Lords Sitting of 9 October 1990

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

Baroness Dunn
Dame Lydia Selina Dunn, DBE, having been created Baroness Dunn, of Hong Kong Island in Hong Kong and of Knightsbridge in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord MacLehose of Beoch and the Lord Bramall.

HIV: Protection of Medical Staff
2.48 p m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are considering the authorisation of tests for HIV on patients, without their consent, in cases where surgical or medical staff are at risk of being infected from blood during operations or treatment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords. the Government have no plans to authorise HIV tests on surgical patients without their consent.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Nonetheless, do the Government agree that where these risks arise doctors and nurses must be protected from what could be very bad effects?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we are aware of and understand the anxieties that exist among surgical and medical staff generally. My understanding is that the Royal College of Surgeons of England will be consulting on draft guidelines on testing for HIV infection on surgical patients. However, it will be for the General Medical Council—the body responsible for the regulation of the medical profession—to ensure that the guidelines are consonant with the ethical basis of the doctor/patient relationship.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the Minister surely agrees that doctors are entitled to protection. How many people have been asked for their consent?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure that I follow the noble Lord.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, it is simple enough. How many patients have been asked?
Lord Henley: My Lords, tests should not be done without the consent of the patient. I have no figures as to how many patients have been asked for their consent. My understanding is also that the doctors' practise would not vary according to whether or not they knew that the patient was HIV infected.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, have the Government decided to accept the advice of Mr. Justice Ognall to settle the claims of haemophiliacs infected by AIDS virus? Does the noble Lord agree with the judge that the department has a moral responsibility to do so without any more ungracious haggling with these unfortunate people?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord knows perfectly well that that is quite a different question. It is a matter before the courts. The noble Lord should know even better because I understand that he has put down a Question on that very subject for a week tomorrow.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the Question deals with the risk of people being infected with blood. I should have thought that my question was absolutely relevant.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid that I disagree with the noble Lord.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, noble Lords may remember that I was one of the first people to put down a Question on haemophiliacs about a year and a half ago. I received a very good answer. The Question today is on an entirely different subject. Is my noble friend aware that patients or their families might raise an objection when asked for their consent before a test was made? In those circumstances, in my opinion the surgeons and nurses should come first.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I quite understand my noble friend's point. Perhaps I may help him a little further. My understanding is that the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh has issued guidelines on the matter. It too feels that the patients should give consent before they are tested. However, its advice is that if the patient refuses, surgeons should act as though that patient were at high risk of HIV infection.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in normal circumstances when blood specimens are taken for routine testing with the patient's consent —as is normally the case before all operations, on antenatal and other occasions—the precise nature of the test to be carried out is not usually specified or discussed with the patient? Nor is the patient asked to consent to a variety of different tests. The patient consents to the blood being tested. In those circumstances, has not the time now come when it would be reasonable for all blood specimens to be tested for HIV antibodies?
Lord Henley: My Lords, no, because the patient must give his consent. If the patient does not know what the blood is being tested for he cannot give a valid consent. Consent depends on the knowledge that the patient has as to what tests are to be conducted. My understanding is that the doctor should explain what tests are to be conducted before that patient can give his consent.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, would it not be possible automatically and routinely to test everyone who comes into hospital or who works in a hospital? Could not a patient be infected by a surgeon —who might be HIV infected, and who cut himself —whose blood gets into the patient's wound? All those people should be tested.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is possible that the infection could be passed the other way. We are not aware of any cases except one in America concerning a dentist, about which the noble Baroness might know. However, even that case is not certain. I still believe that the question of consent must arise. The patient must be able to consent to the tests that are being conducted.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, is the Minister aware that two years ago, after the most earnest consideration of the problem and after having taken legal advice, the General Medical Council promulgated advice to the medical profession? It was to the effect that to carry out the test without the patient's explicit consent would not be an ethical procedure. Therefore, the council advised the profession that, while accepting all the anxieties expressed, it is necessary that the patient's consent is obtained in advance of the performance of such a test. Is the Minister further aware that the issue is still under consideration and that to the best of my knowledge no patient has yet refused to give permission for the test when specifically invited to do so?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's comments. I am aware of the work of the General Medical Council and of the letter that the noble Lord wrote to the profession about the matter. I should not wish to go further and speculate on the legal point that the noble Lord made. It is my understanding that, in order to give a proper and valid consent, the patient must know to what he is consenting.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as someone who from time to time has been into hospital for surgical purposes and invariably has had blood samples taken in order to carry out certain tests, I cannot understand why the Minister did not accept the reasonable proposition put forward by my noble friend who said that among those tests there should now be an automatic test for HIV. That is now so important that I believe any normal patient would automatically agree. Why should a patient be asked specifically about this aspect of the test but not about all the others?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord did not follow me. The patient should be asked about all aspects of the test. He must give his consent to the tests that are being conducted, otherwise there is no valid consent.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I have never been asked about the blood tests. They just take the blood and test it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hope that in future the noble Lord will be asked.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is the Minister under the impression that when blood is taken from an accident patient or a driver in a motoring accident and tested for alcohol the patient is first asked for his consent? In fact he is not.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not aware of other cases. The noble Lord will accept that HIV is different. It usually leads to AIDS for which there is no cure and
146
therefore the whole question must be treated with greater sensitivity. As I have repeated more than once, the patient must consent to the tests being carried out.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister accept the fact that there is a good deal of anxiety about the subject? In the light of that and recognising that the position of the General Medical Council was taken two years ago, since when the AIDS situation has greatly advanced, will he not ask his right honourable friend to reconsider the matter? Does the Minister accept, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that almost everyone admitted to hospital has a blood test and that the patient is not saying, "I am prepared to be tested for this but not for that"? Surely, whatever the result of a blood test the information is important and the department should reconsider the Answer that the Minister has given.
Lord Henley: My Lords, if the noble Lord had listened to some of my answers—
Lord Ennals: I did.
Lord Henley: Then he would have heard me say that it is a matter for the General Medical Council, which is the body responsible for issuing regulations on such matters to the medical profession. It is for the council to ensure that the guidelines are consistent with the ethical basis of the doctor/patient relationship. I also stress that the General Medical Council is a body statutorily set up and independent of government.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the real problem is that anyone who has such a test for AIDS finds it impossible to obtain an insurance policy? That is the crucial matter. Even if the test is negative, the fact that one has had it bars one from obtaining life assurance.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those comments and for his explanation of the difficulties suffered by those who have the HIV infection or who are tested for it.

The 50 Pence Coin
3 p.m.
Lord Erroll of Hale Lord Erroll of Hale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are proposing to reduce the growing surplus of 50 pence coins.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Royal Mint supplies banks with the quantity and denomination of coins that they request on the basis that they cannot be returned to the Mint except in exceptional circumstances such as in the immediate aftermath of the introduction of a new coin. The Government are under no obligation to accept back surplus coin and at present the Mint has neither the space nor the melting capacity to handle additional returned coins. My honourable friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has, however, agreed to ask the Mint to take back up to 50 million 50 pence coins if and when it has the spare capacity to store them.
Lord Erroll of Hale: My Lords, while I thank my noble friend for that informative Answer, would it not be much more satisfactory if Britain were to follow the practice of all EC countries, which authorise the return of hard-core unwanted coins back to the central banks of those countries?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hate to be different from our colleagues in the EC but the present arrangements are, as I indicated, that the Royal Mint will supply banks with the quantity and denomination of coins which the banks request on the basis that the coins cannot be returned except in exceptional circumstances. We feel that it must be for the banks to judge the right levels to draw for their customers' needs.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the noble Lord remember that the 50 pence coin was originally an afterthought—a makeshift—after Parliament had authorised the new coinage when we decimalised it? Having been a makeshift from the start, the sooner we get rid of it the better. Does the noble Lord agree that the introduction of the baby 5 pence coin is a step in the right direction to be followed, I hope, by a coin of twice its weight representing 10 pence?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should not like to comment on the popularity or unpopularity of the 50 pence coin. As the noble Earl said, it was introduced some 21 years ago and I do not believe that I was responsible for that.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Lord indicated that the Bank of England placed the order with the Royal Mint for a certain quantity of those coins. Is the noble Lord aware whether the Bank of England carried out market research from its various branches and other agencies as to what was the likely demand? In the circumstances, does the noble Lord consider the operation to have been cost effective?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not believe that I mentioned the Bank of England at all. I referred to banks generally.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, following what the noble Earl said, could we not take back all these 50 pence coins and get rid of the horrible new 5 pence coin, which I do not believe anyone likes?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not wish to be drawn on the question of the 5 pence coin, which I personally like. That is another Question.
Lord O'Brien of Lothbury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that more than 60 years ago I had some lowly responsibility in relation to part of our coinage; namely, that part which was made of gold? That was a worthy symbol of a great nation. Is he aware also that I share the widespread opinion that the present motley collection of coins is a disgrace to a civilised nation? Furthermore, may I repeat a request which I made in this House some years ago that the Government should look at the Swiss coinage, which is a model of what a coinage should be, and that they should imitate it if at all possible?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take note of the noble Lord's comments about the
148
coinage. Neither this Government nor I are responsible for the 50 pence coin. That was introduced some 21 years ago under a different Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Petrol Prices
3.4 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick and at his request. I beg leave to ask the Government the following Question:
Whether they have established the basis on which oil companies calculate the prices they charge the consumer for petrol; and, if so, what it is.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the UK oil companies, along with those of most other European countries, use the price of petrol on the Rotterdam spot market for gasoline as a reference price. The Director General of Fair Trading has recently examined the way in which oil companies base their prices on international prices and concluded that there was no reason to revise the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's judgment earlier this year that the industry was competitive.
The most recent evidence that petrol prices follow the falls as well as the rises on the Rotterdam spot market was the fall in UK pump prices last week by almost 1p a litre.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that most unsatisfactory Answer. Is he aware that prices in neighbouring European countries and indeed in the United States have not gone up as far as they have in this country? As oil prices are based on the Rotterdam spot market, why have the British people suffered larger increases than their counterparts in Europe and the United States?
Will he also agree that the examination by the Office of Fair Trading was really a bamboozling exercise by the oil companies which led to the production of a report that was a whitewash?
Finally, will he agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done absolutely nothing, that he has sat on his hands, because it suits his purposes and indeed helps to bamboozle people about the estimates he made earlier in the year?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, UK pump prices compare favourably with those in most EC countries. French price controls, which resulted in prices increasing faster than in some other EC countries, were abandoned after one month. Therefore, I do not believe that the noble Lord is right in considering that our prices rose faster. The Government have a great deal of faith in the Director General of Fair Trading.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, are the Government satisfied that basing product price at the pump on the Rotterdam market—which is after all a spot market dealing in marginal tonnage in products among professionals—is the right method because petrol prices at the pump seem to go up and down like

