet generally speaking my own experience of Heathrow has been impressive. I should like to say a few words about Terminal 4 which is at present under construction, because a few months ago I was invited to visit the construction site. I should like to pay a very sincere tribute to all those responsible for the construction of the terminal and particularly for the baggage handling arrangements. My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes has given hair-raising examples of what can happen to luggage. I believe that the existence of Terminal 4 may well obviate some of those difficulties—one certainly hopes so. I believe, too, that the Customs arrangements at Terminal 4 will be an improvement.
My noble friend also mentioned immigration. I do not have as great a Commonwealth background as my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, but I meet quite a number of New Zealanders and I find that there is some criticism of the way in which the immigration procedure is carried out. However, I am bound to say that in America it is even worse. I remember, two years ago, flying on business to San Francisco. On the aircraft one fills in the normal immigration form, plus a visa form. Yet when one goes through immigration one can be subjected to the most extraordinary questions. I realise that America, like most countries, wants to deal as thoroughly as it possibly can with illegal or undesirable immigrants. But our immigration procedures are probably more humane and above all more tactful than those of our American counterparts. I was informed by the American Embassy a few years ago that they would like to see the visa system altered considerably because it does lead to a great deal of ill-feeling and misunderstanding.
952
I should like to say a word about air fares in Europe. I travel from time to time to Scandinavia. The economy flight from London to Helsinki is, I believe, £481 return. I accept that one can fly Apex at just under £200, but as I understand it that involves a stay of at least 14 days. If one is going on business to Scandinavia—as beautiful a country as it is—one cannot always afford either the time or even the money to spend 14 days there. With our increasing trade and links with Scandinavia I believe that everything possible should be done to improve the situation. Mention has been made of the Government's partial success. at any rate, in getting something done about these air fares, particularly with the co-operation of the Dutch authorities. I am not blaming the Scandinavian authorities, because I was told the other day by a very long-standing Finnish friend of mine: "Ah, yes; it may cost you a lot of money to fly from London to Helsinki, but it costs me even more to fly from Helsinki to London". I am not a sufficient expert on finance or aircraft matters to see the logic of that. But it is certainly something which, within the ambit of this debate, needs looking into.
Having mentioned Terminal 4 and the magnificent work which is being done there, we must remember that there is of course the great problem of whether there should be a fifth terminal at Heathrow, development at Stansted, or a new runway at Gatwick. I would not presume to give any kind of practical, technical answer. I would only say that, not living very far from Gatwick, and Crawley New Town having recently been built, I believe that a second runway at Gatwick would cause appalling problems both as regards noise and land disturbance.
Stansted has been the subject of two inquiries, one of which took place under the very skilful chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill. Weather conditions at Stansted—and I have relatives living nearby—are often very difficult not only because of frost, but also fog. As for Heathrow, I submit that we must first construct Terminal 4. It is hoped to be completed by October next year and I understand that the timetable is well up to the mark. Of those options, there will probably be a new terminal at Heathrow despite the problems of the link roads into Heathrow. One only has to travel—as I sometimes do—from Leatherhead to Heathrow to know that can happen if the access tunnel becomes blocked or something like that. If we add more terminals then the approach roads into Heathrow must cause added problems.
Finally, I should like to pay a very sincere tribute to all those who operate Heathrow. We may criticise it—I sometimes criticise it and I am sure we all do—but as I understand it Heathrow was originally intended to be a temporary airport. Now it is one of the world's leading airports, and on the whole the standards that exist there magnify its status.
5.39 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsey and Abingdon: My Lords, having listened to all the speeches this afternoon I feel that I am following noble Lords with far more experience on the subject before us now. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil for initiating this debate and would echo his remark that this is only a forerunner to future debates on civil aviation policy

953
in view of the forthcoming privatisation of British Airways.
Together with a small delegation from your Lordships' House, led by my noble friend Lord Kimberley, I visited Heathrow at the invitation of the board of British Airways at the beginning of April this year. In view of the hospitality and information that was given to us on that occasion, I felt that it was only right that a member of that delegation should take part in the debate today.
It is my intention to restrict my remarks to those points which were raised in the course of our visit and in subsequent correspondence. I would just add that I am a reasonably frequent traveller on the London to Glasgow route, and I should like to say how much I appreciate the transformation of the service between those two major United Kingdom destinations. Working, as I do, in a service industry, I am only too aware of the fact that competition leads to better efficiency and service, and that a single monopoly is not the answer. I, for one, welcome the friendly independents.
The present strategy of the board of British Airways was designed to make the airline more competitive and responsive to the market. This has begun to show results and is reflected in the latest set of accounts. I think that the noble Lord, Lord King, and his highly qualified board of directors should be congratulated on this achievement.
I now turn to the points that were put to me on the visit which I and my noble friends made to Heathrow in April. The first point worth stressing concerns the write-off of debts. It was emphasised that there is absolutely no question of write-offs. British Airways' borrowings are from commercial sources and will be repaid, together with the interest, on the due dates. Secondly, the real competition comes from the foreign carriers. British Airways has to compete with 200 international overseas airlines and at any time of the day, week or month of all the passengers travelling throughout the globe, the number sitting in British Airways seats accounts for only 2.3 per cent. of the total. This emphasises the point that charges of monopoly are quite ridiculous.
Thirdly, back in 1979—and again the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. mentioned this—the then right honourable John Nott, moving the Civil Aviation Bill in another place (which was enacted the following year), set out the Government's policy view when he said that the Government had no intention of changing or breaking up British Airways. It would be denationalised, or privatised, as it stood, in full, since the airline was in an increasingly competitive situation. I should like to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench, when he winds up this debate, to reiterate that statement.
The fourth point, which is often overlooked, is that aviation is a very fully regulated industry and there is, of course, absolutely no suggestion of the Civil Aviation Authority being abolished. Therefore, the chances that a privately-owned British Airways could behave in a predatory or immoral manner totally ignores the fact of continuing governmental regulation through the CAA.
954
The last major point is that significant removals from British Airways would destroy any privatisation prospects. Statements have been made in the press and on the media that the independent airlines will try to take this opportunity of the privatisation of British Airways to move in on its profitable routes. I, for one, believe in open competition, but by that I mean competition and not a form of private monopoly where one airline tries to move in and remove the routes of another.
I do not wish to become involved in the airports debate this afternoon. I have listened with great interest to noble Lords who have spoken on the question of airports. I, for one, have never been a supporter of a concentration of international airports in the South-East of England. At the time of the Roskill Inquiry into Stansted Airport I did make a speech in your Lordships' House stressing this point of view. I await with great interest the third report, which will shortly be to hand. I have always advocated the expanson of international provincial airports, such as Manchester and Birmingham. in view of the increased efficiency and better road and rail services connecting London with those centres.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I think that everyone will agree that this has been a most worthwhile debate. As everyone has said, we should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for introducing the debate and most of all for the extremely open way in which he put the very important questions, and even after this debate we shall all be wondering where the answers lie. In his speech and in subsequent statements the Secretary of State has made it clear that a great deal of information is required before he and the Government can finally decide on a policy with which we shall have to live for a very long time and which will be extremely expensive. Whatever decision is made, it will be one of mammoth expense and is not one that can suddenly be changed. Therefore very grave decisions will be taken.
I feel rather inadequate speaking in such a debate, because we have listened to a great deal of expertise. My main claim to knowing something, if anything, about this is that for the past 20 years I have been making a return journey to Glasgow once a week. One would need to be extremely dull not to have picked up some of the airport information from the people one meets and from one's own experiences. I began travelling in the glorious days of the Vanguard aircraft, when service was service, and perhaps it is an indication of just how greatly the whole industry has expanded that that service is now impracticable. However, in saying that, I must say that British Caledonian (and later British Midland Airways) have done a very good job. I agree with a certain amount of interface competition. I do not think that we should ever bow to the idea that the most important thing is to be served breakfast on an aeroplane, important as it frequently is.
Throughout the time that I have flown the biggest innovation has been the introduction of the shuttle. I have waited many weary hours at Heathrow or Glasgow airports because there has been a technical fault on a plane or something else has gone wrong. In

955
such cases one would not necessarily get a seat on the next plane available because that may have been fully hooked by people who legitimately expected to travel on it. So one could wait for three planes before getting a seat. With the shuttle one is assured of a seat.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, made another very important point. We all realise that when we arrive at Heathrow, Glasgow or any other airport, we are not in the town itself. You are only there when the rest of the communication system is built to match the good service that we get from the airways. To be at Heathrow airport with a bad connection to London, or no connection, is no help. Therefore, it was relevant of the noble Lord to speak in terms of the importance of helicopters, inter-airport connections, and rail and road connections. They are all part of the one travel pattern. I am sure that the Minister and the Government will he aware of this and will look at it when they are planning airports.
There is the question of helicopters. It was the most experienced of all of us. the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, who stressed something that perhaps we have all taken too much for granted over the years, and that is the safety factor. It is important that someone of his vast experience calls us back occasionally to show that a lot of work goes into keeping a plane in the air and making sure that safety is of paramount importance.
There were many knowledgeable and informative speeches, and speeches made from experience, in the debate today. The Minister is awaiting all these reports—and I do not blame him for that—and if he has not the time to go through all the debate I am sure that his staff will provide him with a summary of the important points so that he will be able to see how your Lordships' House is treating this subject, and be able to gather from this debate, and the debate last Friday in another place, the general mood and feeling of people towards the whole question of the airways and airports.
My noble friend Lord Underhill stressed that following the Edwards Report the right honourable Peter Shore. who I think was Minister of Trade at the time, said in the other place that we wished to have at least two carriers with the British flag in the airlines of the world. We should pay a considerable tribute to Sir Adam Thomson for the undoubted balance as well as verve that he has brought to his particular airline. One feels that one is dealing with a responsible airline when on British Caledonian. It has been built up brick upon brick with a great deal of feeling of responsibility.
Perhaps noble Lords will forgive me if I bring us back to the fact that we are discussing—and I hope I shall not be too parochial about it—airports in the United Kingdom, and make some reference to something that I thought would have been more in evidence in the debate today, which is the question of airports and the position in Scotland. We have a position in Scotland which is perhaps analogous to that of the South-East in that we have two regional airports in the central belt of Scotland as well as having the recognised—one hopes, recognised—international airport at Prestwick. Had we had the benefit of hindsight no doubt we would have thought seriously of
956
building a central Scottish airport, just as it might have been possible to build down on the Thames the big terminal that was talked about some years ago—that would perhaps have solved all the problems of the South-East, if we had been willing to spend vast sums of money on the inter-connections and intrastructure required.
In the Scottish situation it would be better had we a central Scottish airport, which unfortunately we do not have. It is important to look at the position of the airports that we have. If it is possible, I should like the Minister to give us an indication of how he sees the position of Prestwick airport, particularly following the difficulties of British Midland which wished to fly a transatlantic service from Glasgow airport and the Civil Aviation Authority, supported by the Minister, decided that it had to fly from Prestwick.
I think this is relevant to the general discussion today because it could greatly affect the attitude towards Heathrow, Stansted, and Gatwick. Prestwick was an old airport. historically pre-war. It was built up during the war. It was an emergency airport and had an emergency runway which was almost always fog free and had a good record, and many transatlantic flights were sent there. It appears with the new avionics that we have that it may not be quite as necessary to have this standby airport, but it would be helpful if the Minister could say something about this.
A great deal is involved for Scottish aviation. A large number of high-grade jobs are at Prestwick airport. The Canadian and American charter flights still use it, and we hope to build that up. I believe that British Caledonian have one of their major overhaul places there. It is also a trading airport. Therefore, we hope that Prestwick airport will be an airport that the Government will see as important.
As one may imagine we are worried in Scotland at the idea of privatisation if it were to be done on any other basis than a major acceptance of the fact that British Airways is the best major flag carrier for Britain. not the only one, but that it maintains a high profile as the British flag carrier. We worry about total denationalisation or privatisation, because the Highlands of Scotland, which have benefited enormously from the advent of aircraft and the benefits that flow from them, have the feeling that despite the great successes of the Highlands Division of British Airways it may be a candidate for being reduced, or even cut, by any group of people purely concerned about the profitability of the business.
Although it is paying now and the Highlands Division are confident of the future, nevertheless communities like the Highlands of Scotland are worried because the airline is vital not just as a natural means of communication but in giving the feeling of ability to move quickly if it is required. It takes away the feeling of isolation that some communities have. If there is ever to be a real future for some of these areas the airways must be maintained. There is an understandable worry that there could be an effect on the Highlands Division of British Airways as a result of privatisation.
I agree with the Secretary of State when he says that when an airline, or any organisation, is subsidised there should be clarity of where the subsidy is coming

957
from. I do not think that we in Scotland are in doubt at all that we want to know if we are subsidised and how far we are subsidised. But it is easier if it is part of a total network, part of a total concept of a world airline, if part of it is being subsidised because it perhaps indirectly helps the major services of the airline itself as a result of the interconnection that is possible.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a little understanding about whether he fully accepts, following the debate we have had today, the statement by the Secretary of State that there should be three airports in the South. Whatever happens to the whole of the airport network, I hope that these three airports will stay as a unit.
A great deal has been said about the second runway at Gatwick. I am not fully competent to discuss that, but looking at the large number of figures we have been given I do not think there is any way of avoiding the fact that at some point Stansted has to be considered as another airport to take a major role in civil aviation in Britain for the next 10 or 15 years.
I get worried when I think of Heathrow with the 275,000 airport traffic movements per year. I suppose that. if there is a great improvement in avionics, it will possibly be able to take some more. I was glad that the Secretary of State said that at least for the present he was convinced that the 275,000 movements was the correct figure and, because he was holding to that figure, he was willing to alter it only after having an investigation made of all its aspects. When one divides up 275,000 flights a year it seems an incredible figure for people such as the air traffic controllers and others to handle.
I look forward to the four reports we shall be receiving. I shall read the debate in greater detail than I was able to absorb from the speeches today. I hope that having had this debate, for which we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, and after we have received these reports, and long before any final decisions are taken, this House and another place—where a great deal of expertise has been shown by honourable and noble Members—will be given plenty of opportunity for discussion before legislation is contemplated.
As to the article that was in the Financial Times on Wednesday, 2nd May, which I am sure the Minister has read, the final sentence is still pertinent after all we have heard and after all the reading we have done. The article says:
"The really hard questions in the arena of airline competition await a solution".
That is still the case and because of the momentous solutions that are required I hope that as much time as possible will be given to them. This is not a method of trying to delay privatisation; it is merely that because of the importance of decisions for the future of the British airline industry, and because of the nature of the distribution of the airports, a decision has to be taken with a great deal of understanding and input from the whole community. I and many others ask that this House and another place be given plenty of time to discuss the issue before we reach a final decision.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I must begin by echoing those noble Lords who have thanked my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil for introducing this debate this afternoon. As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, the United Kingdom civil aviation industry is a key part of our national economy. Our major airlines produce annual operating revenues in excess of £3,000 million. They employ over 60,000 employees, in addition to all the indirect employment at airports, and so on; and there is the revenue earned from all these associated activities. There is also the important contribution made by the smaller air taxi firms and all the other general aviation operators.
In turning to the various points which have been made this afternoon, I will start with the privatisation of British Airways, which is a thread which runs through many of the other considerations of policy about which we have heard today. Six months after my noble friend Lord Lucas repeated a Statement to your Lordships about the privatisation (or denationalisation, if my noble friend prefers) of British Airways, I can report that on 1st April this year British Airways ceased to trade as a statutory corporation and began trading as a public limited company, with share capital of about £180 million wholly owned by the Government. The preparations for privatisation (with apologies to my noble friend) are continuing with the appointment of brokers and other advisers to assist the Government.
Let me recite again the benefits of privatisation. In British Airways' case they are, firstly, to inject private sector equity capital into the airline and expose it to the disciplines of the market place; secondly, to let the management run the business free from Government involvement in its daily affairs—in the decision about what aircraft to purchase or the amounts it may borrow or repay—and, thirdly, to reap a substantial sum for the taxpayer. We intend to achieve these aims and to privatise the country's largest airline in a way which is consistent with the sound development of the United Kingdom's aviation industry.
British Airways has shown determination and flexibility in recovering from a difficult period for civil aviation throughout the world in the first two years of this decade. BA is now building itself a reputation both for profitability and for service. My noble friend Lord King of Wartnaby and his staff have good reason to be proud of their achievement in reviving the fortunes of British Airways. Incidentally, my noble friend Lord King has asked me to say that he would have very much liked to have made his maiden speech today, but he felt that, on reflection, he would not have been able to do so uncontroversially, and therefore feels that he should choose another occasion on which to address your Lordships for the first time. I should personally like to congratulate my noble friend on the airlines' results for 1983-84 and for exceeding, by a wide margin, the Government's financial target for 1982-83 and 1983-84, producing an average real rate of return of 10.4 per cent. compared with a target of 5.75 per cent. Provided that BA keeps up these successes—and I am confident that it can—the company should be ready for flotation by early 1985.

959
However, the prospect of a privatised British Airways has aroused some fears about the competition which it will present to other parts of the industry after that event, and several noble Lords have echoed those fears during this debate.
Some airlines have suggested that unless the structure of the industry is substantially changed, British Airways will enjoy such a dominant position that they may be forced out of business. We recognise that these fears are genuinely held. It was for this reason that last December my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport asked the Civil Aviation Authority to review the implications of privatising British Airways for competition and the sound development of the industry. Since then the CAA has received over 100 submissions about the need for change. and in April it published an interim assessment putting forward some interesting ideas for further comment. The authority is on course to provide a report of its conclusions by the middle of next month.
I cannot today comment on the interim assessment or speculate on what conclusions the CAA may reach. To do so might conceivably prejudice the eventual outcome of the review. But I can assure your Lordships that any policy changes arising out of the review will be decided well in advance of British Airways' privatisation. This review, although a major element, is not the only part of the evolutionary change taking place in the framework which governs British civil aviation. Since 1979 this Government have sought to liberalise the regime within which airlines must operate.
As long ago as 1980 my right honourable friend Sir John Nott ended British Airways' monopoly of the service between London and Hong Kong. This was a decision which I announced to your Lordships at the time. I recall that, although my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter expressed reservation, the decision was generally welcomed. I believe that the experience of British Airways, British Caledonian, and Cathay Pacific on the route, and the increase in total traffic generated. fully justified my right honourable friend's courageous decision.
Since then there has been a number of important licensing decisions designed to foster competition and your Lordships will need no reminding, for example, of the effect on British Airways' performance of licensing a second carrier on some of the domestic trunk routes out of Heathrow. The civil air transport industry exists to meet the needs of its customers, but without an adequate level of competition it cannot expect to flourish or. in the long term, to maintain in employment the many thousands who depend upon British air transport for their living. The dead hand of over-regulation is the one sure way of guaranteeing a moribund industry that fails to give the customers what they want.
Turning to Europe, we have all benefited from the freedom of trade within the Community. Manufacturers have benefited from the wider markets in which they can sell their goods without import restrictions and tariffs. Consumers have benefited from a wider choice of competitively priced domestic
960
goods. Competition has increased efficiently and kept down prices during a period of inflation: but it is very disappointing that, 25 years after the Treaty of Rome came into effect, so little progress has been made in establishing the freedom of services envisaged under its auspices. It is particularly disappointing that virtually no progress has been made in civil aviation and that scheduled air services remain subject to virtually the same restrictive bilateral regimes as 20 years ago.
The travelling public is suffering from lack of competition which creates unnecessarily high prices and airlines are denied the opportunity of increasing their markets through imaginative, innovative and competitive fares. The travelling public has benefited enormously wherever restrictions on civil aviation have been relaxed and fare competition encouraged. We believe that similar results would flow from a relaxation of restrictions on scheduled services within Europe. At present, some bilateral agreements prevent more than one airline from each country serving a route and require them to mount approximately equal capacity. This was in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, when he spoke.
There is no incentive to compete under such a regime and it is small wonder that the airlines concerned negotiate revenue-sharing pool agreements. We should like to see governments free to authorise as many of their own airlines as they thought fit to serve routes to other European countries. We should like to see those airlines free to decide what planes to use and what frequencies to mount on the routes: and we should like to see them free to fix fares on commercial grounds without any need to consult other airlines involved and to charge those fares. subject only to the approval of the government of the country of origin of the traffic. In order to ensure that there was fair competition between European airlines, we should like the Commission to enforce the rules in the treaty about state aid. Action on these lines would, I believe, create the competitive environment which is needed if scheduled air services are to be able to meet the demands of the travelling public and, indeed, to create new demands from people who do not at present travel by air. I am confident that competition would make all European airlines more efficient and that British airlines would give a good account of themselves in such conditions.
Her Majesty's Government welcome the Commission's recent proposals for progress in this field, even though they do not go nearly as far as we should like. We are glad that the Council agreed to set up a high-level working group to consider liberalisation of air transport and to report to Ministers by the end of the year. I hope that this will lead to the speedy adoption of a liberal regime in Europe. My noble friend Lord Gainford asked me about this matter at Question Time yesterday. In the meantime. my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already announced that, in accordance with what we believe to be the requirements of the Treaty of Rome. he will no longer require airlines to consult their competitors before filing tariffs for the British Government's approval.
Last week my right honourable friend reached an agreement with his colleagues in the Netherlands

961
which will very significantly liberalise our bilateral civil aviation relations. Not only will the Dutch follow us in not requiring airlines to consult before filing tariffs, but any airline designated by either Government will be free to fly on any route between this country and the Netherlands at whatever frequency and capacity they wish and, subject only to the approval of the country of the origin of traffic, will be free to charge the fares which the airline considers appropriate. It is true, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, has said, that KLM will be free to match the tariffs quoted by British Airways between London and any overseas point; but, by the same token, British Airways and British Caledonian will be able to match KLM's tariffs on the routes from Amsterdam and British airlines will benefit from this arrangement because of the large network of international routes which they operate from London.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, if Imay say so, I never mentioned the word "tariffs". I merely asked whether it was true that KLM would have the right to fly to any airport in the United Kingdom that they did not already serve and would be able to take passengers from there through Amsterdam to their other routes. I never mentioned the word "tariffs".
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the answer to the noble Baroness is, yes, they will: but then British carriers will have reciprocal rights through the Netherlands. I think the advantage will be at least as much in the British favour as it may be—
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend has taken the opinion of the airlines as to whether or not British airlines, as a result, will enjoy an advantage comparable with that gained by KLM. I believe very much the contrary.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, of course, I attach the greatest weight to the views of my noble friend but, as my other noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was kind enough to say during his remarks, I did at one time have some responsibility for matters of this kind with one of the smaller British airlines and I can tell your Lordships that that airline is one of those which, I understand, will be involved in these arrangements; and I am certain that they will find them very much to their favour. I understand that British airlines are broadly pleased with what has been agreed.
My Lords, we hope to negotiate more liberal bilateral relations with the other member states, so that our airlines, and those of our European partners, may have greater freedom to compete for the business available and to increase the total amount of air travel in Europe. I believe that over the past few months there has been a change in attitude towards liberalisation in many countries. The travelling public complains about high fares and the present restrictive system. The more forward-looking airlines—and I am glad that several of them are British—are anxious for freedom to compete and share the benefits of efficiency with a growing travelling public. Governments themselves are accepting the need for change. We must take advantage of the opportunity and press for a rapid relaxation of unnecessary restrictions. The resulting freedom to compete will reflect credit on the
962
governments concerned, present a challenge to their airlines and, above all, bring benefits to the travelling public.
I now turn to the Government's proposal to introduce private capital into the British Airports Authority, which we announced last year. The authority's seven airports handle the vast majority of all international scheduled air traffic in Great Britain. They are not, however, all profitable, though the authority has made considerable progress, particularly in Scotland, where the Scottish airports are expected to break even as a group this year. Heathrow is very profitable, being the world's largest international airport. It accounts for most of the authority's profits. But Gatwick Airport is growing very fast and is now the fourth largest international airport in the world, though it is still less than half the size of Heathrow.
These airports together form a major national asset. The route networks available to the airlines operating from them should ensure that they maintain their present international dominance. However, by the end of this decade these two airports will not have sufficient capacity to meet the expected demand and the additional capacity needed. At the Government's invitation, the authority have applied for planning consent to provide this at Stansted. We are awaiting the inspector's report on the public inquiry into this and the alternative application to develop a fifth terminal at Heathrow. Decisions on these planning applications and the other proposals considered at the inquiry will be taken by my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Environment and for Transport some time after that and, therefore, it would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage on any of the cases made in the inquiry.
The authority's board have proposed that the seven BAA airports should be sold together. But a number of other views have been advanced. Some have suggested that each airport should become a public limited company which could be sold; others that groups should be kept in common ownership.
My right honourable friend, after examining carefully the prospects for creating competition between the three London airports, has concluded that, for the foreseeable future, effective competition could not exist. Heathrow is the dominant airport by virtue of its very considerble international network of air services, and demand is always likely to exceed supply. The airport is already close to its capacity and it may not be possible to price away the demand. Charges at Gatwick are considerably lower than at Heathrow, but it has required a prohibition on charters and scheduled services by new operators at Heathrow to promote its development.
For the future, further measures to distribute traffic between the London airports will be needed, given the constraints on charging and the expected growth in air transport. This will also be necessary in order to enforce the limit on air transport movements which will come into effect at Heathrow when Terminal 4 opens next year. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport will shortly be issuing a consultation document inviting views on how that might best be done. It is vital that the London airports be developed in an orderly way if demand is to be met. The Government are necessarily involved in such

963
matters, and the London airports could not be free to compete for traffic even if they were in separate ownership. The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, asked me when that document will be published. I do not have a precise date; I believe it will be fairly soon but I can tell her that I have at least already seen a draft.
These considerations have led us to conclude that the three London airports should not be sold separately. We have however taken no other decisions about the introduction of private capital into these airports or into the BAA's Scottish airports. The form in which these airports can be presented to the market will depend on the outcome of the review of Scottish lowlands airports policy which was announced recently and which is intended to show whether the present licensing policy is still appropriate. We do not expect to make any decision on privatisation until this and a number of other important issues affecting airports are resolved. I hope that that allays the fears in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael.
Government policy is to encourage the use of regional airports—a matter in the minds of several noble Lords. This policy not only provides the most convenient services for passengers, but helps to take some of the pressure off south-eastern airports. The policy has been matched by action. In the past five years unprecedentedly large capital allocations have been made for specific airport projects of national or regional importance. But I should emphasise that the Government's policy is one of encouragement and facilitation. It is no part of the policy to force people to travel from the south-east to the regions to catch a flight. And it is for the commercial decision of the airlines whether they should operate a service from a regional airport: the Government cannot direct them.
It is also Government policy, inherited (I am happy to admit) from the previous Administration, that airports should not in general be subsidised by the taxpayer or the ratepayer. We believe that airports should be operated in a fully commercial manner. I recognise that some of the airports do take a commercial approach, but I think that more can yet be done. We think that the introduction of private capital into local authority airports would be beneficial, and we hope that local authorities will themselves see the advantages for management of involving private capital voluntarily—we do not propose to compel them to. If they converted their airports into company form, it would bring the advantages which go with it, would make it easier to introduce private capital, and for those airports owned jointly by local authorities allow some flexibility of ownership.
We are also considering ways in which the Scottish aerodromes in the Highlands and Islands, inherited by the Civil Aviation Authority when it was set up, could be transferred from the Authority to other owners, and continue to meet the needs of the communities they serve more economically than at present.
My Lords, I have spoken about some of the major issues which have been discussed in our debate today. Besides those, your Lordships have touched on other matters on which I should like to say a word or two. My noble friends Lord Peyton and Lord Balfour and others referred to the CAA review of helicopter
964
airworthiness which was published on Wednesday, 20th June. This is a comprehensive review which requires the most careful study; but it is already clear that it will make a major contribution to future helicopter design as well as point to improvements in existing helicopters which would lead to an enhanced level of safety.
References in the report to the superior fatal accident record of fixed wing aircraft in comparison with helicopters must be kept in perspective. The fact remains that the United Kingdom public transport helicopter record is acknowledged to have been very good. Adoption of the short-term recommendations concerning existing aircraft will require close cooperation between the CAA as the regulatory body and manufacturers, operators and bodies such as the oil companies who are the main sponsors of helicopter operations. The report also emphasises the need for close international co-operation with European and American government agencies if the long-term design improvements are to be achieved.
May I now turn to some of the other points that have been made during our debate this evening. The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and one or two other noble Lords referred to the question of a second runway at Gatwick. The Government have made it clear—I am sorry to sound repetitive to the noble Baroness—that we do not intend to pursue the possibility of a second runway at Gatwick. We remain of the view that with the trend to larger aircraft a single runway will be able to handle 25 million passengers a year—the estimated capacity at Gatwick's two terminals by the mid-1990s. The Government agree that there is need for additional runway capacity in the London area. However, they took the view that for a number of reasons the development at Stansted to which I referred a moment ago is to be preferred to the construction of a second runway at Gatwick.
The noble Baroness and I think my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter also mentioned the question of the parallel taxiway. The parallel taxiway at Gatwick when upgraded will not be able to handle take-offs of fully laden wide-bodied aircraft because of its length. It will be available to handle the majority of movements at Gatwick when the main runway is out of action for some reason—for example, an accident, scheduled maintenance or some other problem. Upgrading will therefore bring substantial benefits, minimising diversions and so saving airlines additional operating costs and saving passengers considerable inconvenience. I am sure that the BAA will have assessed these benefits against costs before deciding to proceed with this contract. The noble Baroness. Lady Burton, referred to the expense to the taxpayer of upgrading this taxiway. Of course the BAA has its own funds for this purpose so there is no particular charge on the taxpayer. As I said in my earlier remarks and as I think the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, too, Gatwick has recently risen above Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris in terms of the number of passengers that it carries. It is interesting to reflect that Gatwick has only one runway but Charles de Gaulle airport has at least two and conceivably three. It may not be that the number of runways is quite as critical as some noble Lords have suggested.

965
My noble friend Lord Peyton asked me about the helicopter link between Heathrow and Gatwick. I am not sure that he was entirely fair to my right honourable friend to suggest that no reason has been given for not allowing the licence for a further 10 years. The reason has been given; it is because of the environmental effects of the helicopter service that he saw no justification for it to continue once a highspeed coach service is introduced when the M.25 is completed. I can tell my noble friend that I had some responsibility for these matters in the then Department of Trade and complaints about the noise from that helicopter service were a very considerable part of my duties. I am therefore well aware of the pressures that were on my right honourable friend to reach the decision that he did.
My noble friend Lord Balfour made some telling points about the safety of aircraft operations, with which I wholeheartedly agree. On the question of radar at particular airports, I think it ought to be remembered that the introduction of radar at many airports (and I am not thinking particularly of precision approach radar, which is not something to be found very frequently in civil aviation these days, but area radar in particular) is not generally provided to lower the weather minima of aircraft operations, but rather to increase the intensity at which the airport can be used. The introduction of radar at any particular airport therefore serves to increase the capacity of the aerodrome but not necessarily the safety level. What happens is that when there is no radar the aircraft have to operate a more ponderous procedure, if I can call it that, which naturally takes more time and therefore does not allow the same number of movements to be achieved at any particular time.
My noble friend Lady Gardner, in an important and interesting speech, made a number of detailed points which I will certainly make sure are brought to the attention of those who are responsible for them. But perhaps I could add, in echoing what another noble friend has said, that on a number of occasions I have found myself at the end of a very long queue when entering the United States because I do not hold an American passport. I am sorry, therefore, that my noble friend has been inconvenienced on one or two occasions on that account.
My noble friend Lord Auckland paid a tribute to those involved in the construction of Terminal 4, and I should like to echo what he said. He asked why it cost more to fly from Helsinki to London than the other way about. I do not have the reasons in my head, but I can make inquiries and write to my noble friend.
As I said at the beginning, our policy on civil aviation extends over a very wide compass—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if my noble friend is passing from specific points, I wonder whether he is able to say a word on the point that I put to him about the possibility of reviving the decision (which was not implemented) of a previous Government to transfer all British and foreign services to the Iberian Peninsular to Gatwick.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the question of controlling the number of movements at Heathrow, which I think lies at the very heart of what my noble friend is
966
saying, will be the subject of the consultative document which is to be published very shortly, and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, referred. Perhaps I could ask my noble friend to study that document when it is published, as I am sure he will, and then to put forward his ideas at that time. Those are certainly ideas of the kind we shall want to consider in order to deal with the problems we shall be facing.
As I said at the beginning, our policy on civil aviation extends over a very wide compass, and a great deal of that compass has been explored by what your Lordships have said today. I must say that I have found it informative and instructive to hear the variety of views expressed—not always in agreement with each other—and I can assure your Lordships that the Government will take very careful note of the views which have been put forward when it comes to taking decisions upon these important questions.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should first like to thank those of your Lordships who have taken part in this debate for the interesting and eloquent speeches which have been made. There have been three main veins running through the debate. First, there has been an understanding and characteristic generosity by your Lordships' House concerning the Government's inability to say very much on a wide range of topics now being covered by reviews, inquiries and the rest. At the same time, there has been an expression of hope. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was characteristically generous enough to express confidence that Ministers would actually read, mark, learn and inwardly digest what has been said in your Lordships' House. Though I would be the first to thank my noble friend on the Front Bench for his very comprehensive speech, I should at the same time like to express the hope that he will advise his right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and the Parliamentary Secretary, to read some of the things that have been said today, and even to attend to them.
There has also been an assumption that when the Government feel freer to speak, are nearer to decisions and have the material available on which those decisions should be based, there should be, and will be, further debates. I hope those responsible for arranging the business of the House will take note of that, particularly as it has been an assumption which has been made and echoed on all sides of your Lordships' House.
A further constant current through the debate has been a note of praise and appreciation of the success of the efforts of my noble friend Lord King. I should like very much to endorse that most warmly. My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, if I may say so, deserves a special mention and also the gratitude of your Lordships' House. She produced one of those pearls of bumbledom which occur from time to time and which, if I may detain your Lordships for a moment, I will take the liberty to repeat:
"People using the Tube should not have luggage or, if they do, they should not be using the Tube".
I think we are all most grateful to my noble friend.
I have frequently wondered what would happen if any of your Lordships moving such a Motion as I have moved today were not to withdraw it; but since I share

967
the fear that was expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, of being further deluged with paper, I ask leave now to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Video Recordings Bill
6.38 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Interpretation of terms]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 16, leave out from ("manner") to ("and") in line 17 and insert ("by persons engaged in business")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name. I shall not take up any length of time on this, but I want to probe a little more deeply into the implications of a reply given by the noble Lord the Minister in column 754 of the report of our proceedings on 4th May. I want to ask him whether it is really true that Clause 1 is a kind of Portuguese fishing net which catches all the sprats as well as the mackerel and, if that is so, who are the sprats. One can guess who are the mackerel. But I was rather horrified when the Minister gave a short and succinct reply to the hypothetical case raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, of the man who wanted to borrow a lawnmower from his neighbour. He knew that his neighbour was a bit of a skinflint and so he realised that he had to offer him something in order to borrow the lawnmower. He offered to lend him a videotape which he had had at home for some little time. The noble Lord, Lord Monson asked whether that person was likely to be caught by the Bill. In reply the noble Lord the Minister said:
"If the supply is a supply for reward, then it is caught by the Bill".
I then followed with some comments of my own and finished up by defining in my terms what I thought this meant, to which the noble Lord—and I forgive him—said nothing.
So I do not think that we can just leave the clause with a one line sentence which says, in effect, "You are all in it. If you sell, exchange or supply an unclassified video, even if it has been on your shelf for years and you do so for reward, then you are within the mischief of this Bill." That is an incredible state of affairs. It means that this is not a Bill to curb illicit trading and the undesirable activities of those in business. It brings the whole citizenry of the country within the reach of this Bill. If that is so. I think that the Minister would like to make it clear and probably also say why it is necessary.
This amendment restricts the effect of the clause to those in business, and that is really what we are after. We are after those in business, not those who casually exchange or dispose of for reward a tape recording that they have had in their possession for some little time and which does not have on it a classification label. I do not know whether the full implications are fully appreciated, if that is the position. So I await with
968
interest and some apprehension what the Minister may say. If he can define as clearly as possible the culprits who are likely to be caught by this clause, that will assist a better understanding of the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I am very pleased to do what I can to help clear the confusion from the noble Lord's mind. First, if I may, I shall correct his definition. He used the words "within the mischief of this Bill." This is not a mischievous Bill. This is a Bill which will confer considerable benefits on parents up and down the country. It is a Bill to curb illicit trading and it does not bring all citizens within its scope. If we accepted the noble Lord's amendment—while I quite understand what he is about in limiting this matter to those who are in the trade—as I am sure he will know, his definition of "in business" would cover anybody in any business, and I do not suppose he really intends that.
The way in which Clause 1 is drafted is intended to cover anybody who trades in video work for reward. If we accepted the noble Lord's amendment, assuming that it was put in a form which referred to the business of the video trade, which I think he is driving at, the effect would be that if an amateur who was not in the trade decided to start trading in video nasties—the most extreme kind of trade, which would be illicit anyhow—he would not be covered because he would be an amateur. That is not the intention of the Bill.
The intention of the Bill is to cover anybody who sets up in trade in this business and that is the way in which the clause is drafted. I am sure that it is the intention of noble Lords throughout the House that that should be so. So I hope that the noble Lord will see that the way in which this is drafted is right.
What it does exempt is a loan or a gift between friends which is not for reward. If the noble Lord had some interesting video work which he thought I would be interested to see, he could lend it to me with impunity and neither he nor I would be accused of any offence. But if, on the other hand, I gave him a case of whisky for it, we would both be in trouble. We would be in trade. It is the matter of reward.
I think I have said enough to show that this will not affect the average citizen who borrows or lends a video tape to a neighbour, friend or relative. That is exempted. But once a reward is received, then it is covered. That seems to me a perfectly reasonable way for the Bill to be drafted, and I hope the noble Lord will see that that is so. He may therefore be willing to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I do not understand the logic of the analogy with the lawnmower as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. If I want to borrow a lawnmower from a skinflint neighbour who happens to like "pot" and he asks me to give him cannabis, that is contrary to the law and if I do so, I have done wrong. I can give him tobacco, I can give him whisky, or I can give him anything lawful. Classified videos fall not within the same category, but within the same analogy of prohibitied goods. I cannot see where there is injustice to the citizen.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I wonder whether I may press the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, a little further on this point. As I understand it from the Bill,
"'Supply' means supply in any manner, whether or not for reward"—
Lord Mishcon: Look at Clause 3(2).
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My noble friend says that I should look at Clause 3(2), but there is no reference here to Clause 3(2). What this says is,
"'Supply' means supply in any manner, whether or not for reward"
and so on. The later qualification states:
"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".