149
a yo-yo as does the Rotterdam market? As far as I know, no other country has prices set on that basis. Oil companies certainly do not do that in Europe.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is something which the Monopolies and Mergers Commission looked at when it conducted its extremely thorough investigation into the workings of the market. Its report published in February of this year concluded that the present state of the industry is competitive and that none of the facts found operates against the public interest.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I was not asking whether the Government agreed with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission as to whether the industry is competitive. I was asking the noble Viscount whether the Government believe that basing a petrol pump price on the Rotterdam market is the right way to go about it?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords. That reflects the supply and demand in the world situation. I agree with the noble Lord that it is a restricted market but, as I sought to say in my first Answer, that was investigated by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and its report was quite clear on that.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is there not a more fundamental issue involved here? We are now living through the third oil shock in 20 years and we are suffering as much this time as we did from the first such shock. Would it not be desirable for ourselves and other developed countries, through the IEA or in other ways, to work out measures which would modify the impact of those disturbances?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the oil shock—if it is such—from which we are now suffering is not an induced oil shock, as were the first two where there was a restriction on supply. This has not been a concerted effort to restrict supply. Therefore, it is different from the first two situations. Certainly, we need to look at every other way, including energy efficiency, to cut down on demand.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is the pricing of British oil in dollars a relevant matter? Do the Government consider that practice either necessary or desirable?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that is the way in which it is traded, and as the pound has strengthened it has reduced the prices at the pump and has acted in our favour.
Lord Parry: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that those who are simple and naive, such as I am, find it difficult to understand why petrol bought at barrel prices which were considerably lower before the crisis began should be sold at prices that have been set after the crisis began? Those people are unable to understand why they are now paying prices for oil that may be down at barrel price when it is eventually delivered to the public.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that is a concept that many people have. The oil companies retain a certain reserve of oil. If it was bought at cheaper prices
150
then they would profit from it if they ran their stocks down. If they retain the same amount of stock they are not profiteering.
Lord Parry: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will explain to the House why prices do not go down as quickly as they go up.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I sought to say that in fact they do. The Department of Energy very carefully monitors the difference between the spot price and the pump price. That difference falls within a range of around 5½ to 6p. Since July the margin has narrowed rather than widened, which indicates that major companies are keen that they should not lose market share by increasing their prices too rapidly.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, in view of the uncertainty of the Gulf crisis, is it not reasonably obvious even to the naïve that it is right for oil companies to keep their stocks up and that in order for them to keep their stocks up, they have to consider the replacement price?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as usual my noble and learned friend puts it so much better than I.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Viscount not agree that there has been a great deal of public disquiet regarding what people believe to be an unreasonable increase in price? Does he further agree that many authorities, including President Bush, say that the increase in prices is not justifiable? Can he say what representations were made by his right honourable friend, or some representative of the Government, to the oil companies about this matter? Finally, can he say what extra revenue has come to the Government since 2nd August as a result of this increase?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. Petrol prices have risen substantially. That reflects the decrease in supply rather than any increase in demand. Nevertheless, the Government have looked at the situation. They asked the United Kingdom oil companies to exercise restraint—the Government consider that to be the best way forward —and not to increase prices more than necessary in the circumstances. I sought to indicate that the companies delayed passing on price increases, which today are less than the increases they are experiencing on the Rotterdam gasoline spot market.
In answer to the second part of the noble Lord's question, I cannot give a precise figure. However, the petroleum revenue tax will increase as the product price increases.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount. It has come to my notice that the increased revenue amounts to more than £500 million. Is that near the mark?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord an answer at this time. I shall inquire and write to him.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, while I am not against the consumer paying the market price for petroleum, do the Government consider that it may be

151
useful to have greater investment in public transport in order to minimise the impact of increased petrol prices?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I find myself in a difficult position. In many instances noble Lords from all sides of the House have asked me to introduce a carbon tax on petrol, which would increase the price of petrol. For some reason or other they are now complaining that the price of petrol has gone up. The noble Lord is right, but that is not the Question before the House.

Fire Service College: Funding
3.14 p.m.
Lord Hooson Lord Hooson asked Her Majesty's Government:
On what grounds the decision has been taken to cease. the central funding of the Fire Service College and whether any estimate has been made of likely reduction in attendance of the staff of county councils and fire and civil defence authorities as a result of this decision.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the decision to phase in the charging of fire authorities in England and Wales for training at the Fire Service College was made in order to give fire authorities greater involvement with the college so that it should be more responsive to its customers' requirements. No estimate has been made of any possible reduction in attendance.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. However, is he not aware of the views of the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers' Association that the move is likely to lead to a dramatic reduction in training for members of fire brigades in the UK? As that will impinge on public safety, does he not agree that it may well prove to be a retrograde step?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am aware of the views of the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers' Association but the statutory requirement to ensure the efficient training of fire brigade staff lies with the fire authorities. We are confident that the fire authorities will meet that requirement in the future as they have in the past.
Lord Renton: My Lords, while not disputing the wisdom of the decision, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that the Fire Service College has not only provided training for members of the fire service, but also that it has been at the forefront of technical progress in methods of doing so? Will he give an assurance that that important part of the college's work will continue?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the view of the Government is that the Fire Service College stands pre-eminent in the world for fire service training. We have every intention that it should stay that way.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I speak as an ex-student of the original Fire Service College and as the governor of this one for some time. I am concerned at the steps the Government are taking to put the responsibility for payment on to local authorities. I am sure local authorities will continue to use the
152
college for their recruit training. But it is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, that they continue to provide refresher courses aimed at supplying the increased scientific and technical knowledge required by our firefighters. With the shortage of funds that local authorities, particularly local fire authorities, are experiencing, these services may be neglected. The whole country would regret that.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, all the courses of the Fire Service College are enormously important. The point is that in future fire authorities will be responsible for funding those who attend the college other than those attending the brigade command courses in order to become chief fire officers. It is our intention to ensure that the funding of that is taken account of in the revenue support grant.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does not the Minister take into account the feeling expressed throughout the fire service and throughout the land at all levels that these cuts—as really they are —will affect safety standards, and training and careers in the fire service? Can he give an assurance that where a local authority lacks the funds that he speaks of, that will in no way affect the careers of the fire service members within that authority?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon —not for the first time —that this results in cuts. It is transferring the responsibility for providing the funds. In the past the Fire Service College was funded mainly by the Home Office. It will now be funded by local authorities via the revenue support grant. The noble Lord asks whether funds will be made available. I point out that the manner in which local authorities dispose of their funds is up to them.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I asked a question which I now repeat. Where the local authority has different priorities of need and determines that those priorities do not take into account the fire service and the Fire Service College, will the Minister give an assurance that that will not affect the careers and training of the fire service members within those authorities?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can only say to the noble Lord that when the fire authorities and the local authorities have their funds to dispose of as they think fit, it is up to those authorities to decide whether or not to send people to the Fire Service College. I hope that prudence and common sense will ensure that they do. They have an obligation under the Fire Services Act 1947 to ensure that people are properly trained.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Report stage of the Broadcasting Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about an hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Clyde Port Authority Bill will be taken.

House of Lords Offices: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that the 3rd Report from the Select Committee on House of Lords offices be agreed to.
Moved, That the 3rd Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 81).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. Sub-Committees
The Committee approved the appointments of Lord Graham of Edmonton to the Administration, Finance and Refreshment Department Sub-Committees and the Marquess of Cholmondeley to the Works of Art Sub-Committee.
2. Refreshment Department
A report from the Sub-Committee was made to the Committee.
The Committee approved a statement of Accounts for the financial year 1989–90 (H.L. Paper 73).
3. Staff of the House
A report from the Staff of the House Sub-Committee was made to the Committee who agreed to:—

(a) the replacement of a Personal Secretary post in the Public Bill Office by an Executive Officer post with effect from 4th June 1990;

(b) the upgrading of one post of Personal Secretary to the Clerk Assistant to Senior Personal Secretary with effect from 1st August 1990;

(c) the temporary appointment of one additional Clerical Officer, the temporary upgrading of one Executive Officer to Higher Executive Officer, and one Senior Clerical Officer to Executive Officer, and the extension of the special allowance payable to a Higher Executive Officer for a further period of 12 months during the introduction of a computer in the Accountant's Office; and

(d) the extension of the two temporary posts of Committee Specialist Assistant for a further period of one year.

The Committee also agreed that the temporary additional Assistant Librarian post in the Library should be made permanent.
4. Parliament Office
The Committee were informed of the promotion of Mr. T. V. Mohan to Senior Clerk.
5. Library
A report from the Library Sub-Committee for 1989 was laid before the Committee.
6. Revised Scales of Pay and Allowances
The Committee confirmed the application of the following civil service memoranda to staff of the House of Lords:—

(a) DEO letter dated 23rd February 1989 (Personal Pay Points for Lawyers).

(b) CM/914 (Pay of Senior Open Structure).

(c) CM/919 (Pay of Administrative Staff below Grade 7 and Proficiency Allowances)

(d) CM/923 (Responsibility Allowances).

(e) CM/927 (Pay of Clerks at AT and HEO(D) level and Legal Officers).

7. Hansard Reporting Staff
The Committee authorised revised scales of charges for the supply of agency word processor operators.
8. House of Lords Fees
The Committee approved a revision in the scale of charges for photocopying.
9. Superannuation
The Committee were notified of the following awards made under the House of Lords Staff Pension Scheme:—

(a) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. J. Gilbane, Cleaner, who retired on 14th April 1990.

(b) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. G. R. Roberts, Cleaner, who retired on ill-health grounds on 23rd April 1990.

(c) Pension and lump sum to Mr. J. Ryder, Head Cleaner, who retired on 19th May 1990.

(d) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. J. C. Seamon, Senior Clerical Officer, who retired on ill-health grounds on 1st June 1990.

(e) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. B. Howlett, Cleaner, who retired on 16th June 1990.

(f) Pension and lump sum to Mr. W. Grant, Executive Officer, who retired on 24th June 1990.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Broadcasting Bill
3.20 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [The Independent Television Commission]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, after ("commission") insert (", responsible for structuring Channel 3 on a regional basis as mentioned in section 14(2),").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, before I speak to this amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, I must protest about the way the government amendments have appeared for this stage of the Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was kind enough to write to me near the beginning of the recess saying that he was aware of the problems we had during the Committee stage and that he would do all in his power to ensure that the bulk of the amendments were tabled by 19th September. It is only fair to say that a great many of the amendments were tabled by that date.
However, some extremely substantive amendments were not, and those included the extremely important, complicated and complex amendment on impartiality which was only tabled on 1st October. It is extremely difficult to do business in this House and to give adequate and proper attention to legislation if that is the way matters work.
Although in answer to the Opposition Chief Whip the Government Chief Whip wrote an extremely pleasant and sympathetic letter, that still does not help us very much because on this side of the House unfortunately we do not have the resources of even a shadow Home Office let alone a proper Home Office. Therefore, I felt that I must protest about the difficulties to which the opposition parties have been put.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, before the noble Earl responds, I should like to associate these Benches strongly with the protest made by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. We now have before us a revised and massive Marshalled List amounting to 389 amendments, and although a number of them are technical there are some extremely important new

155
amendments among them. For example, the impartiality amendment proposes an unprecedented course of action for government policy in relation to the rights of the broadcasting authorities. That proposal was never put in any way to the House of Commons but comes solely here.
It is an abuse of the procedures of Parliament that the Government should produce these amendments, covering issues of great significance, at such a late stage in the day. With the gracious Speech looming ahead of us time is short. The Government owe an explanation to the House and should make some effort to mitigate the problem that they themselves have created.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I realise that difficulties have been caused for the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. I am the first to apologise for any inconvenience caused. Inevitably we have been in some difficulties ourselves. I wrote to the noble Baroness during the Recess saying that we were aiming to do all we could to table amendments of substance by 19th September, that any drafting and minor amendments which could not meet that deadline would be tabled as soon as possible thereafter and that there would always be the possibility that further points would crop up during the summer. In fact, that is what has happened.
The point is that when we commence the Recess at the end of July one feels that from July to October is a long while. However, officials and parliamentary draftsmen must go on holiday, too. Of the 294 government amendments which we have tabled—I emphasise that the time available for drafting them was virtually only from 1st to 19th September —203 were tabled by 19th September and a further 11 relating to needle time appeared on 27th September. Those amendments fulfilled the great majority of undertakings made by the Government in Committee on specific issues.
A further three sets of amendments were tabled on 28th September, 3rd October and 4th October. The majority of those amendments are minor and technical matters which the parliamentary draftsmen deliberately put to one side in order to concentrate on matters of substance.
There are one or two amendments which were tabled late and which are of importance and in some cases controversial. I shall explain why that occurred. The noble Baroness referred to impartiality, as did the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. The amendment was tabled on 28th September and under the Motion agreed yesterday it falls to be debated on the second day of the Report stage, 11 th October. The amendment fulfils an undertaking given in Committee. It is a complicated matter and not only had it to be considered very carefully within my own department and by parliamentary draftsmen but considerable discussion was also undertaken with the IBA and others. That consideration was important to us and resulted in a number of drafting improvements.
The definition of pop music was dealt with and the relevant amendment was also tabled on 28th
156
September. The need for it only became apparent during September. Contrary to the view we had previously taken, some groups argued that pop music was to be considered as embracing only the top 40 chart hit records. The matter is of considerable importance to the Radio Authority and it had to be clarified.
The amendments tabled on 3rd and 4th October deal with three issues of importance. The first relates to the provisions for those with sight and hearing difficulties. I did not want to table those amendments before consulting the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), as I had undertaken to do. The second issue concerned subscription piracy. It is a difficult issue which deals with amending the Copyright. Design and Patents Act 1988. Extensive consultations were necessary in order to get that right.
The third issue accounts, in numerical terms, for over half the final group of amendments. It refers to networking. I made clear when introducing the main networking clause that further provisions would be needed to deal with the role of the Director General of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It is a complex subject and lengthy consultations, especially with the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, had to take place.
I felt that it would be worth while explaining the position in some detail. I apologise for the inconvenience which has been caused to the noble Baroness, the noble Lord and other noble Lords. It is possible, I suppose, that the technical amendments could have been tabled on Third Reading but we did not consider that that would be appropriate. I and my officials will be only too happy to assist noble Lords and brief or advise them on any amendments. I am obviously distressed to have caused your Lordships inconvenience or aggravation and I only hope that your Lordships will acquit me and my officials of being slothful, discourteous or cavalier. We have tried to get these complicated amendments in proper order for consideration. We endeavoured to complete the majority of them on time, and two-thirds of them were done on time. In so far as the remainder were tabled later and caused inconvenience, I apologise.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I accept the noble Earl's apology. I would only add that the impartiality amendment which has caused the most trouble was promised on 11 th July, which gave nearly three months to finalise it. However, I accept that when the Government set out to do the impossible it takes a long time.
I shall now deal with Amendment No. 1. This is a paving amendment for the substantive Amendment, No. 47, relating to the Channel 3 map. The amendment, which is drier to read and speak about than its content, concerns regional identity and diversity of the UK when determining the Channel 3 map.
In the Bill the ITC has been given the responsibility for determining the regional map of Channel 3. The