Those are the exempted supplies. What we are talking about here are not exempted supplies. What we are talking about is the definition in the Bill itself. Therefore, so far as the definition in the Bill is concerned,
"'Supply' means supply in any manner, whether or not for reward".
I fail to understand the view which the noble Lord has expresssed that, in spite of that statement being in the Bill, it is nevertheless not caught by the Bill if there is no reward. There must occur to us the question: what is reward? Is it the exchange of cash? Is it a friend who says, "I will give you this, if you give me that", or is barter a part of the reward? Let us suppose that one form of reward is greater than another. Does that constitute a reward, because the receipt is greater than the expenditure? It seems to me to need a little further explanation.
I understand my noble friend's worry about the wording as at present constituted, which does not seem to me to be entirely clear and, as my noble friend on the Front Bench has pointed out, it is to some extent almost contradicted by what appears in Clause 3(2). It does not seem to me that the two statements in Clause 1(4) and Clause 3(2) are consonant with each other. Therefore, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, will be kind enough to clarify the matter a little further, because I must confess that at the moment I have not understood him very clearly.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, all I hope is that my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey arrives in time to deal with the point concerning human sexual activity. I should not like to be left on my own with that.
Surely the answer I have received shows how absolutely absurd the Bill is in this particular respect. I hope that large numbers of law-abiding citizens of common-sense and understanding will have nothing to do with this nonsense. It really is ridiculous. Does the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, really believe that the man who borrowed a lawnmower and disposed of his video tape in exchange should be hauled before magistrates for being in breach of this Act? If it happened I should hope that he would go home laughing and that the magistrates would be fuming with rage at having wasted their time on such ridiculous stuff.
970
I am not a person who urges disobedience of the law or resistance to it. I have never taken that view. All I can say is that the noble Lords who are sponsoring this proposal do not understand the world they live in; they do not understand the relationships between people; they do not understand what goes on over the garden fence; they do not understand that large numbers of people of common-sense and respect for the law will say. "The law is an ass; I will have nothing to do with it". That seems to me to be the complete answer to a damn silly clause.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I do not believe that rhetoric, even when it comes from my noble friend whose rhetoric is so powerful, will get us anywhere. The use of superlatives and exaggerated language really will not help us. Those of us who support the Bill are said to be not realistic: that we do not understand people who engage in conversations and transactions over the garden fence, that we do not understand our neighbours or what happens in the real world. As one who prides himself as living in the real world, understanding it, and very often seeing people with real problems, I am going to tell my noble friend that I regard it as possibly the figment of a Lewis Carroll imagination, or somebody like him, to picture the scene that my noble friend asks us to picture in terms of the real world.
The man next door desires to borrow his neighbour's lawnmower. The neighbour, being a skinflint—this takes us into the realms of Dickens, not necessarily of Lewis Carroll—expects, presumably, to he lent something in return. One of two things can then happen. Either he says, in this real world, "I will lend you my lawnmower, provided you lend me a video", which video happens to be unclassified as a result of some unhappy event, or he says nothing at all but looks, with an acquisitive gaze, at the person to whom he is just about to pass the lawnmower. That person says, "You have lent me your lawnmower; I am going to lend you a video", which happens to be unclassified.
If it were the second transaction that was carried out, I make so bold as to say that that is not a transaction for reward. What happens is that one party decides to lend to the other party a video. He is not doing it in consideration for the loan of the lawnmower. There happen to be two separate transactions, one of which is initiated quite independently of the other. So we are left with the real, live world that my noble friend envisages, of the gentleman on the other side of the fence who says, "You have the loan for half an hour of a lawnmower, provided"—he being an acquisitive person—"I have the loan for one hour of a video". And I repeat that the video is unclassified. If this is the real world that my noble friend envisages, after all the experience that he has had, to which I pay tribute, I would say only this to him: that this Bill is much more real than is his imagination.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mishcon has criticised my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby for giving unreal examples. Recently I happened, in the real world, to be with some people who, for the most part, were young. One of them said, "Can I borrow your video?" The

971
other one said, "Yes, you can borrow it if you give me a lift home". I should have thought that that was one transaction which was real. My noble friend Lord Mishcon cannot sweep away the examples of my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I have not spoken before on the Bill, but I have read carefully the stages upon it. I do not wish to use any superlatives—I reserve those for other Bills—but I would say that some of the arguments my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby has advanced to your Lordships have, on occasion, been swept aside somewhat summarily. I apprehend that what my noble friend Lord Mishcon said about lawnmowers is absolutely right. I follow him through in thinking that it was not one transaction. But there are many occasions when a simple transaction between ordinary people could easily be one transaction made for reward, as that is normally understood in law. That, surely, is right and is in the real world.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alport): My Lords, before I put the amendment to your Lordships, perhaps I should draw attention to a mistake that I made earlier in not calling for voices when I put the Third Reading. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for my mistake and accept that we did, retrospectively, accept that this Bill be now read a third time.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 2 [Exempted works]:
6.56 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2. line 9, leave out ("human sexual activity or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 3.
Amendment No. 3: Page 2, line 10, leave out ("such") and insert ("human sexual").
I suppose that this is the last opportunity I shall have to express my very strong feelings, of which I am sure many of your Lordships are aware, about this, to my mind, extremely undesirable, unnecessary and restrictive extension of the scope of the Bill.
The origins of the Bill lay in perfectly properly discussed video nasties. The research which was carried out by the parliamentary group concentrated entirely, I understand, on video nasties. The whole emphasis of the Bill was upon the classification of video nasties and preventing them from being shown to children. With all of those objectives both I and my noble friends Lord Houghton of Sowerby and Lord Jenkins of Putney, as well as others who have taken part in these debates, concur. What I cannot accept is that we should go from there to including in the scope of the Bill human sexual activity.
Human sexual activity is of a different type from video nasties. Video nasties are unpleasant things which certainly ought not to be shown to children. But human sexual activity is not unpleasant, and under certain circumstances it is not an unpleasant activity to be portrayed in works of art, whether those works of art be paintings, sculpture, books, films, or videos,
972
which are only films that are accessible in a different form.
I make this last plea, although I know that there is a strong majority against it: will somebody in this House please recognise that there is a qualitative difference between human sexual activity and the other activities which are covered by the Bill? And will somebody please stand up and say that it ought not to be treated in the same way; that people ought not to be deprived of the representation of human sexual activity in video form any more than they should be deprived of its representation in the form of books, which noble Lords may have on their bookshelves, or of sculptures which one may see in the Uffizi Gallery or anywhere else in the civilised world, or of paintings which throughout the ages have portrayed human sexual activity? There is no qualitative difference between the representation of human sexual activity in those media and its representation in film and on video. It ought not to be in this Bill. I had to say it, and I have said it.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend has ever seen a sex film. There are sex films which portray wholly human activities but which are pure pornography. I went to see one once in either Denmark or Holland, and I was absolutely amazed. There was nothing of film art in it. There was nothing but the depiction of the most curious forms of human sexual relationships, which were pornographic by any standards. They bore no relation at all to anything one can see in the Uffizi Gallery.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, for putting a very cogent point. I feel a certain sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, because I understand what he is driving at. I understand his point that there is a difference in kind between normal sexual relationships and these other matters mentioned in subsection (2). It seems that what offends the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is that normal human sexual relationships should be included in this category together with abnormal sexual relationships, as if to do so were an offence against loving human relationships. We are not talking about that. We are talking about what is put on a tape for entertainment, and that is to what this particular subsection relates.
As has been explained several times before, Clause 2(1) sets out the three major categories which will be exempted. Their exemption will be qualified by subsection (2) if they contain matter of that kind. That still does not mean that they will not be classified. It means that the manufacturer of a video work of this kind will be under an obligation to submit his work to the classifying authority—the British Board of Film Censors—because he is warned that if he has material containing scenes of normal human sexual activity then he must, to protect himself, submit his material to the classifying authority to ensure that it is properly classified.
The practical point that has just been made by the noble Lord. Lord Ardwick, is surely one that all noble Lords and noble Baronesses can well understand. There are what may be called "blue" pictures showing men and women copulating together, but they are far

973
from being works of art such as those to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has referred; they are disgusting. It is a matter of taste as to how such material is presented as to whether it will be classified at all; whether it will be declared obscene; or, if it is classified, into which classification it will fall.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, should not feel offended, because the normal human relationship of sex between a man and a woman—which he rightly says can be and is the glory of married life—simply does not come into it. Unless we included this particular category in the subsection, we would be opening a door through which professional pornographers could pour with their particular wares, which would then be sold at a high profit in order to corrupt, especially the young. That is what this classification scheme is about; it is to try to sift the good from the bad and the acceptable from the unacceptable.
It is no more than that. This particular subsection is for clarity. All it means is that the manufacturer is warned that if he has material of a certain kind in his video works then he should submit it to the classifying authority to ensure that it is put into the proper classification. It still remains for the classifying authority to classify the material. The noble Lord should feel consoled by what I have said. I can assure him that we are not going to lose any great works of art in this way. All we shall do is protect the public from something that is unacceptable.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the noble Lord's charm and sweet reason is so persuasive that for a moment I almost lost sight of my noble friend's objection. Thinking this over, I believe there is substance in my noble friend's view. Placing ordinary sexual activity into one group together with the mutilation and torture of humans and animals, and urinary and excretory functions, as being all of a kind, is, I quite understand, offensive to him. I should like to assure him that he is not alone in feeling that offence. There is a widespread feeling that to include all those activities together in a single category is somehow wrong.
As the noble Lord has pointed out, we are dealing here with an exempted category. We are saying that we are exempting some of the exemptions, as it were. We are saying that material which would normally be exempted shall nonetheless not be exempted if it does these things, and shall then have to go for classification. The noble Lord is persuasive in that respect, but when he says that this would open the doors to the pornographers he is rather less persuasive. We seem to have forgotten the fact that, to begin with, material will only be exempted if it were designed "to inform, educate or instruct". It seems to me highly improbable that the kind of pornography which worries the noble Lord will pass the stoppage that exists in Clause 2(1), let alone arrive satisfactorily in Clause 2(2).
I find myself still rather worried by the inclusion of all these activities in a single category. I understand why it is done, but I am not at all happy about it. Some way ought to be discovered of not putting in a single category that material which is generally recognised as being undesirable together with that material which
974
depicts an activity which I believe is practised by all of us—at least, I hope by most of us.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, it has been one of the features of our debates that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and the noble Lord the Minister have been in complete harmony throughout, while on this side my noble friend and I have been in almost constant conflict with our own Front Bench. I am glad that I never deposited my conscience with the Labour Party; it is far too precious for that.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, brought out the full import of the combination of subsections (1) and (2), because my noble friend (I am still friendly) Lord Ardwick seemed to convey the impression that he was talking of human sexual activity anywhere and any time, not connected with the rather restricted categories enumerated in subsection (1), which can come in the exempt class. In an earlier debate, I wondered in what circumstances human sexual activity would form part of a religious film or a musical film, although one could perhaps conceive it as a possible item in a sporting film. As my noble friend Lord Jenkins pointed out a moment ago, to come within subsection (2) at all the video has to satisfy the conditions of (a), (b) or (c) in subsection (1). That is the first condition it must satisfy, and it must he a genuine film to inform, instruct or educate. It is only if it satisfies that condition that the manufacturer may take any risks with the contents of the film.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, says that it does not mean to say the film under one of the paragraphs of subsection (1) would necessarily fail to get a classification if it contained portrayal of human sexual activity. What he said was that that portrayal of human sexual activity would have to go to the censor to see whether he liked the look of it, and if he did not he would say, "We are not having it as part of the exemption given to the film that you have submitted for our consideration. You must either make the human sexual activity more acceptable to us or you must cut it out altogether", or something—I do not know what censors do. They sometimes say that something must be cut and I am wondering what might he cut in a case like this.
I am sure that a humorous book could be written about this, and probably one day it will be; but for the moment we have to be serious, notwithstanding the difficulties. Human sexual activity does not deserve to be put in this category. It is a strange ambivalence that we all have on this question of human sexual activity. I will not enlarge on it. We are in the final stages of the Bill and there is probably no flexibility and no open minds left on either side of your Lordships' House. In that case one might as well go outside and blow it into the wind. Nevertheless, some of us feel that we have to do something on this Bill at the very last moment, and my noble friend has turned up in time. Having listened to him, I warm to the subject and therefore I have offered these few comments for the benefit of your Lordships.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, my noble friend's comments are always welcome and he knows it, even if on some occasions they are extended in time.

975
I feel that one ought not to finish the discussion here because it could be very misleading. If my noble friend Lord Jenkins—putting his individual view as I put mine—is concerned about the juxtaposition of human sexual activity and acts of force or restraint associated with such activity, I have an idea that if one had an A for human sexual activity, or a B for acts of force or restraint associated with such human activity, and B to C and C to D, there would be no difficulty whatsoever, and his point would be met. Nobody has mentioned this aspect.
Most of us in this House have grandchildren and may be thinking of the age group of which I am thinking in this connection. As a grandparent—and I know that this applies to my children as parents—I should like to have some guidance before purchasing a video film and allowing a grandchild of eight, nine or 10 to see that without knowing beforehand that it did have on it—artistically it may be, graphically it may be. wrongly it may be—the depiction of human sexual activity, and all that this Bill does is to see that a classification is given. In the case cited by my noble friend Lord McIntosh I am absolutely sure that such a case would be suitably categorised and most likely would be seen by those over 16 or whatever the age may be.
Next, it is argued: what is the situation regarding those who would obviously know that that is not designed to inform, educate or instruct? I happened to have been a member of the Wolfenden Committee. The Wolfenden Committee had to consider, as your Lordships may remember, not only homosexual offences but also prostitution, and we had to become a little versed in an industry with which some of us claimed to have no knowledge at all. If you only knew what we found out of the people who wished to "instruct" in French as we wandered along Curzon Street and who offered that "instruction" in the windows of Curzon Street! Your Lordships will know that there is often a claim to instruct which is not genuine. I can assure your Lordships—and some members of the committee made the experiment—they did not find a tutor in French when they entered that establishment.
7.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I wonder whether I can briefly respond in precise terms to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. I hope that this will satisfy him as to the way in which the amendment would be objectionable and how it is incongruent to the Bill. There are two main objections in principle. The first is that if the amendment were accepted pornographers would be able to take advantage of exemptions by marketing a video purporting to be, say (as the noble Lord has said), a sex education programme or a current affairs programme on striptease practices, provided they did not depict to a significant extent the human genital organs. Secondly, it would exempt certain bona fide material which was unsuitable for children: for example, a marriage guidance video which depicted straight sex might be unsuitable for children and could be freely provided to children if the amendment were accepted.
976
This brings me to a rather important theme which was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby—and I would not want either of them to think that I or others of your Lordships were turning a blind eye to it. It is certainly the case that human love expressed by sexual activity is a central, essential, and very often a beautiful part of the human experience and necessary to the continuation of the human race. It is important therefore that children should appreciate it as it is. and a function of the Bill is not merely to prevent them or anybody else seeing a video "nasty" that is so disgusting and unpleasant that it ought not to be seen; it is also to enable the purchaser of the video to know whether the video which he is purchasing actually bears on this subject in a way which may affect a child. In other words, it is something on which guidance may be needed. The purpose of the Bill therefore is not merely to exclude some—the most exteme—but to label or identify the rest. The noble Lord will forgive me if I put him in the position of a purchaser and say:
Human sex is not always nice;
At times it encompasses vice.
The buyer should know
When it does do so
Before he has shelled out the price.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords. I believe that there have been three themes in this debate, and one of them can be disposed of very readily. That is the argument of my noble friend Lord Ardwick. He is concerned about pornography. I believe it might be accepted that some of us have different views about pornography. I am not personally opposed to pornography although I respect his right to be opposed to it. If he is concerned about pornography, there is the Obscene Publications Act. There are perfectly good ways of dealing with pornography in this country in all media. The reason why the Bill includes these elements is rather straightforward.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords. may I correct my noble friend? I was not opposing pornography. I was simply saying that human sexual activity can be pornographic—can be.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That, my Lords, is a statement of fact with which nobody could disagree. Those who seek by legislation to increase the restrictions on pornography do so not because there is no legislation; the Obscene Publications Acts are there. The fact is, our fellow citizens sitting as jurors have consistently said that they do not find certain kinds of pornography deprave and corrupt; which, I presume, is supposed to be the danger of pornography. It is because our legislators are out of touch with ordinary people who sit on juries that we have this attempt to bring human sexual activity into a Bill which is supposed to be about something else.
The second issue in this debate is whether it is a matter of classification or a matter of guidance to parents as to what to bring home and what should be shown to children. The reason I feel so strongly about this particular phrase in the Bill is that, once one has acceded to that and introduced prior censorship for human sexual activity on videos, what is to stop the

977
same argument being used for films, theatre, books, works of art and for sculpture?
Books are brought in to the home. When I was a child under the age of 10 I was reading my father's copy of the works of Petronius, and other books, because I thought they were sexually exciting. Why, if we do this for videos, should we not start censoring our own book shelves and the book shelves in homes with children? The argument is extremely dangerous. One starts to introduce pre-censorship rather than use the provisions of the Obscene Publications Act which provide for a jury of 12 persons to say whether something has a tendency to deprave or corrupt. Once you start you are on the slippery slope.
I very well appreciate that I am in a very small minority on this matter. I appreciate that a number of noble Lords, from their expressions apart from anything else, feel very strongly that what I am saying is wrong. I cannot withdraw the amendment but I will yield to a cry of "Not-Content" if I have to.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved. ]
7.22 p.m.
Clause 3 [Exempted supplies]:
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 19, after ("the") insert ("relevant").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4 I shall, perforce, have to refer, with the leave of the House, to a large number of other amendments because they nearly all hang together. These are Amendments Nos. 5 to 17, and Amendments Nos. 26, 28 and 29.
Amendment No. 5: Page 5, line 3, after ("responsible") insert ("in relation to each of the classes of video work mentioned in subsection (1A) below").
Amendment No. 6: Page 5, line 6, after ("works") insert ("of that class").
Amendment No. 7: Page 5. line 22, at end insert—
("(1A") The classes of video work referred to in subsection (1) above are—

(a) video works other than those mentioned in paragraphs (b) and(c)below;

(b) video works of the kind described in paragraph (c) of subsection (2) below:

(c)video works of the kind described in paragraph (d) of that subsection.")