157
chairman designate of the shadow ITC, George Russell, said in July that the marginal viability of the smaller northern and outlying areas most affected by the loss of Channel 4 revenues in 1993 may cause the ITC-Channel 3 map to be redrawn.
Since then the IBA has conducted research into the economic viability of the five smallest regions. These are Border, Channel, Grampian, Television South West and Ulster. On 6th September Mr. George Russell announced that the shadow ITC would advertise all 16 existing licence areas, including the national breakfast licence and the London weekday and weekend licences. The existing ITV map will be retained in order to sustain the highly regarded regional programmes. That has been confirmed by the IBA's research which will be published shortly.
The announcement made by the chairman designate, Mr. George Russell, is the result of an agreement reached with the ITV companies over the future of networking arrangements. He said that, although the small companies might be at the margin of economic viability,
"the companies supplying the bulk of network programmes have agreed on the principle that the prices to be paid for the network programmes by the smallest areas from 1993 will be at a level which recognises the earning power of those respective areas".
He went on to say:
"the ITC proposes to set the figure for the first part of the competitive tender for licences at a minimal level for the smallest areas which will also help to provide a realistic financial basis for their continued independence".
The problem is that though the regional map of Channel 3 will not now be redrawn before the licence areas are advertised, the ITC will still have the residual power to determine the future shape of the map.
The Government's position as outlined by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, in Committee (Hansard, 11/7/90; col. 425.) was that, while the existing ITV areas should remain, the viability of a particular licence area would determine whether or not it will remain. Furthermore, the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, speaking from the Government Front Bench, said that the IBA had drawn up a model which would allow for two areas to be amalgamated with separate programming where a region is only marginally viable. The Government's view was that economic viability should be the key determinant in the future shape of the map.
Therefore, the amendment is designed to place on the ITC an obligation to give due regard in its decisions when redrawing the map to the regional and cultural identity and diversity of the UK regions. That is a matter about which many Members of your Lordships' House expressed great concern and interest at Committee stage. Amendments Nos. 106 and 133 dealt with in Committee sought to achieve special regard to the interests of the nations of the United Kingdom. That drew some criticism because it was felt by some noble Lords that the English regions were not also included.
158
This amendment embraces all nations and regions of the United Kingdom. It introduces the concept of due regard which the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, said should be used in relation to cultural differences by applicants for licences. He said:
"cultural differences have to be respected by the ITC"—[Official Report 18/7/90; col. 992.]
We are concerned that in future the ITC may redraw the map and that it would not have to have due regard to the identity of regions in the United Kingdom in statute. This amendment seeks to ensure that this is included in the statute so that any future action taken by this or any future ITC will then have to pay regard to the regions, their diversity and individuality. I beg to move.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I wish to associate these Benches with this amendment that has been moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in connection with the regional arrangements made by the ITC. She has set forth the case so clearly that I shall not take up much of your Lordships' time adding to the arguments that she has already deployed. This amendment is one of a number which draw attention to the extraordinary contribution which the regional companies have made to British television. We wish to preserve that at all costs.
This contribution not only reflects the cultural diversity of this country, including the regions of England as well as the nations of Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland, but it also acts in such a way as to prevent the concentration of all television production being centred on London and the South East. That is a very grave danger and we must do everything we can to avoid it. Therefore this amendment is more important in its consequences and in the spirit that it expresses than might be apparent at first reading.
I wish to emphasise to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, when answering the case put by the noble Baroness for this amendment, that he is dealing with a subject which is of great importance to this country as a whole. It is important to the development of its culture and to the possibility of people engaging in the production of television programmes outside London and the South East. I beg to associate myself and my colleagues on these Benches with the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I support the amendment which has just been moved. I speak as a former director of Scottish Television. In the television organisations there is a danger of centralisation and domination of the market by the five major companies. It is vital to the liveliness of television as well as to the stimulation of regional culture that there should be some recognition of the importance of the input from the regional companies. I hope that there will be some provision in the Bill to maintain that balance.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we certainly believe that the Independent Television Commission should take into account the kind of factors which are set out in the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 47 in determining the shape of the Channel 3 map. The

159
shadow Independent Television Commission has already demonstrated its sensitivity to these national and regional needs by its decision to retain the existing ITV regions for Channel 3. But there are other factors, such w financial viability, which should also be taken into account. I do not think that it is necessary that all these factors should be listed on the face of the Bill.
Clause 16(2) (e) makes clear that the regional Channel 3 licensees must provide regional programmes of particular interest to the relevant regions. That, in conjunction with the ITC's announcement to retain the existing regions, should ensure that the existing level of ITV regional coverage is maintained on Channel 3.
To the extent that the amendment seeks to confirm that, I suggest that it is unnecessary. To the extent that the amendment may seek to go beyond the present level of regional coverage or force the hand of the ITC in circumstances where its judgment was that maintenance of the current regional map would be at variance with a viable Channel 3 service, we would find that undesirable. The Independent Television Commission has a whole range of duties relating to several types of licensed service. It does not make very much Sense to specify in Clause I just one aspect of its wide-ranging functions.
I hope that I have been able to persuade the noble Baroness that the concern which she has expressed is covered by the Bill as it is.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply and explanation. I do not find it very satisfactory. The amendment is not proposing a large shopping list. It simply has due regard to the cultural identity and diversity of the regions. It aims to put on the face of the Bill what the noble Earl has said is there in any event. However, at the moment it does not cover the eventuality of the ITC in future deciding to redraw, the map. I really must test the feeling of the House.
3.40 p m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 154.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Airedale, L.

Ezra, L.

Ardwick, L.

Feversham, L.

Banks, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Birk, B.

Fitt, L.

Blackstone, B.

Gallacher, L.

Blease, L.

Galpern, L.

Bonham -Carter, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

[Teller.]

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Grey, E.

Carter, L.

Hampton, L.

Cledwyrn. of Penrhos, L.

Hanworth, V.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Dainton, L.

Hayter, L.

David, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Hooson, L.

Ennals, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

160

Hunt, L.

Peston, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Richard, L.

Hylton, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Rochester, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Jay, L.

Seear, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Shackleton, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Kagan, L.

Soper, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stallard, L.

Listowel, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Longford, E.

[Teller.]

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Tordoff, L.

Moyne, L

Walpole, L.

Mulley, L.

Whaddon, L.

Nicol, B.

White, B.

Ogmore, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Oram, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Parry, L.

Winstanley, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Gainford, L.

Allerton, L.

Gisborough, L.

Alport, L.

Goold, L.

Annan, L.

Grantchester, L.

Arran, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Auckland, L.

Gridley, L.

Balfour, E.

Hailsham of

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Saint Marylebone, L.

Bellwin, L.

Halsbury, E.

Beloff, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Belstead, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Bessborough, E.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Blake, L.

Harvington, L.

Blatch, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Blyth, L.

Henley, L.

Boardman, L.

Hives, L.

Borthwick, L.

Holderness, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hood, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ironside, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Brightman, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Killcarn, L.

Caithness, E.

Kings Norton, L.

Caldecote, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Knollys, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

London, Bp.

Clanwilliam, E.

Long, V.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Lothian, M.

Colnbrook, L.

Lyell, L.

Colwyn, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cottesloe, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Cox, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Crook, L.

Margadale, L.

Cross, V.

Marsh, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mersey, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Morris, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mostyn, L.

Eccles, V.

Mountevans, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Munster, E.

Effingham, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Nelson, E.

Elles, B.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Newall, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Newcastle, Bp.

Faithfull, B.

Norfolk, D.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Norrie, L.

Ferrers, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Forbes, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Orkney, E.

161

Orr-Ewing, L.

Stockton, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Palmer, L.

Strange, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Polwarth, L.

Strathspey, L.

Porritt, L.

Sudeley, L.

Pym, L.

Swansea, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Swinfen, L.

Reay, L.

Swinton, E.

Renton, L.

Terrington, L.

Renwick, L.

Teviot, L.

Romney, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

St. Albans, Bp.

Trumpington, B.

St. Davids, V.

Ullswater, V.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Selborne, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Shannon, E.

Westbury, L.

Sharples, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Shaughnessy, L.

Wise, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Slim, V.

Wynford, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.48 p.m.
Schedule 1 [The Independent Television Commission: Supplementary Provisions]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 160, line 28, leave out (", with the approval of the Secretary of State,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 169, 323 and 329. These amendments fulfil an undertaking which I gave during the Committee stage. We accept that there is no need for the ITC or the other statutory bodies established under the Bill to seek approval from the Secretary of State whenever they wish to delegate their functions. These amendments remove that requirement. I beg to move.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, these amendments are a response by the Government to a point which I raised in Committee. I am indebted to the Government for carrying this through in respect of the television side of things. I thank them very much.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that was a charming intervention by the noble Lord and one which is enormously appreciated.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 162, line 2, after ("of"') insert:

("(a)").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 211 and 212. These amendments make it clear that the Secretary of State's power to make advances to the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority, under paragraph 13 of Schedules 1 and 6, includes capital expenditure. They are necessary in order to enable the ITC and the Radio Authority to fund any capital expenditure borrowing requirements by seeking advances from the Exchequer at Treasury rates. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 162, line 2, at end insert (", or

(b) enabling them to meet any capital expenditure,").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 162, line 24, after ("the") insert ("Chartered").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 103, 170, 213, 326 and 367. These amendments are purely drafting amendments. Their purpose is to give the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants it proper title. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 162, line 42, at end insert:
("(1 A) The report shall include a report by the Commission on the extent to which holders of Channel 3 or Channel 5 licences have failed to comply with the conditions included in their licences in pursuance of section 32(l) (a).").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment, which fulfils an undertaking given in Committee, requires the ITC to include in its annual report an account of the extent to which Channel 3 or 5 licensees have failed to comply with their licence conditions under Clause 32(1) (a), which incorporate their programme proposals under Clause 15(3) (b). The ITC will, as a result, publicly hold to account any Channel 3 or 5 licensee which fails to realise its programme promises. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, as the noble Earl will remember, in Committee an amendment was proposed from this side that the ITC should report to Parliament with particular reference to the impact of the Bill on the quality, diversity and regional strength of programming. That was to be a positive report, which, frankly, we should have preferred. Nevertheless, we are grateful that this consideration has been taken on hoard, so to speak, even though it will be a negative report on the licence holders if and when they have not fulfilled any of the licence conditions. We are pleased that at least something has been done in relation to a matter about which we are most concerned.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Regulation by Commission of provision of television services]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 37, at end insert:
("() Subsection (2) shall also not be construed as affecting any rights arising in relation to Intellectual Property save in conformity or compliance with any relevant order of the Comptroller General of Patents & Trade Marks, the Patent Court, the High Court of Chancery or the Copyright Tribunal or with the written consent of the owners of the relevant Intellectual Property rights.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 8. The object of these amendments is to draw to the attention of the Government the necessity to limit further the proposed scope of the