Amendment No. 8: Page 5, line 26, leave out ("and").
Amendment No. 9: Page 5, line 29, at end insert—
("(c) to designate the British Broadcasting Corporation as the authority responsible for making those arrangements in relation to video works of the following class, namely those consisting exclusively of material comprised in one or more television broadcasts made by the British Broadcasting Corporation where the broadcast was of an event or occasion occurring simultaneously with the broadcast or was made by broadcasting material comprised in a cinematograph film of which the maker was, or the making of which was commissioned by, the British Broadcasting Corporation,
(d)to designate the Independent Broadcasting Authority as the authority responsible for making those arrangements in relation to video works of the following class, namely those consisting exclusively of material comprised in one or more television broadcasts made by the Independent Broadcasting Authority where the broadcast was of an event or occasion occurring simultaneously with the broadcast or was made by broadcasting material comprised in a cinematograph film of which the maker was, or the making of which was
978
commissioned by, the Independent Broadcasting Authority, the subsidiary formed by them for the purpose described in section 12(2) of the Broadcasting Act 1981, the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority or any person entitled under a contract with the Independent Broadcasting Authority to provide television programmes to be broadcast by them, and
(e)to require each person designated as the authority responsible for making those arrangements to consult with every other such person as often as may appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate with a view to establishing, so far as circumstances permit, uniform criteria for the making of determinations for the purposes of this Act.
( ) In subsection (2) above "television broadcast" and "cinematograph film" have the same meaning as in the Copyright Act 1956; a cinematograph film shall be taken to include the sounds embodied in any sound-track associated with the film; "the maker", in relation to a cinamatograph film, means the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the making of the film are undertaken and "material" includes any series or sequence of visual images (with or without sound).").
Amendment No. 10: Page 6, line 4, after ("the") insert ("relevant").
Amendment No. 11: Page 6, line 11, after ("classes") insert ("types").
Amendment No. 12: Page 6, line 14, after ("the") insert ("relevant"):
Amendment No. 13: Page 6, line 17, at end insert ("in relation to the class of video work to which the transaction relates").
Amendment No. 14: Clause 6, page 6, line 39, after ("authority") insert ("in relation to each class of video work").
Amendment No. 15: Clause 6, page 7, line 1, after ("Act") insert ("in relation to video works of that class").
Amendment No. 16: Clause 6, page 7, line 2, leave out ("the") and insert ("that").
Amendment No. 17: Clause 7, page 7, line 10, after ("the") insert ("relevant").
Amendment No. 26: Clause 19, page 13, line 37, after ("the") insert ("relevant").
Amendment No. 28: Clause 19, page 14, line 25, after ("the") insert ("relevant").
Amendment No. 29: Clause 20, page 15, line 29, column 2, after ("the") insert ("relevant")
I think it will be for the convenience of the House, as well as for the quicker dispatch of our business, if I make only one speech to cover all these amendments, rather than refer to each individually.
First of all. may I say a word about the Marshalled List which greets us today looking somewhat different from the usual Marshalled List. I understand there have been a few hiccoughs in certain quarters which have prevented us from getting the Marshalled List in its usual form. That has resulted in the omission of certain names from attachment to my amendments. I will let noble Lords refer to this themselves when they speak but it does not mean that they disapprove of my amendments and have removed their names from them.
The significance of the word "relevant" in Amendment No. 4 will become apparent as we go along. I shall not delay the House by repeating at length the arguments which I used at an earlier stage in relation to the way in which the BBC and the IBA control the material which emanates from their transmitters. I think I gave a fairly long explanation of what is a little understood process and perhaps we can take that as read on this occasion.
In common with every member of this House, I am bitterly opposed to the real video nasties. I am as much opposed to them as anyone else. I do not think it is suggested by anyone that the BBC or IBA have

979
themselves commissioned or made video nasties. That they have shown, on occasions, films made by other people which have not been entirely proper and which have been called video nasties is an entirely different matter. The principle, however, remains the same; that broadcasters should retain control and be responsible for the material which they themselves originate.
On this occasion, however, I have adopted a completely different approach from that which I adopted on previous occasions. Previously we asked for exemption for material made by the BBC and IBA companies and the various subsidiaries attached to them. On this occasion we are not asking for any form of exemption, except the exemption which already appears on the face of the Bill for certain categories of video material.
I have been fully persuaded that the process of certification is entirely necessary for the protection not only of children, but of those who sell or hire videos—shopkeepers and the like—and also the purchasers of these videos—parents and others. I must be one of the only Life Peers in this House who is not a grandfather, and so I do not have the protection of my grandchildren to consider. Nevertheless, I should like to know what categories these cassettes fall in if I happen to wish to purchase or hire one of them. Therefore, certification seems to be a process which helps everyone. It is not a process to which I object. It is censorship, of course, but we have had censorship for years on films.
Whether the right body to censor is the British Board of Film Censors is another matter entirely. What people see when they purchase or rent a video is the equivalent of a broadcast programme in their own home. Whether it be a nasty or not, it is still equivalent to watching a programme in their own home as broadcast over the television aerials. It is not like going to a cinema, where one has to make a special effort to go out. You see it in common with a great many other people other than your own family, and so on. It is a different matter. That is one of the reasons why we believe that the correct people to censor this material, to classify it and say whether it is suitable for certain age groups, are those who originated this material.
There is another point I wish to emphasise at this stage and early on in what we are discussing. The powers to be given to the Home Secretary are permissive or enabling rather than mandatory. They allow him to do certain things but do not in any way compel him to do so. If every one of these amendments was accepted the Home Secretary, if he chose, need not do anything. He could still proceed to designate the British Board of Film Censors as the only body which he would allow to classify video cassettes.
This is a very important point because it depends on how things develop as to whether or not he made that decision. But to allow a Bill to emerge from this House, which prides itself on getting Bills as good as they can be, without such a power—believe me, he would not have such a power if we did not do something about it—seems to me to be something about which we ought to think very seriously. How are we to achieve this? How do my amendments seek to
980
achieve this? I will speak as briefly as I can but there are many of them and they deserve a word of explanation.
They are intended to implement the principle to which I have already referred—that broadcasters should be self-regulating in relation to video works consisting of programmes broadcast by them where they are the originators of the programmes. This will result in a very great proportion of their material having to go for classification or certification to the BBFC only because they are not the originators of the programmes. In other words, they are not the people who originally made them. It will also mean that if by any chance in the future the BBC, the IBA, or the companies decide in their commercial wisdom that they should make video cassettes and have not broadcast the material previously, that material will have to go through the BBFC in the ordinary way.
Because there has been some misapprehension about this question, I should also tell your Lordships that so far as I am aware, having done a certain amount of checking on it, no IBA-originated programme and no BBC-originated programme has ever been shown as a film in the cinema. Therefore there would not be this back door which some people have suggested would be available for material. It is far more likely that any cassettes which the BBC, the IBA, or the companies put out would be of films of material which they had already broadcast.
As I have already hinted, the amendments propose that the power of the Secretary of State under this clause should be extended to permit him to designate the BBC on the one hand and the IBA on the other as the authority responsible for making the necessary determinations of classifications in relation to video works of this kind. In our amendments we introduce a new subsection (Amendment No. 7) which divides video works into three separate classes. There are those described in the new Clause 4(2)(c)(Amendment No. 9) which, very broadly speaking. consist of BBC programmes. There are those described in the new Clause 4(2)(d), which, again broadly speaking, are those broadcast by the IBA and originated by one of the various ITV companies. Then there is a residual category which in practice, as I have said earlier, will probably be the principal category, which consists of all the video works other than those which we have just described. It will consist of films such as "Dallas", made for television, films such as "Scum", not made for television, and a whole host of other kinds of works which have been bought in.
Then, as I say, the classes having been established, the powers of the Secretary of State will be extended to permit him to make his designation in relation to each of the three classes, and this is the effect of Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. As I said before, that is not compulsory, but is something which can be done at any time. Again, the pattern of permitting, rather than requiring, is followed. It is a declaration that the Secretary of State's powers include the power to make these designations. It does not commit him to do so; it creates a framework within which self-regulation is possible.
There has been some difficulty in defining in the language of legislation the broad concept of broadcast

981
programmes which have been originated by the broadcasters. This is particularly difficult where you do not have the assistance of parliamentary draughtsmen. The amendments are therefore somewhat technical. It had originally been proposed that it should relate to copyright. We found certain difficulties in copyright ownership being a proper way of defining it, partly because different copyrights are owned by different people and partly because they can be transferred between one person and another. So the amendments have relied upon the tests established by the Copyright Act 1956 for the first ownership of copyright in a film.
I am sorry if I sound a little technical at this stage, but I think it is essential to explain what are the underlying features of these amendments. The maker is defined as the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the making of the film are undertaken. This amendment adopts that definition, as well as others derived from the earlier Act, in specifying that the films which will qualify for classification (if at all) by the broadcasters are those of which the broadcaster is the maker. As I said earlier, they will also have had to have been broadcast by either the BBC or the IBA, which reflects the principle to which I previously referred.
One objection that has been raised is that if there were more than one authority, different criteria might be applied b.), them in making determinations in relation to a particular class of video work. To some extent different criteria may be necessary if the material is different. However, to avoid having these kind of problems the amendment proposes that the Secretary of State's power of designation under Clause 4(1) should include, pursuant to new Clause 4(2)(e), the power to require each person designated as the authority responsible for making the arrangements for determination in relation to a particular class of video work, to consult the others as often as may appear to be appropriate, with a view to establishing, as far as can be done, common or uniformed criteria for the determination. Again, we adopt the principle that these powers should be permissive and not compulsory on the Home Secretary.
I think all the other amendments which we have are consequential upon those described above, though perhaps I shall say a brief word on Amendment No. 11. Having introduced the notion of different classes of video work for the purposes of Clause 4(1), it seemed appropriate in the Bill to avoid referring to classes in any other context or to convey any other meaning. However, we ran into a problem here. There was already one reference to classes of video works in Clause 4(6) which permits the Secretary of State to approve tariffs for fees for different classes of video works under different circumstances. That reference was quite obviously intended to convey the idea of a type or kind of video work. So we have in effect substituted "type" for "class", since the two words appear in this context to be interchangeable. We have retained the reference to clauses. It seems not inappropriate that the Secretary of State should have the power to approve different tariffs in relation to the different class of video work that these amendments propose to establish.
I know that I have already spoken for some considerable time. If I may sum up, these clauses which I am seeking to write into the Bill are permissive. They are not mandatory. They leave the power to the broadcasters to determine how cassettes should be classified if those cassettes are of material which has been originated by the broadcasters and has already been broadcast by them. They preserve the distinction between going out to a cinema and watching a cassette at home. Perhaps I should again reiterate that the BBC has never made, and I do not think ever will make—I cannot see any circumstances in which it would make—a video nasty. I do not believe that in a Private Member's Bill your Lordships should be concerning yourselves with the classification of material by another body, which would disturb the whole relationship between broadcasting and the state—broadcasting which has resulted over the years (I have said this before, and I do not hesitate to say it again) in the best TV in the world. I beg to move.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, with the consent of my noble friend the Minister, I am following the noble Lord, Lord Howard, because my name should in fact be on the amendment. It was on the single sheet yesterday, but I have somehow disappeared without trace in the Marshalled List. I should also declare an interest as chairman of ITN and a director of Anglia Television.
Having spoken four times on this subject I do not need to add anything, and certainly I do not need to repeat what I said before. The amendment has been very carefully, clearly and concisely explained by the noble Lord, Lord Howard. I do, however, still differ from him in one respect, and I should like to have it on the record. I still consider, in spite of all that has been said on the four occasions that I have spoken, that the output originated by the BBC and the IBA should in fact be exempt. This Bill, hastily prepared to meet an emergency, which I entirely support, was conceived to control video nasties. Since it is impossible under the charter and under the Broadcasting Act for either service to produce video nasties, it seems to me an infringement and an impingement on their traditional integrity and independence for them to be dragged into this Bill at all.
But since the Government—and I have to respect them and use the word—have been utterly obdurate on that point, this amendment is the next best thing. As the noble Lord, Lord Howard, said, it would enable the Home Secretary, or a Home Secretary in the future, if the truth ever dawns, eventually to achieve exemption by enabling him to designate the BBC and the IBA as the agents to classify their own material. That would certainly satisfy me in the long run. It would thus keep them clear—and this is the point that I keep coming back to—whether it is 10 years ahead, 20 years ahead, or whenever, of any conceivable influence in the future by any outside quango or second tier of bureaucracy which could be subject to government or other influence. In spite of everything that has been said, I still remain convinced that it is possible and conceivable that some sort of censorship or control could develop.

983
A small point that I should like to mention for the record is that it was implied in an article in The Times on Friday that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and myself were consistently pressing this subject concerning the broadcasting services perhaps to delay the Bill and to cause difficulty when it goes back to another place. I feel sure that my noble friend the Minister would refute the fact that that could possibly be true. It would imply, contrary to all the great traditions of your Lordships' House, that we must not interfere with bad legislation so that bad legislation can get through when it goes back to another place. We remain utterly convinced about the wisdom of what we are trying to persuade the Government and your Lordships about.
Finally, may I express the hope that no Government will ever again allow a hastily prepared Private Member's Bill, albeit entirely justified to meet an emergency, to impinge upon and tamper with the public broadcasting services—and I think that this is quite right affecting anything so sacred as the independence of our services—without, first, a Government White Paper, carefully prepared over a great deal of time, and allowing many months, and perhaps more, for public debate to consider the whole issue and what it implies; and, finally, a Government Bill, carefully conceived and making it quite clear what the implications and effects are on the broadcasting services. In my view it is totally inappropriate, and, frankly, unacceptable, that a Private Member's Bill should intrude, as an ill-conceived side effect, into the proper and traditional practices of the BBC and IBA. That is how I still see things at present. I therefore hope and pray that my noble friend the Minister will have a great deal to say to reassure us on that point today.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, there are two matters on which I at once want to express my sympathy with the two noble Lords who have already spoken in support of this amendment. I shall not repeat speeches that I made before. They may not even have been acceptable in their original form, and they would become far less acceptable if repeated. But I did say, and I repeat shortly now, that I have the greatest of sympathy with those who say that the matters dealt with in this Bill are of such consequence that in a proper way they should have formed a Government Bill, which we could have properly discussed without the threat of the Bill being lost if we introduced anything like a major amendment. I have the utmost sympathy with that point of view, and I say so at once.
Secondly, I think it is absolutely right that your Lordships—otherwise, you would not be doing your duty. if I may say so humbly—are considering the question of the BBC and the IBA, and doing so in some depth. I have the greatest sympathy with that, and I am very glad that we shall have had those discussions before this Bill moves on apace.
Having said that, I say that I have looked with the greatest of care at the amendments, and I deal with them in this way. It is foolhardy to think that if you put into an Act of Parliament extensive permissive powers for the Secretary of State you will not produce a situation where the Secretary of State will be nagged (if
984
that is the correct term) as to why it is that he has not exercised the powers which have been given to him. That is obviously a situation that we have to contend with. Therefore, we would have to be satisfied beyond a peradventure that we were giving correct powers to the Secretary of State which he would be pressed to exercise.
To me, the issue here is a very simple one. It was expressed at previous stages of the Bill. We have as responsible an authority as the BBC, respected throughout the land, respected, indeed, throughout the world, and certainly respected, I am perfectly sure, by all responsible Ministers, and certainly by all spokesmen for the Opposition. We equally have the IBA as a much respected authority, bound and limited in its powers by Acts of Parliament and behaving with the greatest of responsibility. We have a third authority, the British Board of Film Censors, which we know will be the designated authority. It is a matter of complete amazement to me that the opportunity has not been taken, as I indicated previously, for those three bodies, with the assistance of the Home Office, to get together to use the powers contained in this Bill, which are as follows.
Under Clause 7 of the Bill the designated authority is enabled to make arrangements for classification. It has not itself to classify. The words "make arrangements" are in the Bill. I find it impossible to believe that the three responsible authorities, with the guidance of the Home Office, could not get together while this Bill was going through its various stages to see that a plan was made for arrangements for classification by the BBC and IBA of certain types of video, which classification would be on the same lines as the BBFC intends to use under this Bill, and that in respect of certain classes of video those classifications would not be accepted by the designated authority as though they were its own classification.
If they have not done it, they are to blame and not your Lordships. And if they have not done it by Third Reading then we had better get on with the Bill and ask them—I do not say this offensively—to be grown-up people and to get round a table and arrange it as soon as possible after this Bill is on the statute book. But in my humble submission it is not possible for your Lordships to agree these amendments in this way, in a manner which quite obviously will not be carried in another place. In my judgment it would mean merely—we have been faced with that throughout—that this Bill will not become law and the whole of the effort that so many of us have made will be rendered abortive.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, during the Second Reading of this Bill, which now seems to have been a very long time ago, I was unwise enough to believe—I now know, wrongly—that the system that had obtained for many years whereby the BBC and the independent television companies under the IBA were responsible for their own programmes no longer completely—I say "completely" —exists.
Government after Government have come to the Box in this House and in the other place, time and time again, with the argument, "The Government are not responsible for the content of these programmes; it is a matter for the authorities". To some extent, that