163
duties of the commission so as to protect the rights of a wide variety of artistes, authors of literary, dramatic and musical works and their publishers, and also other firms and institutions which record and foster these creative and cultural activities in the arts and publishing. Such rights as I refer to are gathered together under what is perhaps the rather pompous title of "Intellectual Property rights". As your Lordships will be fully aware, these are defined in Amendment No. 8 as,
"relating to Patents, Trade Marks, Copyright Design or know how".
Noble Lords will have noted that under Clause 2 of the Bill the commission has wide duties to provide and regulate television programmes and services to ensure inter alia high quality and appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests. Subsection (2) states that one of the commission's duties is,
"to ensure fair and effective competition in the provision of such services".
The clause continues to limit specifically the commission's powers in relation to what is meant by "fair and effective competition". It draws attention to the word "competition" and in subsection (3) it states that,
"Subsection (2) (a) (ii) shall not be construed as affecting the discharge by the Director General of Fair Trading, the Secretary of State or the Monopolies and Mergers Commission of any of his or their functions in connection with competition".
It seems highly desirable that a commission set up under the Bill should in no way interfere with the general rights of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the rights of the Director General of Fair Trading.
However, as I said, the purpose of my amendment is to limit further the duties of the commission to protect intellectual property rights in creative and cultural activities in the arts and by publishers. Many such issues are bound to arise during the course of programme services. I shall not waste your Lordships' time by delineating them in any great detail, but I feel that I should mention that obviously copyright matters arise with authors and publishers and that design matters must also arise in relation to stage sets, effects, costumes and even decorations. These matters are clearly of significance. Of course know-how will naturally arise, as will trade names and trade marks. Many of those rights are of great commercial importance and add a substantial part to the invisible earnings of this economy.
I submit that the wide terms of Clause 2 relating to the duties of the commission should not be construed as affecting any of these intellectual property rights except in five circumstances. The first circumstance is that the owners of these rights should by written consent agree to some arrangement.
There are then four circumstances in which the conformity of compliance with a relevant order of four courts must be agreed to. There is first the order of the Comptroller General of Patents and Trade Marks, who has a very wide and increasing jurisdiction in such matters. The second order is that
164
from the new Patent Court which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor recently set up. Your Lordships may recall that in the course of debate on the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 we had many discussions in this respect. I am happy to say that a friend of mine from the Patent Bar, the honourable Peter Ford, has been made the first judge of this court. The object of this important new court is to try to reduce the cost of litigation in aspects of intellectual property rights. I was most pleased when the noble and learned Lord indicated to me that many of the amendments which I submitted as to regulation in this court have now been accepted.
The other orders which of course must be complied with by the commission are those of the Chancery Division of the High Court and the Copyright Tribunal which was set up under the 1988 Act. Those rights, which are of importance from a cultural point of view and arise widely in services which will have to be monitored or controlled by the commission, must be respected. There should not be, as it were, any piracy of those intellectual property rights, as was made clear in many sections of the 1988 Act. It will be proper for the Government to protect those rights in the way that I have submitted. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, as to the likely power of the ITC over intellectual property rights and that intellectual property rights should be preserved. I can assure him that the ITC has no power to override or constrain private property rights, including intellectual property rights, under the provisions of Clause 2. No such power is given to either the ITC or the Radio Authority under any part of this Bill. Intellectual property rights can only be circumscribed where there is specific statutory provision to do so, and there is none in the Bill. I hope that that assurance will satisfy the noble Lord.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that clear and concise statement. I should have thought that as the position is to be maintained by the Government, as he has said, it should be brought clearly into the Bill. I am one of those persons who does not like to see too many words in a Bill. If we can exclude certain matters then it is a good thing to do so if the position is clear from the construction of the Bill.
I ask myself therefore why the Government decided to include a specific clause on competition rights. Dealing with competition rights is of course of great importance. The Minister has told me that it is unnecessary to include subsection (2) in the clause. I do not want to raise any other hares or difficulties. I am grateful to the Minister for giving us on behalf of the Government a clear assurance as to the position, namely; that there is no clause in the Bill which deprives owners of intellectual property rights of those rights. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 9:

165
Page 3, line 2, after ("the") insert ("production and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 137 and 138.. The purpose of the amendment is to require licence holders to be producers as well as broadcasters of television programmes. We are asking for that requirement because, as noble Lords will be aware, the Bill has devolved responsibility for broadcasting the service from the IBA to licence holders, but has removed the obligation on them to make and supply programmes themselves. Companies would therefore be permitted to bid as publishers rather than as producers of programmes. Programmers would have to commission or buy-in programmes from' Channel 3 or independent producers or, of course, from abroad. Regional commitments written into the Bill would guarantee that some production remained in the regions but clearly not on the same scale as that of the existing in-house ITV production centres spread throughout the UK.
One of the main worries about publisher franchises or franchises where a substantial proportion of programmes is commissioned from independent producers is the loss of regionally based programmes.
The intention of this amendment, and subsequent amendments which cover satellite services, is not to preserve the status quo of completely integrated production and broadcasting centres, but to require that a licence holder has some capacity to produce programmes rather than to be exclusively a commissioner or publisher. Without that requirement, the substantial infrastructure built up over 30 years of independent television in the regional centres would be progressively undermined. Studio facilities and employment in the regions would steadily disappear as the pull of the London studio and labour market absorbed ITV's programme-making capacity. Moreover, even before the Bill has been enacted ITV companies are gearing themselves up to the possibility of bidding as publishers or of losing the licence and remaining as production or facility companies. HTV has already enforced a programme of at least 100 redundancies this year and intends further to reduce its workforce in advance of its likely bid as a publisher.
Investment in the production infrastructure in the regions will not survive intact if Channel 3 licence holders are allowed to operate as publishers. Although it may be more cost-effective to publish than to produce, in the long term the industry needs the large-scale investment in technology, studios and labour to guarantee the quality of production. If that infrastructure is undermined, the British television industry may end up—this would be worrying—like the British film industry: subject wholly to the fluctuations of American investment. It would also cause unemployment and disinvestment in the regional ITV centres of production when, as I said, the London factor takes effect.
Other existing and new services should also be under an obligation to produce as well as commission programmes. If the satellite services are not required to make a substantial contribution to production in
166
the United Kingdom, they will rely increasingly on cheap bought-in material from outside the UK. It is most important to reassert that production is the key to the success of British television. It is to preserve that vital asset that I move the amendment. I hope that the Minister will respond favourably to it. I beg to move.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I support the amendment. The trend of the Bill, and the trend which has arisen as a result of the encouragement given recently to production by independent companies, is to make the television companies move towards a situation in which they are, as the noble Baroness has said, more like publishers and less like programme producers. The amendment relates closely to the earlier amendment to which I spoke. That trend presents a threat to the regions because 75 per cent. of the independent television companies are based in London and the South East. The more the television companies commission the independents the more likely it is that those productions will be made in London and the South East at the expense of the regions. A recent survey in 1989 of independent commissions from 11 regionally based ITV companies and the four regionally based BBC companies showed that 37 per cent. of the commissions went to the South East and 63 per cent. went to regionally based independent companies. So the situation is now that over a third of commissions from regionally based franchises go back to the South East. This trend is increased when we take into account that an overwhelming proportion of commissions by London-based companies are also from London and the South East.
These figures and arguments, in addition to the other arguments that were deployed by the noble Baroness, simply indicate the importance of television companies remaining not wholly but to a substantial extent production companies rather than simply publishers. To make use of the facilities that already exist and to give opportunities for the human facilities in the regions and the nations is of great importance.
It has been argued in some quarters that any requirement for licence-holders to produce as well as to commission programmes will encourage restrictive union practices in in-house arrangements which are inefficient and costly. It must be said that these charges, which are made quite frequently both against the ITV companies and the BBC, are rarely backed up by hard evidence. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission published a report on labour practices in television in 1989 after a fairly rigorous investigation. The report specifically exonerated staff unions in ITV from the allegations of restrictive practices. On 3rd September the Financial Times published a report by accountants comparing the costs of independent companies with those of the BBC showing that the costs of the independent companies were just as high or low as those of the BBC. Therefore, these allegations, which are quite often made to the detriment of the ITV companies and of the BBC, do not seem to me to be well founded in fact.
Finally, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, mentioned, it is extremely important that this should

167
apply to the satellite companies. I do not know how many noble Lords read the article by Christopher Dunkley in August, after having watched Sky Television for a whole week. He said that the number of American programmes was substantial. This is a grave danger. There was an article in the paper today about the effects of the deregulation of French television and the tendency, despite a quota arrangement, for certain of the commercial companies to import American programmes because they are much cheaper than home-grown ones. The reason they are cheaper is that so many of them are de facto dumped.
Therefore it is important that there should be an obligation on television companies in this country and on satellite companies broadcasting to this country that they remain producers as well as publishers. It is for these reasons that I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs.
4.15 p m.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend and already supported by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, on two specific grounds. It is important that it should be understood by the House that those areas that are sometimes grouped under the generic title of "region" have their own characteristics when, like Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, they represent clearly defined and separate national characteristics as well. When an area has its own separate language, as Wales does, which it is anxious to preserve, this reinforces the argument I am about to make. However, that argument applies as much to the regions throughout England as to the nations that I have identified and the Province of Northern Ireland.
It is essential that the main contracting companies should retain a proportionate production facility because that implies that they are involved in training in the areas in which they operate. Within Wales we are perfectly satisfied that at present the contracting companies are aware of their obligations to the cultural identity of the nation in which they work. Many of them are protagonists of the language and have worked in order to ensure that the Welsh language is taught and preserved.
Much more important than that, the men who have grown up within these contracting companies have learned their trade within that ambiance. They also accept the obligation that, working from the nation, they also work internationally in interpreting the nation to the world outside and the world outside to the nation. That is an important function, so when I say that we are reasonably happy about the set-up at the moment, it implies that we are reasonably happy with the main contracting company and encouraged by the quality of provision by the independent companies that have grown out of it.
It important for noble Lords to note that within Wales generally speaking the independent contracting companies are experts in television with particular expertise in Welsh matters but they have the opportunity of being trained within an organisation.
168
Television Wales and West gave way to HTV and it has produced a generation of producers who can be free and independent and at the same time keep to the traditions of the area.
If we are to have a shake-up in the television licence, if we are to have unknown people from New Zealand, Australia, America or wherever, gaining major control of the central contracting facility, and if the opportunities for people to work are cut within those areas, then surely we shall find a situation in which not only will the main contracting company go for the cheaper dumped products from overseas, but the independent, locally grown companies will lack the opportunity that they now enjoy of using facilities available to them.
It seems to me that there ought to be no contention on this in the House. I should think that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, with the interest that he has shown during the 15 years in which I have listened to him contributing on these matters, could easily accept that this amendment is one which the Government themselves might have thought of and could certainly accept at this time. I urge him to do so.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, whether the wording of the amendment would achieve what the movers have explained I do not know. There is a lot in their arguments and I hope that my noble friend will recognise their merit, quite apart from whether or not the wording fits into the general pattern of the Bill. Subsection (5) at the top of page 3 says:
"In this Part 'television broadcasting service' means … a service consisting in the broadcasting of television programmes".
To me it is common sense that it should also consist of the production as well as the broadcasting. It can only do good to have that. By all means let us encourage the independent programme-makers; they are good and they widen the variety and introduce extra skills. However, in doing that—if it does, and I am not certain that that is so—if the Bill will make it more difficult for the established companies to produce their own programmes, that would be bad. So I hope that when my noble friend considers whether or not the words fit into the Bill as he wishes it to stand, he will try to meet the point behind the arguments introduced in support of the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Parry, is peculiarly persuasive in his arguments. I realise that, together with a number of other noble Lords, he feels quite strongly about this. Perhaps I may explain matters this way. The essential structure of the Bill is to divide the different types of independent television services by reference to their means of delivery.
Terrestrial broadcasting is, therefore, distinguished from transmission by satellite, and both differ from licensable programme services delivered by cable or MVDS systems. All these services, however, will contain television programmes which are produced either by the licensees or others such as independent producers. A reference to production in the individual definitions, as the amendment of the noble Baroness

169
has proposed, would be superfluous and could be misleading in that it points to a common rather than a distinct feature of the different services.
The amendments are perhaps intended to prevent publisher-licensees from holding licences for all licensed services including Channel 4 and non-domestic satellite services such as Sky. We believe that all independent television services, whether delivered by broadcasting, cable or satellite, should have the freedom to decide whether to buy in their programming or to provide it in-house. The amendment to Clause 2 could effectively eliminate Channel 4 as a television broadcasting service because only a small fraction of its output is produced in-house.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, referred to the growth of independent television productions. That need not represent any threat to regional production. Clause 16(2) (e) requires that regional programmes must be shown on Channel 3 and that a proportion of these must be made in the region. I suggest that it is immaterial whether the regional programmes are made by the licensee himself or by an independent producer. I hope that the noble Baroness will appreciate that her amendments, far from being liberating, could be constricting.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation. However, it was slightly at variance with the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. He was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who appeared to express the same concern as I had. However, we shall read carefully what the Minister has said and hope that it will comfort us. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [General licence conditions]:
Lord Ardwick Lord Ardwick moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 8, at end insert:
("() conditions enabling the Commission to supervise and enforce technical standards in connection with the provision of the licensed service;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple and short amendment. It obliges the ITC to supervise technical standards in television. The amendment reintroduces the role which the IBA undertook in relation to television and radio. The wording mirrors the obligation placed on the Radio Authority in Clause 82. It does not of course apply in any broader context.
In Committee in the House of Commons the Government indicated that while the transmission functions of the IBA would be privatised with Oftel as the economic regulator, the ITC would continue to be the technical regulator of television services. In response to the same amendment the Minister said:
"This is a provision that we shall wish to introduce in due course".
The provision has not yet arrived. This commitment of the Government has still not been met and technical standards cannot be guaranteed without regulation by
170
the ITC of an enforceable licence condition. It is not sufficient to leave technical standards to the licence holders or the nominated transmission company. This is probably the last opportunity for the Government to fulfil their promise to give the ITC this crucial role. I await the Minister's reply with great interest. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, this amendment would enable the ITC to impose licence conditions regulating technical standards for television programme services. As my noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden explained during the Bill's Committee stage there are, in fact, strong commercial pressures for broadcasters to achieve high technical standards. Viewers in this country are used to high picture quality. Nevertheless, we think it is sensible to give the ITC power to impose conditions about picture quality, coverage and reliability on the licences for the main services—Channels 3, 4 and 5. Clause 65 provides for this. In addition it places an analogous duty on the Welsh Authority in relation to S4C
We do not, however, think that it is necessary to give the ITC similar powers in relation to all other television services. With the BBC, and Channels 3, 4 and 5 acting as a benchmark, there will be strong commercial pressures on other services to maintain technical standards. The picture quality on Sky and most other satellite channels is not regulated at present; it is nevertheless of a good standard. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, will consider, after that explanation, that his amendment is not necessary.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, in view of that explanation I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Restrictions on the holding of licences]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 5, line 42, after ("shall") insert ("(subject to subsection (3A))").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 11 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 12, 63, 64, 65, 79, 155, 192, 193, 194, 223, 224, 251, 252, 253, 257 and 274.
The Bill makes provision, in circumstances where an applicant for a licence fails to take up the licence, for the ITC or Radio Authority to award that licence to the next most suitable applicant. The amendments simply give the ITC or the Radio Authority an additional option in those circumstances. There may be occasions where it would not be possible to try to award a licence to the next most suitable applicant, and these amendments provide for the ITC to arrange for a fresh competitive tender.
The option of holding a fresh tender or of awarding the licence to the next most suitable applicant in the original competitive tender exists in relation to these amendments only up to the point where a licence comes into force. If a licence is revoked thereafter, the ITC would be obliged to hold a fresh competitive tender. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 5, line 43, at end insert:
("(3A) Those provisions shall not so have effect if the Commission decide that it would be desirable to publish a fresh notice under this Part in respect of the grant of a licence, or (as the case may be) a further licence, to provide the service in question.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 11. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 6, line 2, leave out ("given to") and insert ("served on").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 13 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 14 and 225. Clauses 5 and 87 deal with restrictions on the holding of television and radio licences respectively. These amendments make clear that the ITC or Radio Authority cannot serve a notice revoking a licence because of changes in ownership or control of the licensee unless the licensee has first been given a reasonable opportunity to make representations about the reasons for the proposed revocation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 6, line 4, leave out from ("(5)") to ("a") in line 5 and insert ("The Commission shall not serve any such notice on the licence holder unless they have given him").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 13. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences):
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 163, line 25, leave out from ("corporate,") to ("and") in line 31 and insert ("shall be construed in accordance with sub-paragraph (2A)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 16, 19, 30 and 31.
The government amendments make clear that a person is to be regarded as controlling a licence, even where he does not have 50 per cent. of the shares or voting power, provided that he is in a position to secure that the affairs of the body are conducted in accordance with his wishes. I believe that the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is aimed at the same point.
The third government amendment meets the point made by the noble Baroness during Committee; namely, that control could in certain circumstances be exercised by someone holding less than 20 per cent. of the shares in a licensee. The amendment therefore makes clear that, where a licence holder is limited in the interests that he may have in a second licence, he is not able to hold that licence. That means that the restriction would bite in cases of participation where the participant in a licensee had less than a 20 per cent.
172
interest but was nevertheless in control of that licensee because, for instance, the other shareholdings were very widely spread.
I think that that is what the noble Baroness was seeking. I am advised that, for technical reasons, the government amendments give a more complete and more certain effect to that policy intention than those which she has tabled. Had that not been so, I should have been delighted to accept her amendment. However, I understand that, for instance, her amendment catches only paragraph 4 in Part III and not paragraph 5 where the same point applies. On that basis, I hope that she will be content to withdraw her amendment and accept mine. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I well remember moving the amendment about control in Committee. The Minister was good enough to say that he would take it away and come back with something at Report, as he has done. I am a little concerned about the matter. I do not have the Committee debate in front of me, but I pointed out that you could have control of less than 20 per cent. and still have control of the company. The figure could be as low as 3 per cent. in some cases.
This is fairly technical stuff. Does the Government's proposal have the same effect as the amendment that I tabled when we discussed the matter in Committee and the Minister accepted the principle of it? Perhaps he will help me on that point.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, perhaps I may raise an associated point. This is a difficult area with a good deal of ambiguity. I do not profess to understand it fully, but I understand from the shadow ITC that it is concerned that the wording of the government amendment is not yet quite appropriate to the tasks that it will have to undertake and that dialogue is continuing between the noble Earl's department and the ITC. I was asked to raise with the noble Earl whether he might have another look at the matter before a final decision of the House is taken in terms of the text in the Bill. I think that that point coincides with the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. It is a difficult area and it is important to get the drafting as correct as possible.
Lord Morris: My Lords, it is hardly for me to suggest that my noble friend the Minister has got the matter wrong. I do not think that he has. I am surprised that noble Lords opposite have not graciously accepted the attempt—in my view, the successful attempt—by my noble friend to address the question.
The word "control" is well defined in Part I which covers precisely the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, tries to raise in her amendment. By amending the definition section of Schedule 2, she is trying to define a term—"controlling interest"—which does not appear once in that sense in the whole of the section. Her amendment is therefore not only totally unnecessary but does nothing.
The only time that the phrase "controlling interest" appears in anything like that form is in the plural—

173
"controlling interests"—in the verbal sense in a cross-heading at the top of Part IV of the schedule. The cross-heading reads:
"Restrictions on Controlling Interests in Both Newspapers and Licensed Services".
That is the only time in the whole of Schedule 2 where the term "controlling interests" appears. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, are trying to define the phrase "controlling interest". It seems strange to try to define a noun or a noun-like phrase in a schedule where that phrase does not appear at all.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I must assure the noble Lord who has just spoken that we are not trying to score a point here. We are searching together for the best form of words in an area of some importance to the responsibilities of the future ITC.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, before the Minister answers, perhaps I may say, because this is a complicated question, that my worry about the government amendment is that it refers to more than 50 per cent. of shares. That would give you a majority holding anyhow. I understood that the Government were trying to produce an amendment about the point that I made in Committee; namely, that you could have a controlling interest in certain circumstances when you had an interest of less than 20 per cent. The government amendment gives us more than 50 per cent., which would be a controlling interest in any case. I do not think that it is very clear. The concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, and myself are genuine. Perhaps the Minister will have another look at the matter because he was quite enthusiastic about it in Committee. The government amendment does not seem to meet quite the same point.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall of course look at the matter again. The noble Baroness said that she wondered whether the government amendment met the point about which she was concerned in Committee. My understanding is that it does. I said that one of the effects of the amendment would be that the restriction would bite in cases of participation where the participant in a licensee had less than a 20 per cent. interest but was nevertheless still in control of that licensee because there might be other shareholdings which were widely dispersed. It is possible, although rare, for a person to have a controlling interest even though he has less than 20 per cent. The amendments were deemed to cover that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, quite rightly said that he was not trying to score a point. I accept that entirely. If he is concerned that the words are not adequate and proper, I shall look at them again and make sure that the ITC or the IBA is contacted. The amendments were designed to meet the points raised as a matter of concern in Committee. I think that they meet them, but I shall certainly make certain that they do.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that assurance and am content with it.
On Question, amendment agreed to
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 163, line 44, at end insert (", and "local delivery service" has the meaning given by section 71(1)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like at the same time to speak to Amendments Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 294 and 303. This group consists of a number of minor technical amendments to the ownership provisions of the Bill.
Amendment No. 17 is purely technical. Amendments Nos. 20 to 23 come next. Under. Part II of Schedule 2, only local delivery services, licensable programme and sound programme services and non-direct broadcasting by satellite services are exempt from the rule that no non-EC company or individual may control any ITC or Radio Authority licensee. It is anomalous that, while non-DBS satellite services are exempt, non-DBS satellite radio is not, and the amendment to line 39 on page 165 corrects that. The exemption is also extended to additional services since the ownership of those services does not raise the questions about cultural influence which rightly underpin the United Kingdom's traditional reluctance to allow non-EC interests to control broadcasting services using scarce spectrum such as ITV.
Amendment No. 26 increases the numerical limit on holding radio stations in line with the fact that this limit now bites on the number of channels rather than the number of licences. Most of the existing stations broadcast under a single contract on at least two frequencies and in some cases four or five different services or channels are provided under a single contract. The rules in Schedule 2 were amended in Committee to provide that it should be the number of channels rather than the number of licences which counted for the purpose of imposing numerical limits.
With this change the limit of six in the case of local radio becomes too restrictive. As applied to channels rather than licences it would in fact force divestment in the case of a number of existing local radio companies. We did not increase the number during the Committee stage because we knew that the Radio Authority, in consulting a wide range of radio and other interests about its proposed ownership points scheme, had raised the question of what the new limit in terms of number of channels rather than number of services should be. I understand that a translated limit of 20 was generally favoured. Hence, the numerical change in this amendment. Noble Lords may not be aware that there are already over 130 independent radio channels (as opposed to contracts); that number is set to increase rapidly. In that context a translated limit of 20 is not excessive. It will be further restricted by the points scheme to prevent, for instance, one person from controlling more than two channels the size of, say, Capital Radio or more than six channels the size of, say, Radio Clyde.
Amendment No. 29 is purely technical.
Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 are needed primarily to avoid causing unnecessary difficulties for BSB's Datavision service, the plans for which were drawn up before the ownership provisions in the Bill were announced.
Amendment No. 34 provides a 20 per cent. cross-ownership limit between domestic satellite radio and non-domestic satellite radio licence holders. This brings the rules for satellite radio in line with those for satellite television.
Amendments Nos. 294 to 303 to Schedule 9 which are also included in this group simply put beyond doubt that the limits on cross-participation between Channel 3 licensees and local radio licensees for the same area should also apply during the transitional period to equivalent local or regional services which are serving out existing contracts.
I thought it appropriate to give that somewhat complicated explanation to these amendments. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I want to say a few words on Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 23. This grouping is somewhat difficult in that we are covering more than one subject. My noble friend will speak on Amendment No. 26. It seems that allowing non-EC nationals to own non-domestic satellite radio services without a substantial limit creates concern about whether we will be doing enough to promote European-based services as opposed to services from outside, for instance, from the United States. Like many other countries, the United States imposes ownership restrictions on non-nationals; and, while the EC market should be opened up, there is no obligation to extend that right to non-EC nationals. I should like to hear the Government's view on the promotion of European-based services. Amendment No. 22 is also concerned with this point.
My noble friend Lord Ardwick would like to say something on Amendment No. 26, which covers a different point.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, Amendment No. 26 is a major government amendment which lay concealed until, I think, last Friday. It extends the number of local radio licences which can be held by one person from six to as many as 20. That is a level of concentration of ownership in local radio services which is unprecedented. It is not without its dangers. Independent local ownership is already highly concentrated among a handful of entrepreneurs, such as Owen Oyston, owning chains of ILR stations—independent local radio stations.
I am informed that the government amendment would permit one person to own almost the whole of the ILR commercial network. Perhaps the noble Earl will correct me. He spoke about a large number of local stations. Was he including all the community stations and all the BBC local stations in the figure he gave of something like 100? I understand that there are between 20 and 30 independent commercial stations.
176
The Government may argue that the anticipated expansion in the number of local radio services requires a loosening of ownership restrictions. However, the Government's plan, which at one time forecast hundreds of stations coming on to the air in the 1990s, has not so far proved to be accurate in reality. At a Radio Authority conference in mid-September the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said that it was likely that only 10 local stations would be advertised next year. According to the Independent, he said:
"We may well be going much slower than we have done over the past year".
Any expansion in the local radio services will not concentrate on the major city centre stations which already exist as independent local radio stations. The expansion will occur in small-scale community and local radio which needs to be sustained by separate licensing arrangements in the Bill.
The effect of the amendment will be to allow 20 small stations scattered throughout the country to be owned by one person. Subordinate legislation to be drafted will limit the number of large local radio stations which can be owned by one person but will still permit a greater concentration of ownership than at present. The amendment shifts the goal posts in radio ownership at a very late stage in the consideration of the Bill from the current limit of six local stations per licence holder.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I should like to associate these Benches with the points made by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord who has just spoken. With regard to non-EC ownership, there is a very important principle involved. I am afraid it is sadly true of the history of independent local radio in this country that native enterprise has not always shown itself to be notably successful. At various stages in the past it was first American ownership and later Australian ownership that provided a good deal of the enterprise for the development of independent local radio.
However, we are drafting a Bill which makes major changes in the framework of commercial radio in this country. It proposes a major expansion of commercial radio at national, local and community level. I know of no other country that allows foreign ownership to be introduced in the way that we seem happy to do in the Bill. It is not only the British position but the European position that is at stake here. The Government should reconsider.
I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, said. For an amendment of this radical character to be put down on 5th October after almost 12 months of debate on the Bill is remarkable, to say the least. I believe that the House welcomes the development of local radio as an important expansion of broadcasting in this country. Most of the major centres of population are already covered by commercial local radio. The expansion will therefore be in smaller communities. It is important that it has a genuinely local character. If one extends the ownership arrangements so that one proprietor can own a large