985
responsibility is being taken away. I can see the need for some sort of unification in the method of classification of videos. I can see the need for the videos that are to be sold in the open market place, that are not being transmitted, to be classified completely, even if they were made by a subsidiary of the IBA or of the BBC. But I find it very difficult, under a Private Member's Bill, to agree, as we shall have to, to take away from the IBA and the BBC the full powers that they have had for many years over the control of their programmes.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I regret that my noble friend on the Front Bench felt it necessary to intervene in the manner that he did. I appreciate entirely that he would not have done it unless he had felt it to be necessary. But it seems to me to be unfortunate that he did so.
I should have thought that what we are seeing here is something the Government will be moved to accept, because it seems to me to be the right and proper solution to the problem, in so far as there is a right and proper solution to the problem. We are faced with a Bill which, quite frankly, is not a right and proper Bill. We ought not to be in the situation we are in, but since we are in it, what is the best thing we can do? It seems to me that the best thing we can do, in order to avoid seriously damaging our two corporations, which we all respect, is to create a position in which the Home Secretary can be pressurised. The consequence of pressure upon the Home Secretary will be that the parties will get together, will evolve. Therefore, this pressure which my noble friend seeks to prevent is a desirable thing. It is desirable that the Government shall open up the Home Secretary to the possibility of seeing reason on the question.
I am sure that The Times would disagree with me. Those of us who have sought to examine this Bill in some detail have been chastised as being (what was it?) incontinent and repetitious because we wanted to do so. The speeches which have just been made and the amendment which is now before us show exactly why it was proper and right to examine the Bill in some detail. We have not yet seen the end of the consequences of this Bill; we have been seeing just the start of what the consequences of this Bill might be. That is why it was necessary to look at it in some detail.
A few weeks before that The Times urged delay, very careful examination and no hurrying in respect of a Bill which sought to prevent glue sniffing. Now it says that although it is possible that some children might be injured in some way by this Bill, nevertheless this Bill must be hurried on to the statute book. This is a very peculiar thing, because what The Times seems to be saying is that it is all right for children to be killed but we have to be careful they are not corrupted. Of course, there is a good ecclesiastical precedent for this. At the same time, it is something rather odd to find today in the columns of The Times.
I am afraid I have been led astray and away from the amendment. Therefore, I will bring to a close what I want to say by expressing the hope—the not entirely unconfident hope—that the mover of the Bill and the Government will both see the force of the arguments that have been put forward this evening and will say,
986
not necessarily that they accept the clause as it is—I hope they will do that; I see no reason why they should not, because, as I say, I think it is entirely proper—but something that will enable us to go away from the proceedings this evening in a happier frame of mind than I shall leave with if the House receives an entirely negative response from the Government and from the mover of the Bill.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I will do what I can to make your Lordships happy. I readily acknowledge that these amendments are different from those which were tabled at earlier stages. The principal difference is that they are permissive. Their purpose is to empower the Secretary of State to designate the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Broadcasting Authority to classify works comprising certain material which has been broadcast: that is, material which either was broadcast live or which the broadcasting authorities made or commissioned. Thereby, they make provision for the BBC and the IBA, in effect, to classify their own material. No doubt they would operate in much the same way as the British Board of Film Censors. And the criminal sanctions in the Bill would apply in the same way.
However, the question is whether the Bill would be improved if these amendments were to be accepted. The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, very competently, if I may say so, condensed his proposals, and in so doing explained the concerns which have prompted him and those who support him to table this amendment. Essentially, they are concerned about possible long-term implications for broadcasting if the BBFC were to classify material put out by the broadcasting authorities. We listen with great respect and great care to the views of those who have served with the broadcasting authorities in such eminent positions as, for instance, the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, himself, my noble friend Lord Buxton and the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone.
The nub of the noble Lord's concern was brought out more fully at an earlier stage. The noble Lord, considerately, did not repeat the whole of his theme, but it was that a designated authority other than the broadcasting authorities themselves might impose upon their video product standards which differed from those which they themselves wished to observe in their broadcast product. He felt that the effect of this, indirectly but unavoidably, might be to impose the same standards on either the scheduling or the material of their broadcasts, and that this would be an intrusion upon their constitutional independence.
That is the first essential point. He elaborated beyond it, and it was echoed in those who followed his speech, certainly in the remarks of my noble friend. I understand that there is also a feeling, not only that this would be unacceptable in itself, but that it could give some future Government an influence over the broadcasting media which on constitutional grounds they ought not to have. I have to say that I find it a little difficult to share the whole of the noble Lord's apprehensions, because I do not myself see that the video activity of either of the authorities is ever going to become so commercially important to it that it will dictate the conduct of its broadcasting activities.

987
Since we are on constitutional grounds, I doubt if we should forget that it was specifically because of their broadcasting activities and not because of any ancillary commercial activity, that the two broadcasting authorities were given such a carefully protected independence in the first place. I am sure the intention was not to subject them to different requirements, or accord them distinctive treatment in any other field, or give them a discipline that differed in any statutory way from the disciplines of others competing in the same commercial market, other than broadcasting.
However, let me consider for a moment the noble Lord's worst hypothetical case before addressing the rest. Let us imagine that some future puritanical and interventionist government have it in for libertines everywhere, and in Portland Place especially. What protection does the noble Lord's proposal offer the broadcasting authorities then?—none, my Lords. The noble Lord merely invites the present Government voluntarily to avail themselves of permissive powers which any of their successors could as lightly cast aside. If any government wanted to exert over the authorities the pressures which the noble Lord fears, they could do so to exactly the same extent as they could under the Bill as drafted.
Let me assure the noble Lord and my noble friend as well, that I do not take lightly the fears which have been expressed. One cannot take lightly the anxieties expressed so cogently by people with such wide and relevant experience. My noble friend has voiced the same fears as the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, and I think that he may have shown himself more amenable to reassurance, but that remains to be seen. We do have to ask ourselves whether the anxiety at the back of the amendment is a little alarmist. We have to do so because what is proposed is not neutral in its other effects which do not touch the independence of the broadcasting authorities.
If these amendments were to be accepted, and the authorities were to be designated, I believe that the procedures would be made more, rather than less cumbersome and bureaucratic. It would be difficult to ensure that uniform standards were applied across all three authorities. A great deal of time could be taken up in seeking to reach agreement. It is not clear what would happen if agreement were not reached—the removal of a designation would no doubt be judged an inappropriately heavy-handed response. At the same time, if the broadcasters were content to abide by the criteria employed by the BBFC and to conform to them, it is difficult to see how they gained anything by not allowing the BBFC to undertake the classification itself.
Under the amendments, each authority would need to publish an annual report, and it would no doubt be appropriate for each to be represented in the consultative council that it is proposed to establish. Furthermore, the police and the courts would need to approach each authority when it was necessary to ascertain whether a video work alleged to be unclassified had received a classification certificate. I do not want to go into the minutiae because they may
988
seem trivial; but they are important because they are practical. For that reason we have to ask whether all—or indeed part—of the noble Lord's concern is well founded. I have already made it clear that we do not think that it is well founded. But what strikes me with very great force—more force than the advice of my colleagues and officials—is that the other broadcasting authority, the IBA (not the BBC, with which the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, has such a distinguished association) does not wish to be designated under the Bill in the way in which this power would enable the Secretary of State to designate it. So we have to conclude that the protection or privilege which the noble Lord seeks for both of the authorities is not wanted by one of them and that must seriously weaken the appeal of what he has said.
Moreover, as I have said, the proposals would create duplication, uncertainty and expense which we are anxious to avoid. So I cannot offer to support the amendment, but I do not want to leave the noble Lord with nothing; nor do I wish to leave my noble friend with nothing; nor indeed the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone.
If I may recapitulate the events, the noble Lord, Lord Howard, withdrew his amendment at the Report stage on the basis that he was to discuss the matter with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The noble Lord and my noble friend duly met my right honourable friend on 14th June and he was very glad to have the opportunity to discuss the issue with them. My right honourable friend explained that the Government did not favour amendment to the Bill on this issue, but he suggested a possible way forward. This would be that the Government would use their good offices with the British Board of Film Censors to encourage them to establish arrangements with the broadcasting authorities so that. in recognition of the fact that their products have already been approved and broadcast by those well-trusted authorities, they can be classified quickly and appropriately. I can add that he would go further and would include this in the letter accompanying the notice of designation he would propose to send to the principal officers of the BBFC in due course.
In my view that is the best way forward. I am glad to say that in practice the British Board of Film Censors will need little or no encouragement from us. They accept the need for arrangements along the lines that I have suggested. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will be glad to know that they have already had successful preliminary discussions with the IBA and that they hope to meet the BBC shortly.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, by leave of the House, it is very comforting to know that one individual speaking from this Front Bench individually is agreeing with another and very noble Lord—the Minister—sitting on another Front Bench, but speaking officially.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in everything, except that he has undermined the balance of my peroration. because there is little more for me to say.
8.7 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have come to a pretty pass—have we not?—when the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and his friends have tried from the Committee stage onwards to meet every conceivable objection that could be raised by the Government or by the sponsors of this Bill to what I should have thought is almost universally accepted to be a necessary provision which they are proposing. They fell foul of the wording of their amendments at the Committee stage and that was recognised. They fell foul again of the wording of their amendments at the Report stage. But we now have an amendment which is so permissive and so conciliatory—if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Howard—that it is virtually impossible to think of any way in which they could go further and still achieve any of their objectives. But the noble Lord, Lord Elton, turns round and says that it is too weak.
It is surely the responsibility of the Government, who also have responsibility for the BBC and the IBA, to have done something more before this stage to help the noble Lords who are moving these amendments at this time. We are now at the Third Reading stage and there will be no other opportunity. The noble Lord the Minister has spoken of a letter which is supposed to reassure noble Lords. I am bound to say that I think that they ought not to find that letter adequately reassuring. Let me take one particular case—that of educational broadcasting.
Educational broadcasting is covered by Clause 2(1) with the exemptions in Clause 2(2). There have been genuine educational broadcasts both by the BBC and the IBA which would have fallen foul of Clause 2(2). The BBC gives to educational bodies the right to copy off air from its own educational broadcasts. The IBA—and the Government ought to have thought of this beforehand—has a licensing agreement for a fee which constitutes "supply" under the Bill. It is only a recent licensing agreement and I speak about it with some knowledge because my wife is responsible for more than half of the IBA's educational output and was responsible also to a considerable extent for the licensing agreement. However, it is a supply because there is a fee being charged for it.
The whole purpose of these licensing agreements is that educational programming should be made available immediately on a private basis for timeshift to make programmes available which were missed, not just to individuals but also to educational groups; and also IBA programmes for which a fee is being charged. They are part of the programmes which have been validated by the Educational Advisory Committee set up by the IBA. The whole intention is that these programmes should be available immediately for repeat in video form because the whole of the educational backup system of educational television requires that. At the end of the day we cannot have the British Board of Film Censors intervening to classify—let alone not to classify—something that has already been broadcast and is intended for repeating to groups. It would destroy the whole way in which educational television works. The Government ought to have thought of this long before now. We ought not to have reached this fifth amending
990
stage of the Bill (there were two stages in another place and three in this House) without those issues having been fully resolved.
It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to write a letter saying that the British Board of Film Censors will be instructed to deal with these rapidly. They must be dealt with immediately, and this can only be done by the BBC and the IBA being, as they would be in this amendment, their own validating and their own classifying bodies. My noble friend Lord Mishcon spoke about a grand getting together of the BBC, the IBA and the British Board of Film Censors; he was perhaps talking about some sort of super-censor. But I do not think that even he recognised, with all his experience, the damage that would be done to educational broadcasting if these amendments were withdrawn or rejected.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, from his special knowledge could he tell us what percentage of BBC or IBA educational films would require classification?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course I cannot, and neither can anybody else. There has never been a classification system. That has been the glory of our public broadcasting.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, under Clause 2(2) of the Bill the noble Lord cannot say how many?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course not.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I suggest that it would be insignificant.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course I cannot. Not only can I not say, but no one can. The fact of the matter is that undoubtedly there will be some. If there have not been, there will be some in the future which will fall foul of Clause 2(2). It would be quite wrong if there were not to be and if educational broadcasters were to be deprived of the right and the duty, within their remit of informing, educating and instructing, to do what appears proper to them.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, might I just press him to look once again, coolly, at subsection (1)(a) of Clause 2 and subsection (2)(b)? There must surely be very few educational films—and it was not quite clear from what the noble Lord was saying whether or not he meant educational films in relation to schools, which is one of the wide areas of the BBC's work—which would not be non-classifiable under subsection (1) (a) which refers to films and videos:
"designed to inform, educate or instruct".
There must be very few under subsection (2)(b) which would contain:
"mutilation or torture of, or other acts of gross violence towards, humans or animals".
Therefore, a handful of such works might be caught by the classification net and that is one of the gentle

991
purposes of this very narrowly-drawn Bill. I should have thought that the noble Lord had rather overstated the case when there is such a wide use of subsection (1)(a) concerning videos and films:
"designed to inform, educate and instruct".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is tempting me to stretch the rules of order at Third Reading. I shall simply say to him that the words of Clause 2 are graven on my heart. I know every one of them. Of course the right reverend Prelate is right to say that schools broadcasting would not under any circumstances come under Clause 2. But what about the Open University? Is the Open University to be debarred from programmes which might show human sexual activity or human genital organs as part of anatomy, psychology or sex education? This is what it would mean if these amendments were to be rejected.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, it is a painful experience to sit here and see men of the distinction, honour and authority of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, virtually crawling to the Government to sustain the prestige of the broadcasting authorities which Parliament has created and through which such estimable services have been given in this field.
The truth of the matter is that the Government have got us into this wretched mess through grasping the opportunity of taking a Private Member's Bill as a substitute for their own promise to introduce legislation as a government measure in government time. They are now scared of the possible implications of the timetable for Private Members' Bills in another place, because if this Bill returns to another place and gives rise to any difficulty, it is at risk of falling through lack of time.
This is a situation of the Government's creation, and how stupid they have been to put us in this unnecessary predicament. It is the arrogance of the Government that has brought us to this situation. It is really lowering the dignity of the House that we have to sit here and see authorities like the BBC and the IBA trying to come to terms with this stubborn and frightened Government over the procedural complications of their own making. I, for one, protest most strongly against it. I marvel that there is not more wrath thrown upon the heads of this wretched Government for their incompetence and their arrogance in thrusting a Bill like this upon us and creating a situation of such painful import.
It is a wretched situation. I do not know how it will be overcome. The Government do not want the amendments; the authorities do not want anything but the amendments. They do not want to receive their authority by the grace and favour of the British Board of Film Censors, estimable though it may be. But in Heaven's name why should authorities like these two have to go crawling to the British Board of Film Censors to get their dispensation in order to do a little work on their own behalf in this particular field of classification?
992
We find ourselves in a disgraceful situation. I do not envy either of the noble Lords who are sponsoring these amendments in deciding what course they should take. But the Government do not deserve to get their Bill if they can not handle the situation better. At least the Government could take more time to do it. There is no sanctity about the timetable of Private Members' Bills—none whatever. Governments that want Bills can get those Bills, and have done so in the past.
When I was in government we decided that no Private Member's Bill which received its Second Reading under its own steam and which concerned a matter of significant public interest and was of public concern, should fall through lack of time. We said that time would be given, and time was given to Private Members' Bills that found themselves in this dilemma. No Private Member's Bill fell under a Labour Government through lack of time, however controversial the matter was.
Here the Government are pleading that they are helpless, or are suggesting that they are helpless, to take over this Bill at this stage and provide time for a Bill that has reached the end of such a lengthy examination in detail. Let us not pretend that they cannot deal with the situation. Goodness me! a government that is run by the arrogance of presidential edict can do something about this if they cannot do anything else.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords. I rise after what I can only describe as a diatribe, to say that although there may be many things on which I disagree with the noble Lord, on this matter I have more than a good deal of sympathy for him. This Bill should never have been a Private Member's Bill; it should have been a Government Bill. With all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent—and perhaps on this occasion I may be allowed to describe him as my noble friend Lord Nugent because I have known him for many years, although we do not sit on the same Benches—he has piloted this complicated, difficult, problematical Bill with considerable skill through this place. But he has had, it is true, enormous help from the Government in its drafting, and the Government should have taken it over.
It is no good a Government saying, "We are making a rule that a Private Member's Bill shall never, under any circumstances, get extra time in order to go through because the Lords, in their wisdom"—and there is a good deal of wisdom concentrated on these Benches—"have seen fit to amend that Bill". With this Bill the Government ought to have accepted my amendments tonight, and they could then have given extra time in the Commons, if necessary, for the Bill to become law in due course.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the House permit me to interrupt and will the noble Lord give way? I do not want to enter into an exchange of salvoes on the question of how the Bill should be handled, but it is worth reminding your Lordships that we are addressing ourselves to a particular amendment. At no time have I said that it is the constraints of time that make us take a view of this amendment. If there were all the

993
time in the world, I would spend more time congratulating the noble Lord on the persuasion of his oratory and the painstaking detail of his draftsmanship, but it would not make me take a different view as to the amendment itself. I have, with regret, to take that argument from him.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, if I seemed to be verging on a Third Reading speech I apologise, but, frankly, the whole of this business has made me very unhappy indeed. We do not seem to have made any progress at all. I have taken the whole of my amendments together, so that we can have a general discussion. It has been a discussion in which, on the whole, there has been more endorsement of what I have had to say and the position I have taken in regard to the amendments I have moved, than there has been opposition to it.
I must answer the points that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raised from the Front Bench, even though he raised them as an individual. Why on earth could we not have got together earlier and discussed with the IBA and the British Board of Film Censors a sensible solution to our problems? I shall tell him why we could not do that. Not only is the British Board of Film Censors at present not a statutory body; it does not exist. It has no corporate existence. So far as I know, it is not a company, limited or unlimited, or a corporation established in any way known to your Lordships. It is simply a body of men who have come together, without even the rules of a cricket club, to earn out a job which formally belongs to local authorities, who are the people who at the end of the day can say whether or not a film should be shown.
For their own convenience they have handed over that power to an entirely non-statutory, virtually nonexistent, body whose views may or may not be correct, but which nevertheless have no kind of firm backing behind them. That is precisely the reason why we have been unable to get together with them before this stage of the proceedings. I have no doubt that when this Bill becomes law—indeed, possibly before it becomes law, while it is travelling between here and another place—there will be a meeting which will discuss a common means of getting together.
So far as the IBA and its unwillingness to be designated is concerned, I do not purport to speak for the IBA. I should be very wrong to speak for the IBA. Furthermore, the IBA situation is complicated in the extreme by the fact that it does not originate any programmes itself. It depends upon the companies, the subsidiaries in Wales, and the fourth channel to produce programmes which it then transmits. It comes into this matter only because it does the actual transmitting and owns the transmitters. The IBA position is very different from that of the BBC.
I certainly do not intend to draw upon any background knowledge which I may have of these matters, but I am sorry that certain people in the IBA have seen fit to indicate that they do not want to be designated. I am sorry about it, but it is something I can do nothing about. I can speak unofficially for members of the BBC because I have discussed this at great length with them.
994
We have been made an offer by the noble Lord whose courtesy is always, shall I say, proverbial and who has a knowledge of these matters and an ability to cope at one moment with police questions and at another moment with broadcasting. Heaven knows what other duties he has as well; he certainly has a great many. I do not think he will mind me saying that when I spoke to him on the telephone yesterday morning he said, "Would you mind being very brief? I have 35 amendments to look through before 3 o'clock this afternoon". Noble Lords on the Government Front Bench in this House are under great pressure. I am therefore grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and to the Home Secretary himself, for the time they have devoted to this.
It is perfectly possible that the line indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. will be one which can be pursued at a later stage. I believe that it will be possible to get together and to come to a sensible arrangement. Although I have not mentioned it in my speeches hitherto on this matter, I have always looked upon the word "arrangements" in the Bill itself as it came to us as being the last gun in my locker which I would not fire if I was able to achieve some measure of accord about the amendments themselves. I believe that the single word "arrangements" will enable us to arrive at what I think we all believe is a desirable situation.
I have throughout been deeply concerned regarding the principle about which I have spoken so many times that your Lordships will no doubt be sent to sleep if I mention it yet once more; that is, the independence of broadcasting, to which I attach paramount importance. I have always said that there is far more that unites the broadcasters than divides the IBA and the BBC. Here we have an example of it. I am not going to do something which will be represented —certainly by ill-wishers of this House, and also by many people who do not have the least idea about what we do here and the hard work that we put in—as an attempt to continue to allow video nastier to be sold in the shops.
If it is true, as I believe it to be true, that the Government are so rigid in their attitude about time that this Bill will fail if we put in this amendment, then I can only bow to what is an irresistible force. I do so with the deepest of regret. I do not like dividing the House—except when I am absolutely certain that I am going to win—and I do not propose to divide this House this evening. I accept the offer that the noble Lord has made, and I have no doubt that we shall have further discussions with the bodies concerned to try to work out some viable way of making this Private Member's Bill work. I beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw this amendment, and I do not propose subsequently to move any of the consequential amendments which stand in my name.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 5 to 17 not moved. ]
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Simon): My Lords, we now come to Amendment No. 18. I have to inform your Lordships that if Amendment No. 18 is agreed I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 19 to 122 inclusive.
Clause 7 [Classification Certificates]:
8.30 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 7, line 13, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
("(a) a statement that the video work concerned is suitable for general viewing and unrestricted supply; or
(aa) the statement mentioned in paragraph (a) above together with a statement as to the particular suitability of the work for viewing by young children; or
(aaa) a statement that the video work concerned contains material which may make parental guidance or advice desirable as to the viewing of the work by young children; or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has tabled amendments to this clause and they follow on the Marshalled List on page 4. I have incorporated the amendments of the noble Lord in the revised version of my amendment that appears on the Marshalled List. There is only one small change in that I have used the word "advice" in a somewhat different context from that of his own amendments. This amendment divides subsection (2)(a) into three components which those of us who support this amendment think clarify and simplify the requirements that the certificate must contain.
While I am obliged to the noble Lord for introducing the amendment, he will probably say at an appropriate stage why he has felt unable to pull out the concertina of subsection (2)(a) in the manner set out in the amendment I am moving. What is the difficulty about unscrambling the jumble in Clause 7(2)(a)? We have items in brackets and three different and important and separate classifications all brought within one paragraph. This may appear to be only a point of drafting, but I am afraid that in all matters related to this Bill one has to look behind the drafting to see what problems lie behind a suggested simplification of the order given.
I can only say again that so much has been resisted on this Bill which I think is a matter of tactics rather than of merit, as if this Bill must not go back to another place with any amendments except the most innocuous changes that have not borne the imprint of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and therefore can be recommended to the hardliners down the Corridor who may be laying in wait to savage him.
I cannot understand why this simplification and clarification is not acceptable. If the noble Lord can give me and my noble friends good reasons why his version is better than mine—looking at it from the point of view of what the Bill contains and what it is intended to do—and does not conceal behind that any fears about the timetable or the reception down the Corridor, then we can probably consider this in an independent spirit.
We are supposed to be a revising Chamber. That again is emphasised in an article in The Times this morning. We are to be given a new prestige now, apparently, because the opposition has been transferred from the other place to this. Cannot we do a little job like this without getting all mixed up with considerations of the kind that I have mentioned which have been in my mind, I am afraid, all the time? I beg to move.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if, in speaking to the noble Lord's amendment, I also speak to my Amendments Nos. 19, 20, 21 and 22, so that we can include in the debate the alternative amendment which I think will better meet the point with which the noble Lord was rightly concerned and raised on the Report stage.
Amendment No. 19: Page 7, line 13, at end insert ("general").
Amendment No. 20: Page 7, line 14, leave out ("by persons of any age") and insert ("and unrestricted supply").
Amendment No. 21: Page 7, line 15, leave out ("qualification") and insert ("advice").
Amendment No. 22: Page 7, line 16, after ("by") insert ("young").
I start from the happy point that the noble Lord has made friends with The Times again, as indeed have I. I am glad he commends what was said about the House of Lords this morning, and feel that this is an auspicious start for us on this amendment. Let me assure him that his suspicion that his form of amendment would have been more difficult than mine to have had accepted in another place is unworthy of him. I have accepted at least one of his amendments and I do not expect that the House of Commons will catch on fire on that account.
Let me then deal with the point which the noble Lord raised: Why is his amendment not suitable? We see particularly a difficulty in his paragraph (aaa). In fact, my noble friend Lord Elton explained this in the debate on the Report stage. The paragraph in question does not mention suitability. "Suitability" is a key word in this context. The amendment merely states that:
"the video work concerned contains material which may make parental guidance or advice desirable as to the viewing of the work by young children".
This is a description which will cover a very wide spectrum indeed, far wider than works which should properly be given a PG classification.
I wish to thank the noble Lord for raising the point of the difficulty which the BBFC found itself in over this clause as it was originally drafted. I do so because we recognise that a change has to be made.
The series of amendments which I have put down in the following four amendments I concede is extremely complicated. It makes it difficult to understand just what they mean. I have, for convenience of the House, put together the new subsection (2)(a) which I shall read because I think it helps to explain precisely what this rather complex little amendment does and to inform and reassure your Lordships, especially the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that this amendment has been drafted and designed in consultation with the BBFC which has expressed itself satisfied with it. It was the BBFC's original concern which the noble Lord expressed at an earlier stage.
If your Lordships accept my amendments, paragraph (a) will read in future:
"a statement that the video work concerned is suitable for general viewing and unrestricted supply (with or without any advice as to the desirability of parental guidance with regard to the viewing of the work by young children or as to the particular suitability of the work for viewing by children)".
Then it goes on to paragraph (b). That puts all those amendments together.

997
I can assure your Lordships that this meets the problems which the British Board of Film Censors found in the clause as originally drafted and accepted—and, heaven knows, the draftsman's art is something which even the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, would have to bow to! I do. Whatever one puts down, invariably it is changed to some extent to meet the wishes of the draftsman. I would not defend this series of amendments as being a masterpiece of elegance but it meets practical needs and it meets the needs of the draftsman. Therefore, I hope that if the noble Lord feels happy with the explanation and assurances that I have given he will feel able to withdraw his amendment, and then, if it is your Lordships' wish, I can move my four amendments, which will amend the clause in this way.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, it would be an imposition on the time of the House to pursue this matter further. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the changes that he has made. I cannot really say that the distinction is as clear to me as to make any substantial difference of approach. If, presumably, the British Board of Film Censors are still going to be the designated authority—although I would think they are probably getting a bit fed up with the idea by now—then who am I to stand in the way? I think the best thing I can do is to ask leave to withdraw the amendment and enable the noble Lord to move his amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 19:
[Printed above. ]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 19, to which I have already spoken, as I did to Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 22.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendments Nos. 20, and 21 and 22:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 7, line 20, at end insert ("(not being more than eighteen years)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 23. This is on a different point. In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 24.
Amendment No. 24: Page 7, line 23, leave out ("that age") and insert ("the age so specified")
I have put down these two amendments in order to meet points raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, at the Report stage with regard to limiting the scope of the designated authority, the British Board of Film Censors, to the top limit of 18 years. Noble Lords will remember that we had some debate about this, and I assured your Lordships that there was no intention to make any higher age than 18 and that I felt it was unnecessary to include it in the Bill. However, the
998
noble Lord discussed it with cogency and pressed the point, and I said that we would look at it again. We have done so, and therefore have put down these two amendments which will give effect to the points that he was making and will write into the Bill that 18 years is the top age. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, may I express my deep gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, for having completely dealt with the questions that I raised at Committee stage and the amendment that I moved at Report stage. I suppose that in a Bill in which so little has been amended and in which virtually nothing has been amended other than at the instance of the sponsor of the Bill, there is the tiny consolation that we have this change. I venture to hope that on this matter this amendment will not cause rage in another place when it comes to be considered.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 24:
[Printed above. ]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Supply of video recording containing false indication as to classification]:
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 11, line 34, leave out ("qualification") and insert ("advice").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is connected with Amendment No. 22. I have spoken to it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Evidence by certificate]:
[Amendment No. 26 not moved. ]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 14, line 2, leave out first ("certificate") and insert ("summons").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this will not take more than a minute or two. I may be under a misapprehension, but the question is this. What is the date specified in the certificate likely to be? Presumably, it could be the date of the summons. The point here is that it is the date upon which the alleged offence would have been committed, and, therefore, it would be the date upon which no classification had been granted to this particular material. Am I right about that? Would the charge be that on the date of the alleged offence, when the video had no classification, or the date of the summons? The specified date is the relevant date, whatever it may be, to the charge being made. That I would assume to be the correct position. I beg to move.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I must congratulate the noble Lord on the care with which he has examined every word of this Bill. I entirely accept that his motive is to be helpful here. The fact is that usually the date of the certificate and the summons will

999
be the same. It is preferable to leave the Bill as it is drafted because there may occasionally be cases where there is not a summons.
We find in Clause 18 a power of arrest to be exercised in certain circumstances. The noble Lord will remember that we had considerable debate about that at Report stage. In those circumstances, there would not be a summons because the offender would have been arrested. Then, it would rely entirely on the date of the certificate; so that the date of the certificate is going to be relevant in all cases. The date of the summons would be relevant in most cases, but not in all. I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied that by sticking to the date on the certificate we shall in fact have covered everything.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved. ]
Clause 20 [Evidence by certificate in Scotland]: [Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Clause 23 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 17, line 6, after ("Recordings") insert ("(Distribution)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, third time lucky, I trust! As your Lordships will know, there have been two previous attempts to get the Short Title of this Bill right. Many of us contend that it is most definitely not right as it stands. On 18th June, at column 91, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said that the shorter the Title the better, so long as it adequately describes what the Bill is about.
I have already intimated that we do not think the existing Title adequately describes the purpose of the Bill. So what about the question of the length of the Title, which after all we propose to lengthen only from three to four words? The year 1976 was one of the most prolific years on record for legislation. In that year no fewer than 86 Public General Acts went on to the statute book. The average length of the Title was four and a quarter words—in other words, longer than the Title we now propose. It may be of interest to your Lordships to note that there were two Titles containing eight words—the Food and Drugs (Control of Food Premises) Act and the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act—plus one title with no less than nine words—the Road Traffic (Drivers' Ages and Hours of Work) Act. So I do not think that the brevity argument holds much water.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, put forward a proposition that some discourtesy might be involved; that the other place might be offended if we were politely to suggest this improvement in the Title. I am sure that the noble Lord was speaking in jest. The Commons might of course be offended if, after careful deliberation, they were to reject our constructive suggestion and we were then to insist upon it; but of course there would never be any question of our doing such a thing.
The strongest argument for our amendment is that advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, at a previous stage: namely, that there are certain to be many other Bills coming up before long with the words "video recording" in the Title, and that it is essential to get the Title of this one right at this stage so as to avoid difficulty and confusion for the public in general, and not least for the legal profession. Nor is it proper that a bland and low-key Title should give the impression that this is a bland and low-key Bill in its consequences. That would be positively misleading.
On 18th June the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, explained to us that the word "regulation" would in his opinion be technically incorrect. He went on to say at column 92 of the Official Report that,
"This Bill regulates the distribution of video recordings".
We have therefore deferred to his greater experience and substituted the word "distribution" for the word "regulation". I beg to move.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I really must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Monson, on his research. I did not know that 1976 was a bumper year for legislation, with 86 Acts. Even less did I know that the average length of the Short Titles was four and a quarter words and that two Short Titles had eight words. The noble Lord certainly did his homework. I remember 1976 best as being the great drought year, which caused me headaches of a different kind. However, I do follow his argument when he says that the brevity argument will not hold water—1976 was the year when there was not much water to hold.
If I may go back to the substance of the amendment of the noble Lord, I would say that the shorter the Short Title the better. There is no doubt about that. The fact that in 1976 the Short Titles became as long as that is greatly to be regretted. We should try to keep them short: the right place to put these other words is in the Long Title. What improvement to the Bill would have been achieved if the noble Lord's word "distribution" was included? It would have added absolutely nothing to it. I should say, "it would add", because your Lordships have yet to decide upon it. It would really not add anything. It is right to make it as short as possible.
The noble Lord thinks that we may have a stream of legislation about videos. I sincerely hope not. If we have, I hope even more fervently that it will not be me who will be conducting them. The noble Lord has argued his point most admirably, but to include this word would not add anything to the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord may be pursuaded that in the circumstances he should not press his amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, may I add just a few words. The noble Lord, Lord Monson. is of course to be congratulated on his research. but he actually conceded the principle in the examples which he gave. The reason that I hope your Lordships will be content with the Title is that we are following a clearly drawn parliamentary convention whereby the first or principal Act in any series carries the very shortest Title. We have a Road Traffic Act which is the principal Act for Road Traffic. The noble Lord aptly said that we also have a Road Traffic (Drivers' Ages

1001
and Hours of Work) Act. That is the way it goes. It will be for the next Act in the series, if there is one, to have the embroidery, as it were, added to it.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I really was deeply surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, the sponsor of the Bill, saying that he was not willing to accept this amendment. I should make it perfectly clear that it was no surprise to me at all that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, did not want to accept it because he has not wanted to accept anything all the way through this Bill. I really do think that on a matter of this kind perhaps the time is coming when the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, ought to start digging their heels in.
I very much take the view which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has taken in his speech earlier. I think—I choose my words very carefully after much thought—that your Lordships' House has been treated outrageously in regard to this Bill. I say that because here is matter that the Government acknowledge is one of the greatest importance and significance which ought to be dealt with, but they then say that it must be dealt with by a Private Member's Bill but a Private Member's Bill inevitably might have certain defects and those cannot be properly corrected because there is not time. That is not the kind of argument that your Lordships' House should accept. I am very sorry that we have been accepting it, day after day and week after week. I hope we shall stop.
I was greatly distressed to hear that the amendment moved so powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, an amendment which was valid in every sense and which the Government more or less accept is necessary, was nevertheless not accepted. They promised us that something might happen after the Bill has left us when we no longer have any control over it. I understand that there may be changes in the procedures and the way in which the matter is dealt with. That was the statement made.
On this matter, I accept that we are making the Short Title longer by one word. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, last time trotted out the argument that somehow it was patently improper to amend the Short Title of a Private Member's Bill. Many years ago in another place I happened to be the second sponsor of a Private Member's Bill, a Bill that got further because Government time was permitted. On that Bill I dealt with all the medical replies on the medical aspects. It left another place with the Short Title "Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill". When it arrived back at another place it was called the Abortion Bill. I accept that that was shortening it, and we accepted the change, but at least it shows that there is a precedent for changing the Short Title of a Bill.
The Long Title of this Bill, which is a very short Long Title, is
"An Act to make provision for regulating the distribution of video recordings—
then come the magic words—
"and for connected purposes".
The magic words "and for connected purposes" are those which provide for all sorts of things to happen so that certain acts are not ultra vires, but words which
1002
refer to the whole purpose of this Bill—to regulate the distribution of video recordings—surely ought to be put in the Long Title. I think that the argument is overwhelming.
I certainly repeat the point that I made at an earlier stage. There is a very urgent necessity for the control of the pirating of videos, for the control of the copyrights of videos and for a whole number of matters of that kind. In other to avoid any kind of misunderstandings we ought to include this word in the Title so that this then becomes the Video Recordings (Distribution) Bill, which is precisely what it is concerned with and what it ought to be called. I do hope that at this late stage we shall not go on saying, "It was a pity. We could have improved the Bill but we must not because it is a Private Member's Bill and because there is not time". If we can improve it by doing this, and we think we can do that, then we should do it.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, not only for his support for this amendment but for his general comments upon our proceedings on this Bill, which I endorse wholeheartedly. Despite Lord Nugent's habitual charm, I am not at all convinced by his arguments. It is curious that he is so adamant about retaining this bland and innocuous Title: it puzzles me. Nor am I convinced by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. He cited the Road Traffic Act, but of course it is perfectly clear to anybody what a road traffic Act is about. It is not clear to anybody what something entitled the Video Recordings Act is about. To use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, last week, the Title would be all right if it adequately described what the Bill is about. But it does not do that, in my submission. Unlike my noble friend Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, I have no reluctance about dividing the House if I think it is necessary to do so. Naturally, I do not expect your Lordships to march through the Division Lobbies but I should like to have some verbal indication as to what you feel about this amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before the noble Lord does that, with the leave of the House, I think I ought to respond to one or two things that have been said. I have not sought to dissuade your Lordships on this issue because of the peril in which it might put the Bill in another place. I have sought on entirely purist parliamentary grounds to explain that a Short Title ought to be an exact and accurate description of a Bill and that if it stands at the head of a succession of Bills, it ought to address itself to the generality.
On both grounds I think the noble Lord's amendment is misconceived. His amendment goes beyond the generality to the particularity—the particularity of distribution. It is also inaccurate, because the Bill is about not only distribution but also the connected matters; and most of our time has been spent in debating the connected matters, such as whether or not it is important to have labels on films before they are distributed, and so on.
I do not want to weary your Lordships. I do not feel passionate; but I think it is as well to regard parliamentary convention and precedent and, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I do not think that even his researches bear out that his amendment