177
number of local community stations one takes a big risk with the expansion of local radio. I hope that the Government will seriously reconsider these points.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, at Committee stage I moved an amendment designed to reduce the figure six to four. The noble Earl will readily understand that I shall be reluctant to support an amendment which raises the figure six to 20.
I had understood—I was not contradicted and I hope that the noble Earl will confirm it—that a points system was under discussion between the IBA (as it then was) and the Government. It was to be worked out who could own what and how much. I am not sure what has happened to the points system.
On these Benches we are concerned with local involvement in local investment. If there is to be a viable future for local radio it is essential that it should remain in local hands. There should be substantial local investment. Viability results from local investment and involvement. I fail to see how that criterion can be met while the ownership of companies is concentrated to the extent of perhaps 20 stations in one pair of hands.
On Amendment No. 26, will the noble Earl tell the House the position with regard to the points system? Are the Government proposing the provision as a result of discussion on the points system? Can the noble Earl give the calculations?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe that many of the concerns of noble Lords understandably arise because we have changed the system. The system was previously based on a single contract which covered more than one frequency. It will now be the number of channels rather than the number of licences which count for this purpose. Six was the limit for a contract which could cover more than one frequency. At Committee stage the system was changed so that the contract related to one frequency. Therefore it was considered that the figure of six was too low.
The shadow Radio Authority discussed the matter fairly widely, and 20 was the figure favoured by it. The provision applies to the channels and not to the services. It will then be further limited by the points scheme.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, asked about the position with regard to Europe. As I understand it, there is no restriction on non-European ownership for satellite TV. I therefore believe that it is consistent to do the same for radio. In practice there are few cases where the rule would come into play at present. Other European countries have to allow ownership from other European countries. We are probably not the only country to allow non-European Community ownership. However, it depends what services are being considered.
The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, was concerned also about the limitations on that figure. We shall lay down in subordinate legislation further limitations on the number of radio licences that can be held by any individual. Twenty would be the absolute maximum but it would not be permissible to hold that number of
178
large stations. The precise number in any particular case would be determined by a points-based system which would be set out in the subordinate legislation. That will involve further restrictions. Provision will be made in the order.
The anxiety of your Lordships understandably emanates from the the fact that the position was changed at Committee stage. It was changed so that the contract involved the number of channels as opposed to the number of licences. It was therefore necessary to alter the figure from six to 20. However, I hope that with the explanation that I have given and the assurance that there will be subordinate legislation which will curtail people from owning a large number of large stations your Lordships will be satisfied. I assure noble Lords that consultation will continue with the shadow Radio Authority.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a simple question on this complicated Bill. Does that mean that Mr. Murdoch could control 20 channels or 20 programmes? I find it very significant that that is one issue on which we have not been lobbied. That seems to have a slightly sinister emphasis. Mr. Murdoch states:
"If members of the House of Lords are worth a fraction of their attendance allowance".
We do not receive an attendance allowance. That is typical of the inaccuracies that are put out by these papers. We receive an expenses allowance which does not cover our expenses.
I ask this seriously. Does the provision mean that the people about whom we are concerned with regard to monopolies can have such control of channels in both television and radio? There must be a straight answer.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the simple answer is that it is up to anyone who wishes to bid for a licence. I had expected Mr. Murdoch's name to arise at some course in discussions today. I had not expected it to arise with regard to radio. As I understand the position, if Mr. Murdoch were so minded to make a bid for a service, his bid would be considered along with all the other bids.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, will the Minister consider the matter again? The position is very worrying. It is unsatisfactory. We have been asked to wait for subordinate legislation. However, the principle involved affects the mainstream legislation rather than the subordinate legislation. I do not know how my noble friend Lord Thomson feels. We are not happy with the provision.
5 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I did not follow the Minister's comments about frequencies and so forth. I understand that if a person can collect the correct number of points he will be able to own 20 small local radio stations spread throughout Britain. The broadcasting will be local only as regards the distance within which the programme is received from the station. There will be

179
nothing local in character. One cannot have radio, local in character, run from the centre by the owner of 20 stations. That is the issue which worries us.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may have the leave of the House which I do not wish to abuse because I have spoken for longer than I should have done. I shall consider the points that have been made this afternoon. I accept that this is a complicated area and I shall consider what has been said. However, I believe that the noble Lord's concerns will not prove to be justified.
I must inform the noble Baroness that not for the first time I have misled her. Mr. Murdoch will not be able to apply because he is not an EC national. Had he been an EC national he would have been able to do SO.
On Question, amendment agreed to
Lord Annan Lord Annan moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 163, line 44, at end insert:
(" "music publisher" means an individual or a body corporate who (whether alone or in partnership) carries on business as a music publisher or who owns any copyright or has arty financial interest in musical works or uses any tie-in agreement or device to derive any benefit therefrom, or has control over any body corporate which carries on business as a music publisher, and any reference to a music publisher includes a reference to an individual who—

(a) is a director or officer of any body corporate which carries on such a business, or

(b) is employed by any person who carries on such a business;").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may first give the background to this amendment and Amendment No. 24 which stands in my name. The television companies are major commissioners of works from composers. When those works are transmitted the television companies must pay a graduated licence fee to the Performing Rights Society which is an association of composers and music publishers formed to protect their rights. The Performing Rights Society distributes the licence fees collected from all sources to its members. The publisher receives 50 per cent. of moneys earned from a particular work and the publisher is at liberty to rebate that further to his contracted writer. The remaining 50 per cent. is paid directly to the composer.
Throughout the years the independent television companies have acquired substantial holdings of music copyrights. They have done so by insisting that composers agree to part with copyright as the price for performing their music in television programmes. Often the music is themes, background music or jingles. The ITV companies have acted in that way because they wish to mitigate the substantial fees that they must pay to the Performing Rights Society in respect of the music broadcast on their networks. They paid some £8 million in 1987. However, whenever they play their own music—that is to say the music for which they have acquired the publishing rights—they claw back via the Performing Rights Society 50 per cent. of the gross royalties arising from such performances. In April 1989 the Performing Rights Society told the Home Office that in some cases up to 70 per cent. of all the music included in
180
programmes produced by ITV production companies is music under the control of the production company's associated music publisher.
The Committee on the Future of Broadcasting stated that allegations that the television companies were abusing the system were bound to be made if a programme company
"has interests which impinge on broadcasting".
It further stated:
"It is difficult to believe that a commercial concern will not give preference to its subsidiary".
The committee stated that where there is an economic interest the companies will follow it. The figure of 70 per cent. shows how inexorably the companies have done so.
Is it right that creative artists—that is the composers —should be forced to sign away their copyright? If they refuse to do so the television companies will not employ them. In fact, the acquisition by the independent television companies of the publishing rights to music performed in their productions is and always has been wrong and should never have been permitted in the first place.
Most composers in the marketplace are either contracted to independent publishers on an exclusive basis or do not in any way wish to give up the copyright in their works. The majority of composers who wish to retain copyright cannot obtain commissions from the television companies because of the insistence by the companies that the copyright in the works is assigned to them. When composers are commissioned to write a particular piece for a television company and then a further work for another television company they lose their ability to exploit those works in other ways. The television companies are interested only in the music for the specific purpose of the programme which they commissioned. Other opportunities to exploit the works are lost to the composer. That is why the composers prefer either to be contracted to an independent publisher who is retained fully to exploit the works or they are forced to agree to the conditions which the television companies impose.
I submit, first, that there is an inherent conflict of interest arising from the dual role of the television companies as substantial owners of music copyrights and users of music in their own television productions. Secondly, I submit that the ITV companies deny composers who have exclusive publishing agreements with non-ITV companies access to the most lucrative of all markets for composers. In so doing the companies limit competition by owning and controlling music copyrights. Thirdly, I submit that the public interest suffers. The public is denied the widest choice of composers and that is quite contrary to the principles of the White Paper.
In my view the independent television companies should not be in the business of owning music copyrights and playing their own music on television. It is similar to a motor manufacturer who insists on fitting his cars with tyres made by his tyre manufacturing subsidiary and would do so regardless