1003
would do so. I wanted to put that on the record simply because, if I did not, it would appear that I was discourteously dismissing something about which he clearly feels rather more strongly than I had realised. I wanted to be quite clear that there are good reasons, and not merely flippant reasons, for my having done so.
Lord Monson: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for that observation. I am grateful for his attitude. Nevertheless, I feel that the other place ought to be given the chance at least to look at this amendment. Therefore I do not intend to beg leave to withdraw it.
On Question, amendment negatived.
9.5 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 17, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) This Act shall continue in force until 31st December 1989 and shall then expire unless Parliament otherwise determines by resolution of both Houses, and upon expiration of this Act subsection (1) of section 16 of the Interpretation Act 1978 shall apply as if this Act had been repealed by another Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the last amendment on the Marshalled List at this stage of the Bill, and I want to make a special plea to the sponsors of the Bill to look at it favourably. This amendment proposes to limit the duration of the Bill to five years, unless Parliament decides at the expiry of that time to renew it. That is why the amendment provides for the Bill to continue in force until the 31st December 1989.
I believe that this Bill is not in the condition in which we feel that it can be placed on the statute book with any indication that we think it can be permanent or that we want it to be permanent. As a matter of principle, I would say that a time limit should be imposed on any legislation which curbs, restrains or intrudes on the liberty of the subject. Of course in wartime and in times of crisis legislation may be introduced as emergency measures on which a time limit is placed. We cannot say that this is an emergency, although, with all the inspiration and haste behind this Bill, one might think that it was. It is a Bill which I think the House may feel could be regarded as "on probation", and the problems of administration, which will be difficult and complex, may be tried out and all the difficulties of classification and so on could be reviewed at a suitable time in the future.
The difficulty about legislation is to get it amended and it is still more difficult to get it repealed, especially when attempts to do so may well be left to the Private Member's Bill procedure. Those of us with experience of another place realise the problems that lie before anyone who tries to change statute law through the Private Member's Bill procedure.
I think there is another aspect, and that concerns the political circumstances in which any amendment or change might be sought. There may be evidence of the Christian spirit in imposing a censorship on evil, but certainly none is to be expected in any attempt to lift it. One can imagine the cry that would go up if anybody introduced a Private Member's Bill to repeal, or substantially to amend, a Bill of this kind. People would say, "So you are in favour of bringing back the nasties", and all the rest of the stuff which those who take this line are very familiar with.
I also think it would be unfair to have recourse to the Private Member's Bill procedure when, just as this Bill comes to us by the luck of the lottery, any attempt to change it might be dependent upon the luck of the lottery. It probably is not fully appreciated outside Parliament upon what a stroke of luck this Bill rests. It was simply that a name came out of the hat at the moment when the Government were ready to grasp it and hang on to its tail through all its stages in both Houses. If we do not put a limit to this Bill, we may well be stuck with it for a long time to come.
There are probably not many precedents for this, but there is the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act 1955, which had a 10-year limit. It
1006
was made permanent by the Expiring Laws Act in 1969. I have not been able to discover what happened to it in the four years when it was supposed to have lapsed. There is another precedent going a long way back, and that is the Licensing of the Press Act 1662, which had to do with the censorship of books, in which it was stated that it should be in operation for two years and no more. It was very emphatic about that. But it lasted 33 years after that. It shows that, generally speaking, except in times of emergency, Bills that are as Acts of Parliament given a limit of time are found to be more acceptable as time goes on.
There are several other special reasons relating to this Bill as to why there should be a limit of time. It is highly experimental and an excursion into a very difficult and wide field of administration of delicate matters, such as deciding what kind of video recordings fall into different categories. I should imagine that it is far more complex and difficult than anything that the British Board of Film Censors has experienced so far in dealing with films. So it is on probation. There is really no experience that we can fall back on, apart from the existence of the British Board of Film Censors and its classification for film purposes, and if it were not the British Board of Film Censors who is to be the designated authority, we should be very anxious indeed as to the people who are going to do this job.
The danger in our legislative practices is that we put Bills on the statute book, especially those that are curbs on civil liberty, and merely add one Bill after another to a long, cumulative additional sum. How rarely are Acts of Parliament repealed, even though many years afterwards they cease to have any real value. For example, the Protection of Children Act 1978 has produced only 41 convictions since it became law. It may be thought that 41 convictions is not insubstantial, but 41 convictions over five years for an Act of that kind scarcely justifies keeping it on the statute book. But it is not subject to any time limit and is still there—
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I agree that 41 convictions is not a great number, but 41 children damaged is a considerable factor in terms of the happiness of those children.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Yes, my Lords, I do not deny that. But we have to keep a sense of proportion in all these matters. We are dealing with legislation affecting the whole community. However, I take the point that the noble Baroness makes. I am not running anything in. I am just suggesting that we take a long time to conclude that Bills are obsolete or no longer of the value that they ought to be to justify their retention on the statute book. I do not rest on that point particularly. I am just being quite candid with the House about what is in my favour and what is not.
Another point that is most important is that we want to get a great deal more information than we already have about the extent of video viewing, particularly in regard to young people. There is a wide field of investigation which at the moment is really a closed book to us, and which ought to be opened up

1007
with patient research and inquiry over a reasonably long period. Nobody could possibly pretend that the investigation undertaken by the misnamed Parliamentary Video Inquiry Group produced any evidence that could be relied upon as a basis for future judgment on the application of this Bill.
I am glad to hear that there are good prospects, in any case, of thorough monitoring of the Bill, when it becomes law, being undertaken by responsible people. This is a new dimension in the home life of the people of this country which needs to be looked at much more sympathetically and critically than it has been looked at so far. There are at least four years' work ahead on this task. The industry itself should be given an opportunity during the five-year period to come to terms with reasonable public opinion, to correct past errors and to organise itself so that it can properly discharge a system of voluntary control.
To impose statutory control in these circumstances is most unusual. Statutory control has not been imposed on the press or on advertising standards. There are numerous other directions in which voluntary control, effective and well thought out and applied, would be a substitute for statutory action. I doubt whether the Trade Union Bill which is now before your Lordships' House would contain anything like the provisions that it does had it been possible to achieve effective voluntary control and the observance of standards and codes of conduct by the trade union movement.
We pride ourselves on being able to do things voluntarily. A special value is attached to the word "voluntary" in all sorts of ways. We do not like compulsion. We are against compulsory this and compulsory that. Indeed, we have a reaction against compulsory military service that no other country in Europe has. The industry—which probably was too slow off the mark and did not concern itself as it should have done with the rising disquiet of the public—should be given an opportunity to devise something which would be effective and which would stick.
I should also like to make the point that some balance ought to be injected into the argument about the Bill. So far there has been none. The Government have been criticised by other noble Lords, besides me, about the passage of the Bill through the House. It has been a very frustrating experience, made worse because we felt that we were not being frankly dealt with on the matters which lay behind various points of view expressed on behalf of the Bill. The injection of a better balance into the argument on the Bill would be achieved by limiting its duration to five years, which would be beyond the life of the present Parliament, probably beyond the life of the present Government and almost certainly beyond the life of some of the Ministers in the Government. So it would be left to others to deal with the prevailing circumstances, mood and demands at that time.
I do not believe that in the present circumstances this House should allow the Bill to be made permanent on the statute book. We are perfectly entitled to put a limit to it without any affront to another place, having regard to what we think about the additional
1008
complications which have arisen while the Bill has been before your Lordships' House. After our proceedings earlier today on the BBC and IBA position, I should have thought that this was a dreadful state of affairs, yet we go on, apparently, and say, "Stick it on the statute book; let them come to some arrangement otherwise. It does not matter what the consequences may be." That is not the way to deal with the matter, and it is an additional reason why a limit should be placed upon the duration of the Bill.
Because of the harm done by the condemnation of video nasties it will take some years for the industry to recover its confidence—and probably for the public to strengthen its confidence, too. I am entitled to say that if there is any reasonable spirit among the forces which support the Bill—though I have every reason to doubt whether there is—this is the time for us to have some sign of it. The amendment merely asks for a limited time to be put on the intervention of the state without a fresh review by Parliament as to where we are going and how we are going to get there. I sincerely hope that I am not this time talking to a brick wall and that I will have some sign of understanding about the points which I have made. I beg to move.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he talked about a balanced view—but how can one take a balanced view over a discussion that is totally unbalanced?
9.20 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to support the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for two reasons. First, I welcome the opportunity to support this amendment. Secondly, it gives me an opportunity to say something else which is entirely relevant to this particular amendment.
At an earlier stage, I made certain complaints about the way in which your Lordships' House had been treated with regard to this Bill. I should like to make it utterly clear that I made no complaint whatsoever about the noble Lord. Lord Nugent of Guildford, who has treated the House with unfailing courtesy, as he does on every occasion. Nor did I wish to make any complaint at all about the treatment of your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, or the noble Baroness. Lady Trumpington—who, again, have behaved on all occasions with unfailing courtesy and consideration. I was trying to say that the Government's behaviour had been both cowardly and inept. In other words, they found an area in which it was necessary to take action and then said, "We are not going to take action but we will leave this matter to be dealt with by a Private Member's Bill". I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. in that respect, and I make the same criticism again. But lest I may have been misunderstood, I assure noble Lords that there was no element of personal consideration in the remarks I made earlier.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has asked for a five-year term. When he said that the end of five years would see the finish of this Government, and perhaps the end of certain members of it, I was not quite sure whether that was a promise or a prediction. Be that as

1009
it may, by the end of that five-year period we would certainly be seeing a new Parliament. I believe that this matter is one for Parliament and not for the Government. At that time, a new Parliament might be able to consider the way in which the Bill has been working.
I take very much the point that we are in a changing scene, in which technical developments in this area are very rapid. No doubt we shall see immense developments and very great changes over the coming years. We will see the introduction of direct broadcasting by satellite—and who knows what kind of things will be beamed into our homes by that route? Who knows what controls may at some stage be needed or operated? We shall be seeing all kinds of new devices for copying and pirating material. We will see all kinds of new devices for recording material off-screen from other countries over which we shall have no control at all.
I mentioned at an earlier stage—and I am not trying to prolong my speech—my fears about this Bill. The matter which this Bill seeks to deal with is one of very great importance, but my fear is that at the end of the day we will find that all the Bill does when it becomes an Act is set up an expensive, time-consuming, tedious layer of bureaucracy which will cause immense trouble to responsible people doing serious, important and very valuable work but that the scoundrels whom it seeks to catch will take no notice of it at all. They will simply go underground.
Your Lordships may feel then that you need to seek some other remedy. In bringing forward this amendment, which will give Parliament in the broader sense an opportunity for looking at the Act again after a period of five years, the noble Lord is suggesting a very wise provision. In five years' time, we may find ourselves in totally different circumstances, where there are new factors which require control, and new methods of distribution which are not controlled and which ought to be controlled. We may find then that there are serious defects in the Act which make it operate in a way quite contrary to the wishes of the sponsors. At that time, a future Parliament may be very glad indeed that your Lordships' House had passed this particular amendment.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I have listened with great care to the noble Lord's reasons for moving this amendment. He did in fact rehearse a great many of the arguments which he has expressed before about the Bill, and in which he has made it perfectly plain that he is fundamentally opposed to the Bill, and would wish it not to go on the statute book at all. Naturally, if he cannot stop it going on the statute book at all, to limit it to five years is, I suppose, a second best.
I look at some of the things which the noble Lord said about the harm that had been done in the debates here. He said his arguments had not been frankly dealt with in debate. I wondered what he meant. I have dealt quite frankly with any argument that I have had to deal with and I know that my noble friend Lord Elton certainly has. The fact is that the noble Lord really is so opposed to the Bill that his opposition is the major feature which has come out in his arguments.
1010
When we look at the reason for limiting it to five years, to say that governments cannot amend or remove any Act they like at any time really is not a reason that stands up for one minute. If and when this Bill became an Act it was ineffective, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has said, or was oppressive as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has said, undoubtedly the government of the day would either amend or remove it altogether. That can be done at any time; it does not have to proceed by Private Member's Bill. What is the need for limiting the Act to five years? There really is not one.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, if the noble Lord would allow me to speak before the next argument is advanced, if it is the case that the Government can act at any time why has the Government not acted now?
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, the Government are supporting this Private Members' Bill and it is a Private Members' Bill which will effectively classify this material. That is the need: it is generally seen as needed and receives very wide support. The reason why the noble Lord might have felt depressed from time to time in the course of the debates when he did not have much support, is that this measure does have wide support, and it does have wide support in the other place. It could not have been approved and passed by the other place unless it commanded support from all sides, and after a great deal of debate the form in which it came here has been achieved by getting a balance between the views of the different sides. It is thought of as something which really is needed and that is the reason why the noble Lord may have felt the debates here were pressing on him—because the majority of noble Lords on all sides of the House feel it is most desirable that we should get these video works classified just as soon as possible. That is a matter of fact. If this proves to be wrong, I am perfectly certain that the Government of the day—either this Government or the next—will act to introduce an amending Bill (or whatever Bill may be suitable) to make it an effective Act.
When one looks at the practical implications of putting a five-year limitation on the Bill, here we are proposing a system of classification for this enormous number of video works, which is going to be a very big job—the noble Lord is perfectly right there—for the British Board of Film Censors. They have got to be expanded in order to cope with it. It is a very big job for the trade. It is expensive and elaborate for them. To suggest to the trade as well as to the British Board of Film Censors that this is going to be limited to only five years is surely utterly illogical.
We are trying to set up a system of classification which is going to serve the community for years to come, and if in time it appears to be necessary to amend and refine the Act in any way, no doubt the Government of the day will introduce legislation to do so. It really would not be right to embark upon a piece of legislation of this kind which has such weighty implications for such a large number of traders, unless we thought there was really a future for it, there was continuity for it, and it was something which would be wanted over the years. I am sure it would give quite the

1011
wrong impression: certainly of what I want and, I believe, what most noble Lords here want, and Members in another place want.
We want to set up a system of classification which will be established and which will serve the community for years to come. If it needs amending in the course of time let us get it amended, but for goodness' sake do not let us suggest that we are setting up something as important as this which is of only a temporary nature. After all, it will take two or three years, at least, to get the classification done. That will be a major undertaking. I should have thought, for that practical reason alone, that it would be a mistake to incorporate in the Bill, which is setting up the whole scheme, a limited life of five years.
I do hope that noble Lords generally will be convinced. I know that I will find it very, difficult to convince the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, but I hope that noble Lords will agree that it will be utterly illogical to give the Bill a limited life of five years. I do hope that the noble Lord will be pursuaded that his amendment does not make sense and that he will be willing to withdraw it.
Lord Monson: My Lords, although my name is not down to this amendment I should like to support it. Furthermore, I cannot understand why the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, is resisting it. If the Bill is really as universally popular as he claims, and as the sponsors claim, there can be absolutely no doubt that before 31st December 1989 both Houses of Parliament would vote overwhelmingly for its continuation, and they can be secure in the knowledge that the censors can get on with their work of classification without having to look over their shoulders. The only reason for resisting this amendment, it seems to me, is a suspicion among the Bill's sponsors that the Bill may not, after all, turn out to be as popular as is claimed.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, may I add a word or two, if only because of the, as usual, useful contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, although it is one I do not accept. We ought to bear in mind the arguments that have already been advanced as to the setting up of this machinery and what we want to do by way of classification. I do not want to repeat the arguments but merely remind the House of the safeguards that are already in the Bill.
First, to take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, about the evolution in video, and so on, there is a fairly broad definition of video at the beginning of the Bill. Secondly, there is an obligation for an annual report. Before whom is that annual report to be laid? Not just the Secretary of State, but both Houses of Parliament so that they have an opportunity of commenting as representatives of the people in one place and, with your Lordships combined wisdom, if unrepresentative, in this one. Therefore, there will be that opportunity.
In regard to labelling and matters of that kind, regulations are to be made that come before the House. If a designated authority does not act properly,
1012
and therefore becomes unpopular, the Secretary of State has the opportunity of saying to that designated authority, "Cease your work. Hand over your papers. I am going to suggest to Parliament who the next designated authority ought to be". That has to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. So there is parliamentary control over many of the things, if not most of the things, and if I may I will tell the House, very humbly, my own view, which is this.
I do not want, and I believe Parliament does not want, video nastier in 5, 10, 15 or 20 years' time. This is the main subject of the Bill. I believe Parliament wants—and I say this individually—a classification for the guidance of people. I make the point (which I borrow, if I may say so, from my noble friend Lord Ardwick, who made it to me and who may want to develop it) that Europe wants permanent legislation, not legislation for five years, and has said so. I am proud that the United Kingdom is in the forefront of this. I believe that the rest of Europe may copy our legislation—and it will not be legislation for five years.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the view may be taken that it is rather difficult to get legislation on to the statue book. It is even more difficult to remove it. I recall that fashions in this kind of issue change. For many years there was pre-censorship in the theatre. Every play had to be looked at before it could be approved, before being performed. This role was in the hands of the Lord Chamberlain. It was a role which became increasingly distasteful because people took the view. I think rightly, that there was no case for pre-censorship. There was certainly every case for pursuing rigorously those who had erred and bringing them before the courts. But the notion of looking at something before it had appeared and deciding that it should not be done this way but should be done that way gradually became unpopular, out of fashion and, indeed, derisory.
The examples which were given as a result of playwrights of the distinction of Ibsen, Shaw, and so forth, having to alter this or that word in order to meet the requirements of the Lord Chamberlain: the necessity for the Lord Chamberlain himself to deal with the obnoxious and difficult business of taking out or putting in this or that word, sometimes selecting a word which seemed more obnoxious than that which was taken out: brought the whole procedure into general public disrepute. That position remained for years until, eventually, a Joint Parliamentary Committee of people from every party and of all shades of opinion decided unanimously that this whole notion of pre-censorship was obnoxious, and that the proper way to deal with this kind of issue as far as censorship is concerned was to deal with the matter when the offence had been committed, to deal with it harshly and to make sure that it did not happen again.
That was the position on the statute book for very many years before a Joint Parliamentary Committee of both Houses of Parliament, finally, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord. Lord Strauss, of which I, Mr. St. John-Stevas and many others were members, decided unanimously to get rid of it. Eventually, legislation was brought in by Mr. Strauss, and finally we did get rid of it. My Lords, civilisation

1013
has not collapsed as a result of that. We now have no pre-censorship in the theatre.
Fashion has now changed, and we are going through one of our periods of public indignation about this kind of thing. We could deal with the problems exemplified in the issue of the video nasties without a single piece of legislation at all. Nevertheless, I recognise that there is a public feeling in this matter, and in order to meet that public feeling I believe it would be desirable to have some legislation. But the manner in which this legislation has been dealt with has already brought it into disrepute before it has started.
Therefore. I believe that a mistake has been made. I agree with the proposal put forward by my noble friend Lord Houghton, that some attempt should be made to mitigate the error which we are in the course of making by putting some sort of time limit upon the legislation so that we shall be forced to reconsider our position, in the light of the change in fashion, in the light of the public feeling and in the light of our own feeling. I believe that a set period of time would be a good idea, and I hope it is one which will commend itself to the Government.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, will your Lordships allow me to add a very domestic tailpiece? Coming down on the train this evening from Norwich the guard said to me, "Because I work such unsocial hours I find that video machines are most helpful. I can listen to and watch things that I would otherwise never have the chance of seeing because I am on the trains. However, when I take my children into a video library there are just the pictures on the covers to look at. I look forward very much to the time when the work that you and their Lordships in the House are doing, and then the Members in the other House, will make it possible for me to take my children to such a library where there is a clear classification which I and they can understand."
Despite all the very moving and persuasive remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, we are dealing with a small, narrow and very wretched moral issue concerning the provisions of Clause 2(1)(a),(b) and (c) on page 2. We cannot get beyond the fact that there arc videos of this type. They are set out very plainly in our parliamentary video report. I hope that we shall resist this amendment and allow the Bill to go back to the other place as soon as possible.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I intervene briefly to raise two matters. On the first I shall refer to your Lordships' fairness and on the second to your Lordships' sense of determination. I rise because the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, was very courteous and kind in distinguishing between me and my noble friend, on the one hand, and the Government on the other—a distinction not easily made in constitutional terms. I am grateful to him for the innovation.
I think that it makes it relevant to this amendment and this debate, and it is certainly the case, that the issue which concerns him—which is the handling of the Bill—has been debated by your Lordships in almost every amendment that we have touched on. I therefore think that I should address myself to it very
1014
briefly now in the hope that your Lordships, in a sense of fairness, having all had several says and my not having previously replied, will not feel it necessary to debate the whole issue again on the Question, That the Bill do now pass. It is on the record indelibly and frequently.
I want to say only this. Of course your Lordships are entitled to have a view about the way in which the Government should run their business and the way that Parliament should pass enactments. That is perfectly fair. I want it to be understood that it is perfectly normal for a Government with a programme to seize, as it were, a passing and complaisant private Member who wishes to pick up a part of that programme. to allow him to do so, and to profit thereby to expand the time available for other business. That has advantages and disadvantages.
The advantages for the Government have been frequently referred to, and so have the disadvantages for your Lordships and Parliament. But it is clear, as my noble friend said, that Private Member's Bills have to have a much greater degree of consensus in another place than Government Bills, because they are not put through on a Whip. Where a Government have a large majority, that is a consideration of substance, and that is the case now. It is also the case that every piece of legislation has to he agreed by both Houses of Parliament before it is signed by Her Majesty and becomes law.
The process by which the two Houses get into accord with each other is rather different in this case than it would be in another. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has quite rightly, courteously and firmly aired his own feeling that that is unfortunate in this case because it has cheated him, as he feels, of an amendment that he would have liked to put in the Bill. Whether that amendment would have survived the more robust exchanges that follow the passing of a public Bill, I am not at all sure. If the Government were opposed to it, it would be a very difficult thing to do. I think that the difference between the two proceedings is not quite as traumatic perhaps as your Lordships have suggested. I say that only in the most (I hope) unprovocative terms I can find, because I feel that your Lordships have expended so much powder, shot and time on this that we should not continue it at the next stage.
I now turn to the amendment itself. My noble friend was persuasive and full. I agree with him that we ought to persist with the Bill as it stands. Parliamentary time is, as I have already said and as your Lordships have agreed. at a premium. It is not our business to preempt the time of a Parliament which is not yet elected by saying that it shall consider a piece of legislation, particularly when, like the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, so many of your Lordships feel that it ought to be on the statute book.
If the noble Lord says that it is so important that it ought to find time, I would point out that, if the pressures of time are so great, what he is inviting us to accept—and when I say "us", I speak for the movers of this private Bill—is a danger that the time will not be available to review the Bill; and to accept that into the Bill is actually to signal to everybody that his heart is not in it. I believe, like the noble Lord, Lord

1015
Mishcon, that we want no such lacuna to be risked. Therefore my own view—and I speak individually—is that the amendment ought not to be agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this debate has developed into what otherwise might have been a debate on the Motion, That this Bill do now pass. If I intervene now, I do so promising your Lordships that I will not intervene again on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass.
Lord Denham: My Lords, the noble Lord is putting my noble friend in this difficulty. My noble friend has spoken for the Government. It is usual for noble Lords who wish to come in at this point to come in before the Minister speaks; otherwise my noble friend will have to ask the leave of the House to speak again. Of course, the noble Lord is quite entitled to speak, but it would have been marginally better if he could have done so before my noble friend replied.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course I accept the wisdom of the Chief Whip, but I did not know it applied in the same way on a Private Members' Bill. Noble Lords can very readily indicate assent or dissent. In fact, we have had a debate which covered many aspects of the Bill other than this amendment, and it would be tedious to the House if many of these things were to be repeated on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. I would hope that, with the leave of the House, it might be possible for me, despite my unintentional and ignorant discourtesy, to save the House time by speaking in the debate in which my remarks are applicable.
If I may. I should like to cite a speech in this House on a previous, related occasion. I quote:
"It is not only a Bill, my Lords, of a very extraordinary nature, but it has been brought in at a most extraordinary season, and pushed with most extraordinary despatch.
"Such a law ought to be maturely considered, and every clause, every sentence, nay, every word of it, well weighed and examined, lest under some of those methods presumed or pretended to be necessary for restraining licentiousness, a power should lie concealed, which might be afterwards made use of for giving a dangerous wound to liberty…".
Those were the words of the Earl of Chesterfield on the last occasion when this House debated a Bill for pre-censorship.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, it is not pre-censorship.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is a Bill of pre-censorship, which, before any work has been displayed to the public, provides for provisions where a penalty can be imposed in the court without even a jury. The last occasion on which this House debated such a Bill was the Playhouse Bill of 1737.
This Bill comes to this House on a false prospectus, not from the noble Lord. Lord Nugent, not from the noble Lord. Lord Elton. It comes out of a proper disgust against video nasties and a proper concern for the protection of children. Yet it is very much more than that. It is a Bill of pre-censorship and it is a Bill which applies to very much more than video nasties. It comes under a bad procedure. Because it has been
1016
introduced as a Private Member's Bill, it contains numerous defects which ought to be examined—here I refer to the amendment of my noble friend—by the House at regular intervals, and certainly not later than 31st December 1989.
For example, there is the issue of exemptions. I will not go over the ones which have been aired again today, but there is no exemption for works of current affairs. We have introduced in this Bill a form of press censorship—that is what it comes to; media censorship—which, for example, would provide the possibility of the censorship of some of the very necessary but very distasteful films of the Vietnam War. It raises the issue of the British Board of Film Censors. Even in its present form, the British Board of Film Censors has a far from perfect record. In the 1920s the British Board of Film Censors refused permits in their entirety to the Russian Silent Cinema. In the 1930s the British Board of Film Censors censored American newsreel which in its view was unduly critical of Germany and Italy.
Those days have gone past, but what is proposed now is a very grave extension of the powers and responsibilities of the British Board of Film Censors. It is now to become a Government-supported quango. It is to be a quango where those who have to submit their works to this board have no right of legal representation and where the only right of appeal is to an appeals tribunal, which also is set up by the Government, and which is in turn a quango. That must be a denial of the rights of the individual.
The Bill introduces not only rationing on principle, but rationing by price. The British Board of Film Censors will be charging fees for examining material which is commonly thought to work out, at present prices, at £4 a minute. That does not matter to the big boys, but it may well matter to the experimental cinema and those in the experimental cinema who wish to get further income and further distribution by video films. So the Bill introduces rationing by price. It also introduces rationing by place. Despite the cogent arguments of my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, the Bill restricts certain kinds of classified video films—the 18R videos—to sex shops, of which the best estimate is that there are only 100 in the country. So there is rationing according to where one happens to live in the country.
The Bill introduces for the first time the denial of the right of the individual to trial by jury. The Obscene Publications Act is thought to be defective by many of those who approve of censorship because juries have failed to find as many works offensive as some people would like. It is an impertinence on the part of legislators to take that difference of opinion between legislators and people, and to introduce a new type of censorship which is only on summary conviction and against which there is no possibility of appeal to juries.
It is not as if there were no alternative to this. It is not as if the possibility of voluntary restriction as proposed by the British Videogram Association were not a very adequate supplement to the existing clauses and powers under the Obscene Publications Act. Up until quite recently that was the Government's point of view. Mr. Patrick Mayhew in November 1982 in another place said that should such a voluntary

1017
scheme by the BVA be introduced, the Government would wish to assess the scheme's effects before deciding whether any statutory controls were required. Those seem to me to be wise words. To rush into legislation of this kind seems to me to be foolhardy at the very least.
I began by quoting from the Earl of Chesterfield. He said that it was brought in at the most extraordinary season. I do not know what that means to your Lordships; perhaps it is like the Queen of the Fairies in "Iolanthe" threatening Strephon in regard to Parliament:
"You shall sit if he sees reason,
Through the grouse and salmon season".
I would not claim that this is an extraordinary season. The Earl of Chesterfield said that it was pushed with most extraordinary dispatch. I would not claim that this Bill has been pushed with extraordinary dispatch although I still resent the comments that have been made in the press and the pleas that have been made by noble Lords that it was somehow undesirable for noble Lords to give this Bill the kind of attention which the Earl of Chesterfield thought appropriate for the Playhouse Bill.
Finally, it is not just a question of speed; it is not just a question of the defects. It is a question of the nature of the procedures here. It was brought home to us very clearly by the fate of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, this evening. Throughout this Bill he has consistently sought to do something which I think most noble Lords here thought was proper; namely, to provide that the BBC and the IBA—both well-established and well-respected bodies—should have the ability to continue not only to put out their products on the air, but to have them repeated in videos without the intervention of a third party. He went as far as anybody could possibly go in making his amendments acceptable to the Government. Because this was a Private Member's Bill he did not have the help in making his amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has acknowledged from the Government for his amendments. All he had at the end of the day was a promise that there would be some further consideration after the Bill had passed here. The noble Lord. Lord Howard, withdrew his amendments not because he thought they were wrong, but because he was impressed by the argument, which has been put over and over again, that substantial amendments would damage the passage of the Bill, and damage the consideration of the Bill in another place afterwards.
The point I am trying to make—and I assure the noble Lord, Lord Denham, that this is my final sentence—is that if we are not to debate, consider and vote on substantial amendments, then we have no place whatever in this legislative system. If we are not to exercise those responsibilities without fear or favour, that is a diminution of the responsibilities and the powers of this House. Finally, I want to pay tribute—as I shall not speak again—to the courtesy, dignity and consideration of the noble Lords, Lord Nugent and Lord Elton.
9.56 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, we have now spent 52 minutes on my amendment which is before
1018
the House. I am very grateful indeed to my noble friend Lord McIntosh for the speech that he has just made. I am sure that noble Lords are getting very weary of this Bill, as we all are. Therefore, I, too, shall co-operate with the House by not making any further speech. However, I am sure that the House will allow me just a few minutes to reply to the points raised on this amendment and to make a concluding observation or two.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, rather overlooked the history of this matter. It is very important because at the end of December 1982 Mr. Gareth Wardell, Member of Parliament, introduced a Private Member's Bill on the lines of the present measure. But he was discouraged from going ahead with it in a long letter from the then Home Secretary (now the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw) telling him that there was a great deal more work which needed to be done on the matter before they could contemplate legislation. That letter is on the record. It is available in the Library in the reference notes that we referred to right at the beginning of this Bill.
Then in the early part of 1983 the then Home Office Minister, Mr. Mayhew (now Sir Patrick Mayhew and holding legal office) wrote to say that before any question of statutory control could be contemplated. it was desired to see whether a voluntary scheme could be formulated, and if so that they would wish time to see whether it was effective. All that was very reasonable in its approach to this matter at that time. But then something happened. What happened was the General Election and the decision of the Conservative Party to brush aside the attempts of the trade to get a voluntary scheme and to promise to go to Government legislation. That was in the Conservative Party manifesto. That was the history until then.
In the meantime, a scheme of voluntary control had been produced by the working party set up by the British Videogram Association, which had very distinguished membership, and it produced a very comprehensive and intelligent report. But all that received short shrift in the campaign on this matter to get a pledge from the Government for government legislation.
That scarcely suggests that there is no basis for our feeling that this has been hastily conceived, as The Times puts it, "in a moral fit". Therefore, a Bill introduced in these circumstances surely is a candidate for reasonably early review. It has not been a considered measure, based on proper research and information; it is not a measure that is replacing an ineffectual voluntary scheme. It is a Government action spatchcocked into a situation which was being reasonably approached by all the parties concerned, including the Government and the Home Secretary, during the early part of last year. I want to make it clear that of course classification would be a great help. Classification is there in the trade already. Apart from the formalisation of the voluntary scheme, traders have classifications of their own to a large extent.
But the purpose of this Bill is not primarily classification. The purpose of this Bill primarily is to get rid of the nasties. That is what it is all about. If there is any word that has become hackneyed,

1019
misleading, and full of opprobrium it is that word. If your Lordships asked me to classify this Bill, I would call it a "parliamentary nasty" because it revolts me to see the conditions, the environment, the whipped up public concern, and the rampage that there have been over this subject in months past. But there it is; we come to the end of the day and we have given this Bill a good deal more attention than it would otherwise have received.
It did not get half enough attention in another place. They were in a hurry. They wanted to scamper through it. They had last days, short speeches, grouping of amendments. Anyone who studies the proceedings of the Standing Committee must realise the conditions under which the Bill was considered there. Everything was tipped into the last day on 16th March. All the rest of the amendments on Report had to be scrambled through. One part of the Bill that had not been completed—namely, where 18R material was to be made available—had to be made good in a last-minute amendment to the Bill to put it all in the hands of sex shops. Until then sex shops had not been mentioned in the Bill from beginning to end. Who is going to say, therefore, that this Bill really has a valid base of permanence and satisfaction?
However, I shall forgo the kind of onslaught on this Bill that I had spent a long time in preparing. I am sure that that is good news all round. It is quite a relief to me, too. I have a bit of good news for the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, who referred to technological change that might come about. I was delighted to find in the Sunday Times of 3rd June under the heading, "Deep Throat of Video" an announcement that a new safety device is being put on video recorders by Grundig. This device is going to be the answer to Lord Nugent's prayer, and that of many parents throughout the country who are afraid, or believe, or are told, that their children are cadging looks at video nasties by going to the recorder in the home. It states:
"Parents going out for the evening can stop their children watching adult movies or, for that matter, any movies at all if there is homework to be done. With a hint of malice Grundig engineers have made a recorder so that it will gobble up and refuse to give back any cassette that someone has tried to play while it is locked, so parents will know what children have been trying to watch".
And so the article goes on. It is a childproof video recorder. That answers many of the problems which it was suggested were a basis for this system of control.
My final word is that in all the discussions we have had so little has been said about parental responsibility. Parents must take responsibility for what they do with their children. They bring them into the world and they must take care of them. The state cannot do it all. Letters that I have received on this subject from distressed people are concerned about the children of other people. Their children, of course, are all right, but it is other people's children. This is a natural concern, but it does not indicate that they understand that each set of parents should be responsible for their own children as far as possible.
Then I turn to a well-known former colleague in the House of Commons for the concluding words. Sir William Deedes, now editor of the Daily Telegraph, writing on the memoirs of Sir Ian Trethowan and looking at the future for this—this is what we have to
1020
do; it is not the next five years but probably the next 10; we are doing things today which will look quite odd, if not ridiculous, in the years to come—said:
"It is television's misfortune that it goes into the heart of every home and now, in this third age, has acquired wings which will soon, via satellite, expose it to an international free market, benign and malign. We have had a first glimpse of difficulties ahead in the ineffectual groping around by Parliament to find ways of exorcising the video nasty".
That is his epitaph, and mine, on this Bill.
On Question, amendment negatived.
10.6 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass. I do not propose to recapitulate all the arguments which we have already heard on the other side. I only wish to thank those who have helped me deal with a very difficult little Bill. I thank, first of all, my noble friend the Minister and his experts who have been superb in their assistance. I could not possibly have managed without them. I should like to thank noble Lords from all sides of the House who have given me tremendous support on the Bill, not least by being here and not saying anything when they often would have liked to. I am afraid they have heard already far too much from me and I do not propose to recapitulate any arguments now.
I believe that by passing this measure of classification and sending it back to the Commons we have done something valuable which will be welcomed by parents throughout the country, as by many hundreds who have written to me. To them I should like to say that I believe this will be helpful to them and helpful to the whole country. I move that we send this Bill back to its promoter, Mr. Bright, in the other House, with the wish that it will soon be on the statute book.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Nugent of Guildford)
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, this Bill may have been hastily conceived, but it has had a very long period of gestation, or so it seems to me sitting here. I share in general the views of my noble friends who have been so critical in the Bill on the issues of censorship. When we began consideration of this Bill I was particularly unhappy that there had not been a voluntary scheme. But I must say that, as I have listened to the arguments of my noble friends and the critics of this Bill, I have found them unconvincing. I am finishing with fewer doubts about the worth of this Bill, its validity and its usefulness at the end of our discussions than I had at the beginning.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, just for one minute may I forfeit the claim of not having spoken at all—and this will be for one minute in spite of any frowns that come my way. I have been more connected with pornography than almost anyone over the years, and I am delighted that Lord Nugent and Lord Mishcon have carried the day so successfully that there was no need for me to intervene. That is somewhat of a reply to my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, because at one point he said that all the arguments seemed to come from the critics. A great many of those who support the Bill have not felt that they would add anything by joining in.

1021
I will make one point and then sit down. Lord Houghton and others—including Lord Winstanley, when he has time to turn round—have been critical of the way this has been handled. They said it was outrageous the way it had been handled by the Government. I disagree with that totally and if we talk about Private Members' Bills, Lord Houghton will remember (though he was not a Member of the House at that time) that the Abortion Bill was supported by the Government of the day and Private Members' procedure was being used.
I am going to end now by paying a tribute to Lord Nugent. I think we must do that. It would be wrong not to do it. He has carried through four Bills in this struggle against pornography. May he carry many more!
Lord Elton: My Lords, your Lordships will agree that we have gone on long enough. I would only say that my noble friend Lord Nugent has my unstinted admiration for the way in which he has borne this burden. Those of your Lordships who assisted him deserve much gratitude. I hope that nobody who follows me will speak for longer.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I promise not to speak for long. I join in the tributes that have been paid. The noble Lord the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, know my views about the question of the omission of exports from this Bill. I want to do something nobody else has done. I want to pay a tribute to my noble friend Lord Houghton, with whose views I disagree, and the noble Lords, Lord Jenkins and Lord McIntosh—and they know I disagree with their views. What they have been able to do is this. Instead of their having a nightmare in future that this Bill did not take many hours in this House and had not much discussion over each clause, they will have the pleasant dream in future of knowing how their contributions have made it possible for all to say that this Bill has been well considered and ought now to go to another place and he put on the statute book.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, may I briefly support the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in regard to works for export? I know that this matter has been fully debated, but I feel it relevant to tell your Lordships that after the Committee stage of this Bill I visited a very senior member of the United Arab Emirates. He told me that he had seen a programme on television which he found utterly repulsive, and that he hoped very much that we in this House would do all that we could to prevent such material reaching the Arab world. I am not concerned about the export of such material to Europe, but I feel there is a grave danger about exports of such material without classification to the Moslem world.
May I add my great tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and to the noble Lord the Minister for the proceedings which I have listened to with great interest.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with the amendments.

Animal Health and Welfare Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments.
Roads (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments.

Building Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past ten o'clock.