181
of the price or the quality of the tyres. The amendments are required to prohibit applicants for a Channel 3 franchise from clawing back a proportion of the cost of playing music on their television networks by the ownership of the copyright or any other scheme that they may devise.
I hope that in reply the noble Earl will not tell the House that this is a matter for the Office of Fair Trading. Since 1977, when the Committee on the Future of Broadcasting reported, the Music Publishers' Association has been in constant correspondence with the Office of Fair Trading about the matter. At first the OFT asked it to provide a list of composers who felt aggrieved. Would they not identify themselves and lodge a formal complaint? Somewhat naturally the MPA replied that it was unwilling to reveal names for fear that the companies would put such people on a black list.
By 1985 the MPA had gathered voluminous evidence and statistics about a number of topics itemised by the OFT. I shall not weary the House with them. In 1986 the MPA reported on discussions with the IBA and some of the television companies. The matter dragged on through 1988. Suddenly in June 1990 the OFT asked the MPA to answer nine questions of considerable complexity within a fortnight. The MPA complied and during the passage of this Bill through another place the MPA took up the matter with Mr. Mellor. The Minister referred it back to the OFT and asked why he should interfere when the OFT had not acted. The reason that he was being asked to intervene was precisely because the OFT had not acted.
The Minister then went on to say that the practices of the television companies did not extend to a dominant share of all music used on television. The inference was that the amounts of money involved were simply not worth all this bother. I am bound to say that I do not think much of that argument. It reminds me too much of the nurse in Captain Marryat's Midshipman Easy when she had to explain why she had an illegitimate baby and she answered:
"If you please, ma'am, it was a very little one".
However, the MPA was not dissuaded and went on to ask the OFT how much it paid annually acquiring musical copyrights and how much the television companies earned from the ownership of those copyrights. The OFT said that it could not answer yes or no to that question because whether it had or had not approached the television companies was a confidential matter. Perhaps the noble Earl can confirm my suspicions that Sir Humphrey has left the cast of "Yes, Minister" and is now over at the OFT. Clearly he is in excellent form.
The MPA has now asked the Minister for the Arts to ask the television companies for that information. I believe that if he does so he will find that the clawback runs into millions of pounds and the acquisition costs into tens of thousands of pounds. I am not at all concerned with glasnost in Whitehall but I am concerned that this injustice should be remedied. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I must support my noble friend Lord Annan on this matter. I have little to add except the main argument; namely, that we are always against a very powerful person dealing with a very weak one. In this case we have very weak people. Perhaps half a dozen composers and creators are powerful at any time but most of them are beginning or half-way through the creation of music whether it be—I was going to say good or bad but perhaps I should not—highbrow or lowbrow and their position is extremely difficult.
We have been told by the noble Lord that the commercial companies are making a bargain with those weak bargainers that they should give up part of their rights if they are to be employed at all. I do not believe that one need say more than that one supports the noble Lord, Lord Annan.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has outlined the problem very clearly and eloquently. I quarrel with it not at all. However, I am in a rather difficult position because grouped with these two amendments is Amendment No. 51 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn. Although I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has set out the problem very clearly before your Lordships, his solution is too radical. Effectively his solution means that no television company may have a publishing subsidiary, or, if you like, no publishing company may apply for a licence.
I suspect there may well be cases—and perhaps there have been cases—where a publishing company allied to a television company has effectively promoted the music which it has commissioned not only to its own profit but to the profit of the composer. I am sure that that can happen. Of course, that position should not be used to bully the composer in the way the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has outlined.
It seems to me that Amendment No. 51 provides a simple and entirely effective solution which is undamaging to the Bill, whereas the more radical solution proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, really goes too far. For that reason I believe that the best course to adopt—I am sure the House will correct me if I am wrong—is to move Amendment No. 51 in its proper place on the Marshalled List and not now; otherwise there will be confusion. I hope that I have made myself clear.
5.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, put his case, as he always does, particularly graphically and in a very understandable way. I do not mind telling him that I have considerable sympathy with the point he put forward. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, was concerned that large companies should not bully small composers. That is a fact about which we are all concerned.
I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that remedies already exist under fair trading and competition legislation. Competition legislation provides a remedy against abuse of a monopoly position which distorts, restricts or eliminates competition. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, said at the Committee stage

183
that the Office of Fair Trading had not acted. It is perfectly true that at that time it had not. It has acted now, and since the Committee stage the Director General of Fair Trading concluded his preliminary looking to see whether the complaints of the music publishing companies, to which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, referred, raised issues which might have justified investigation under competition legislation; in other words, whether they are so bad that further investigation is required. He concluded that they did not.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, will be disappointed by that, but that is the conclusion at which the director has arrived after investigating the matter. He is independent of the Government and I know that he has given very careful consideration to all the issues raised, including those raised by your Lordships.
Perhaps I may put the problem into context. I understand that seven of the present ITV companies have music publishing subsidiaries, three have a part interest in or a standing arrangement with music publishers, and five have neither a subsidiary nor a standing arrangement. The TVA states that in 1989 ITV companies with their own publishing arms made 350 music commissions of which copyright was assigned in 188 cases. The Performing Rights Society estimates a higher incidence of acquisition of music publishing rights of about 70 per cent. in 1989. Even if that were true, it remains clear that assignment of music publishing rights was not regularly insisted upon.
Nevertheless, I appreciate that there is scope for abuse in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, pleaded with me that I should not say that it is up to the Office of Fair Trading. Therefore, I shall not say that. However, the Bill provides the ITC with the necessary powers to safeguard against abuse in this area. If the noble Lord looks at Clause 2(2) (a) (ii) he will see that there is an obligation upon the commission to ensure fair and effective competition in the provision of licensed services and services connected with them. There is a similar clause in the case of the Radio Authority.
Those clauses require the regulatory bodies to discharge their functions to ensure fair and effective competition in the provision of licensed services and services connected with them. My understanding and advice is that that is sufficient to give the Independent Television Commission power to include licence conditions if it thought them necessary to require licensees not to adopt practices which might abuse their position as commissioners of music compositions.
I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, and others feel strongly about that because the matter arose at Committee stage. All I can say is that I have studied the point in detail. I know that the answers I have given will not wholly satisfy them because they wish for something more. I believe that the anxieties about which they understandably make expression are already covered by the Bill and by the powers which the Independent Television Commission will have.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend could help me a little further on this point. I listened to his argument with great care, but the OFT looked at the matter and concluded that it did not interfere with competition. I ask my noble friend therefore what is to prevent the ITC coming to the same conclusion? The undoubted mischief which exists in the powerful case made by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and about which my noble friend has expressed some sympathy, remains.
Perhaps the Minister could say something about the amendment to which my noble friend Lord Birkett spoke. When I saw it on the Marshalled List it struck me as being a good way to deal with the matter. There is an undoubted mischief here. People with little economic strength are being overridden in enough cases for it to be a matter of concern. It has not been dealt with by the OFT. As at present advised, I am not convinced that, by applying what are very much the same words in paragraph (ii) of subsection (2), to which my noble friend drew attention, the ITC will not come to exactly the same conclusion. Therefore nothing will be done. Something should be done and I hope that the House will feel it right to press this matter a little further.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, I have the distinct impression that this item may not come up again in its proper place when Amendment No. 51 is considered. I am also aware that the DTI issued a statement on 4th October that there would be no reference of rights in TV programmes and music to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
I should like to make the point that the injustices taking place—we have firm evidence that this is so —cannot be justified simply because under competition rules 25 per cent. of the market is not affected. I also fail to see the relevance of the comment of the Director General of Fair Trading that the bargaining power of the ITV companies concerned was constrained by the presence of other potential buyers and collective bodies, such as the Performing Rights Society and the Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society Ltd. That was a point made by my noble friend Lord Birkett.
The abuse remains, and composers are left vulnerable to coercion in the manner described by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett. If the amendment is again to be rejected could the Minister at least provide some comfort to composers by giving a firm indication that the Government wish to see the abuse dealt with by a code of conduct by which composers are rewarded for their creativity; and if both parties agree that copyright should be transferred to the broadcaster, that composers should be paid a fair price for that also?
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I hope noble Lords will forgive me for adding one further word. As the comments of the Office of Fair Trading have been mentioned, it is only fair to say that I have seen the statement of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry quoting the Director General of Fair Trading.

185
Although he refers to competition, as he must, competition is not entirely of the essence here. If it were simply that other publishing companies were bidding to publish the works of television composers and being frustrated by the monopoly position of independent television companies, that would be one thing. But most abuse occurs when no publishing is going to happen at all. The music is basically unpublishable; it has no life outside the television programme; it is not an independent entity.
The problem in that situation is that with nobody wishing to publish the music, the person who nominally does so takes 50 per cent. from the PRS, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, described, for nothing. Competition therefore is not the only matter afoot. I am not sure that it is even a major one.
The statement of the Director General of Fair Trading refers to other bodies such as the PRS. That in no way constrains the ITV companies. It is merely an automatic collection agency. It is not remotely in competition with anybody, and the reference to such bodies is mistaken.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the point raised by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. It is a fact that the Director General of Fair Trading considered this matter and concluded that there was no such practice which would require it to be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. That is the independent judgment which he made: that the practice being carried out was not such as to create a monopoly.
I explained earlier that there are some companies with subsidiaries and some companies without subsidiaries. The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, asked why we could not accept Amendment No. 51, which would require the licensee specifically not to enter into a contract with a composer. I assume that that is on the assumption that the percentage which the licensee would take would always be excessive. If it were excessive, that would be a good argument for agreeing to the noble Lord's amendment. But there are many cases where those percentages are not excessive. In other words, if the subsidiary of the licensee acts in a normal commercial way which is not excessive in the demands that it makes, there is no reason why the licensee should not require the composer to put his business through that subsidiary.
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, may say that he knows of cases where the licensee will charge much more and that that is unfair. The distinction I draw from the remarks of my noble friend Lord Jenkin is that that is the occasion on which the ITC can perfectly reasonably say that that licensee is behaving in a way that is unfair, and under the powers of Clause 2 the ITC can tell that licensee that he will not receive the licence if he behaves in that way, or it can persuade the licensee to operate in a way that is commercially successful and acceptable.
While I understand the concerns of noble Lords, it is right to say that that does not happen on all occasions and in all cases. It would therefore be wrong
186
to accept an amendment such as that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, which would make it an offence for a licensee to put the business of one of its composers through the subsidiary. The powers are there for the ITC to use on occasions where it may be thought there is unfair practice.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps he will forgive me for saying that the amendment does not suggest that a composer's work shall not be published by an ITV company; only that the ITV company shall not use its monopoly position or position of power to insist upon it. It would be quite wrong to suggest that that should never happen. In many cases it will happen very profitably and amicably, but the point of the amendment is that the ITV companies should not insist upon it. I believe the noble Lord may have mistaken that point.
Lord Morris: My Lords, once again my noble friend has prayed in aid Clause 2 of the Bill as though the duty placed upon the ITC is that of ensuring fairness. That is not what the Bill says. Its only duty is to ensure fair and effective competition, which is not the same at all.
My noble friend has tried to ensure that a degree of fairness in negotiating these artistic contracts inures. As the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, rightly said, the question of competition is totally irrelevant.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am hesitant to rise again because this is not a Committee stage. I explained the position as best I could to your Lordships. I can only say that in my view the concerns expressed are met under the powers already given to the ITC.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, are we taking these amendments separately or as a group? I am not clear as to the position. Clearly they are different amendments and to take them as a group would be extremely bewildering.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it has been agreed that the amendments should be spoken to collectively but, of course, they will be moved separately.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I am happy to withdraw my amendment because I feel that the House feels that it is somewhat draconian. I leave the laurels to be placed on the head of the noble Lord, Lord Birkett.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 164, line 16, at end insert:
("(2A) For the purposes of this Schedule a person controls a body corporate if—

(a) he has a controlling interest in the body or (although not having such an interest in the body) is able, by virtue of the holding of shares or the possession of voting power in or in relation to the body or any other body corporate, to secure that the affairs of the body are conducted in accordance with his wishes, or

(b) he has the power, by virtue of any powers conferred by the articles of association or other document regulating the body or any other body corporate, to secure that the affairs of the body are so conducted;

187
and for this purpose a person has a controlling interest in a body corporate if he holds, or is beneficially entitled to, more than 50 per cent. of the shares in that body, or possesses more than 50 per cent. of the voting power in it.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 15. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 20 to 23:
Page 165, line 39, at end insert:
('`(bb) a licence to provide a non-domestic satellite radio service,").
Page 165, line 40, leave out ("or").
Page 165, line 41, at end insert (", or

(e) a licence to provide additional services (within the meaning of Parts I or III of this Act) other than a licence to provide the teletext service referred to in section 48(2) of this Act.").

Page 165, line 43, at end insert:
("(3) In sub-paragraph (2) (bb) "non-domestic satellite radio service" means a satellite service within the meaning of Part III of this Act which is not provided on any frequency allocated to the United Kingdom for broadcasting by satellite.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 17 and I beg to move them en bloc.
Or Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 168, line 16, after ("(1)") insert ("Subject to sub-paragraph (3),").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 27 and 28. Noble Lords will be aware that the Bill as it stands would permit a person to control two regional Channel 3 licences, but we remain committed to bringing forward secondary legislation to supplement this limit so that a person could not control two large licences or two contiguous ones. We have indicated both to your Lordships and in another place that we think the ITC will need powers to disapply the non-contiguity rule in strictly limited circumstances. The proposal is that the ITC could permit a takeover by a contiguous licensee only where satisfied: that the licence area had become unviable; that no company would be interested in owning the licence either by takeover or through a further competitive tender process; and that the separate regional identity of the two licences would be maintained notwithstanding that they were under the same ownership. As your Lordships will appreciate, these are strong safeguards and the circumstances in which the viability exception would be likely to come into play will in practice arise only rarely, if ever.
Amendment No. 27 is needed to put beyond doubt that the contiguity rule may be waived in the limited circumstances where the viability exception is needed. It also puts beyond doubt that the order can give effect to a suitable form of the radio ownership points scheme, about which the Radio Authority have been consulting the industry.
I am not entirely sure what the noble Baroness has in mind in Amendment No. 28, but I can assure her, first, that it is not needed to enable the order to include rules framed by reference to size and contiguity and, secondly, that the Government remain committed to implementing the rules, sometimes known in shorthand as the "penny farthing rules". On that basis I hope the noble Baroness will be content with the amendments that I have proposed. I beg to move.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, the House is grateful for the explanation given by the noble Earl. Amendment No. 28, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, was tabled to make certain beyond peradventure that once the present contracts have been allocated, and if difficulties arise, we should be certain that in the subordinate legislation the necessary arrangements would be made to prevent excessive ownership in terms of scale and to prevent contiguity taking place except in the special circumstances described by the noble Earl.
I am almost reassured by what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said but perhaps the noble Baroness will want to explore this matter further. The background to our anxieties is what has happened since the shadow ITC announced that it proposes to stick to the existing map of regional areas. That was immediately followed, perhaps predictably, by certain strong criticisms and protests from inside the commercial broadcasting establishment. In one case the managing director of Central television, Mr. Leslie Hill, who has long been an advocate of what have become known as super-regions, immediately went on record as saying that in the light of the ITC's proposal the contiguity rules should now go, allowing each ITV company to own up to 25 per cent. of the market. That would reduce the number of core companies to a more realistic five or six.
The pressures towards that end will be considerable. It is no secret that the decision the shadow ITC had to take about the map was, inevitably, nicely balanced as to whether some of the smaller regions were likely to continue to be viable in the increasingly competitive climate that may lie ahead. It is in those circumstances, and the possible situation some years ahead when the new contracts have been allocated, that we need to be certain that if the smaller regions —or, indeed, any of the new contractors—get into difficulties, the subordinate legislation will prevent excessive scale of ownership, with one large company taking over a smaller neighbour, except in the special circumstances postulated by the noble Earl. The potential situation does not need to be absolutely ruled out but there need to be great safeguards. Above all there must be a motive to endeavour to preserve the degree of regional identity which is the distinctive feature of the ITV system and to ensure that it remains a distinctive feature with the Channel 3 system.
For that reason we thought it would be preferable to write a safeguard on the face of the Bill. Therefore, I should like to hear further from the Government and to hear the views of other noble Lords before finally deciding to press the matter.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, my concern is very much that of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. I should like to know further what the Government mean by subordinate legislation within the context of the amendment. I should like to have more specific information.
If the Government are prepared to say that the subordinate legislation will definitely include the restrictions on contiguity, except in the special circumstances mentioned, and the size of the licence areas to be held by one company there is probably no need to press our amendment. However, if the commitment is not given in regard to either primary or secondary legislation the Minister will no doubt agree that it makes a complete nonsense of all the ownership restrictions set out in Schedule 2 and the ITC's decision to retain the map.
Where a small region is perceived to be marginally viable the ITC will be able to merge two licence areas although it would expect separate programming to be retained, which is right. Thus, it becomes even more important for the ownership restrictions to be strengthened in order to prevent the regional structure of Channel 3 from being undermined by the creation of a small number of super-regions. This matter is so important that we need either a satisfactory explanation now or an undertaking that it will be looked into again and that the Minister will return at Third Reading with a new provision.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe that the concerns of both the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, are that you should not have contiguous licences being joined up; in other words, one company getting fat on the proceeds of another. That is unlikely to happen. The constraints on doing that are very strict. I have explained that it would only be done in the first instance where the licensed area itself became unviable. In other words, if a licensee found the enterprise unviable and was going out of business, the people in that area, unless something was done, would have no television. When that happens the ITC has to make sure that no other company will be interested in owning the licence either by takeover or by some other further competitive tender process.
If no other companies were interested and if something were not done, the people involved would be without television. It is only in those circumstances that the ITC would agree that a contiguous licensee should take over the other area in order to keep television available to the people within that area. Even if that is done the separate regional identity of the two licences would have to remain even though they were under the same ownership.
Those are very severe constraints. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that it would be wrong and unfortunate if the opportunity were taken for licences of small areas to be swept up into the licences of larger areas. That is only a long stop in order to ensure that if the worst of all scenarios were to occur the people in a certain area would not be left without television. It remains the position that the Government propose to include the contiguity rule in
190
subordinate legislation. That means that an order laid before 1st January 1991 shall be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure of both Houses. Parliament will therefore have a say in the matter.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, in the light of the explanation that the noble Earl has given I do not believe that there is anything between the two sides of the House. There is a shared common concern and I am content with the assurances that have been given. I shall not pursue my proposed Amendment No. 28 to amend Amendment No. 27.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 168, line 23, leave out ("six") and insert ("twenty").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 17. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 168, line 38, at end insert (", or (in the case of licences granted by the Commission) by reference to matters determined by them under the order.
(3A) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (3) (b), an order made in pursuance of that provision may impose on the holder of a licence to provide any specified category of relevant services limits framed (directly or indirectly) by reference to either or both of the following matters, namely —

(a) the number of licences of any one or more specified descriptions which are held by him or by any body controlled by him; and

(b) his participation, to any specified extent, in any body corporate which is the holder of any licence or licences of any one or more such descriptions.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 25. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 169, line 14, leave out ("this paragraph") and insert:

("(a) sub-paragraphs (1), (4) and (5), and

(b) any order under sub-paragraph (2),").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 17. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 169, line 15, at end insert:
("Limits on the holding of licences to provide different categories of services
2A. Where any restriction is imposed by or under paragraph 4 or 5 below on the holder of a particular kind of licence in relation to participation in a body corporate which is the holder of another kind of licence, any person who holds one of those kinds of licence shall not also hold the other kind of licence.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 15. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 32 to 35:
Page 170, line 1, leave out ("sub-paragraph (3)") and insert ("sub-paragraphs (3) and (3A)").
Page 170, line 23, at end insert:

191
("(3A) Nothing in sub-paragraph (2) shall impose any restric tion —

(a) on the extent to which an excluded licensee may be a participant in a body corporate which is the holder of a licence to provide a domestic satellite service, or

(b) on the extent to which the holder of such a licence may be a participant in a body corporate which is an excluded licensee;

and for this purpose "excluded licensee" means a person who is the holder of a licence to provide a non-domestic satellite service: and —

(i) is licensed under section 7 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 to provide a specialised satellite service, and

(ii) is so licensed by virtue of a licence granted under that section before the commencement of sub-paragraph (2), and

(iii) is not connected with any other person who is the holder of a licence to provide a non-domestic satellite service.").

Page 170, line 30, at end insert:
("(4A) Where a person is the holder of a licence to provide a satellite radio service which is provided on any frequency allocated to the United Kingdom for broadcasting by satellite ("a domestic licence"), he shall not be a participant with more than a 20 per cent. interest in a body corporate which is the holder of a licence to provide a satellite radio service which is not provided on any such frequency ("a non-domestic licence); and, where a person is the holder of a non-domestic licence, he shall not be a participant with more than a 20 per cent. interest in a body corporate which is the holder of a domestic licence.").
Page 171, line 10, leave out ("(4) and") and insert ("and (4) to").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 17. 1 beg leave to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Stockton The Earl of Stockton moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 173, line 8, leave out ("sub-paragraph (2)") and insert ("sub. paragraphs (2) and (3A)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I speak to this amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, who, sadly, cannot be in your Lordships' House today. For the convenience of your Lordships I shall also be speaking to Amendments Nos. 37 to 46 standing in my name and that of the noble Baronesses and the noble Lord. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 359 to 361 and to Amendment No. 363, which also stand in my name.
Those of your Lordships who took part in the debate on the Bill at Committee stage may well remember that in July the Committee gave quite lengthy consideration to the issue that now comes before the House again—that is to say, the regulation of cross-ownership in the media. The problem that the Committee faced then and the reason for the re-emergence of this issue at Report stage is in finding a just and reasonable way of re-establishing a coherent policy of regulation. It was difficult to find an amendment which kept sight of the basic principle and which was both fair and easy to implement. I now believe that that has been achieved.
By this amendment all broadcasters transmitting to viewers in the United Kingdom will come under the
192
same rules on 1st January 1993. As most of your Lordships are no doubt aware, that date is already a crucial moment under the terms of the Bill as it stands. I shall explain why in a few moments. The fundamental point at the moment is that this amendment looks to the future of a very exciting and powerful industry and offers consistency. It offers ease of application and, above all, it is demonstrably fair.
The basic principle is this: a healthy democracy is best served by encouraging plurality of ownership of the major organs of communication and information. Sustained by an all-party consensus, it is a principle that has been accepted and enacted by governments of both ruling parties since the original Television Act 1954. In practice successive Acts have laid down that the owner of a national newspaper may not hold a stake greater than 20 per cent. in a commercial television station and vice versa. Indeed, we are witness to its continuing application and relevance in the very Bill before us since the Government have made provision for the ownership restrictions to be extended to cover licence holders in the new Channel 5.
The justification for its continuing use is straightforward. It is nowhere put more succinctly than in the Government's own White Paper on broadcasting produced in 1988. This two-fold argument is founded, firstly, on commercial grounds. As the market in broadcast television expands—which it is set to do now at an unprecedented pace—it becomes more important than ever to ensure continuing access to newcomers. Frankly, it is not enough to say, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers said in Committee and in a letter to me, that the proliferation of channels that satellite television will provide is of itself a safeguard against an undesirable concentration of ownership. There is virtually unlimited scope, he told me, for such services to develop under diverse ownership. Naturally, my noble friend is correct, but that is only half the story because at the same time there is an equally unlimited scope for such services to develop under single or limited ownership. To maintain the cross-ownership rules in an expanding television market will therefore make for more not less diversity of new entrants.
The second ground for its continuing relevance is not commercial but editorial. It is potentially unhealthy in terms of promoting choice and diversity to allow different media to become dominated by a small number of organisations. Add to that the potential for cross-promotion between newspapers and television companies, an area of really outstanding commercial advantage in a market dominated by advertising aimed at achieving that all-important audience share, and it is easy to understand why the Government have decided to extend the 20 per cent. principle to cover the new Channel 5. Why then is the Bill in such an unnecessary and illogical muddle over what is plainly a simple, workable principle?
As the Bill stands, cross-ownership will be regulated in relation to Channel 3, Channel 5 and the domestic satellite supplier, but the 20 per cent.

193
principle is being abandoned for non-domestic satellite services. There is quite simply no justification for so doing. I have made it my business since the Bill first appeared to try to find some just cause for this curious anomaly, to find a coherent argument that both explains it and stands up to close scrutiny. But I have failed to do so. I believe there is none. There is only one market in which competitive enterprises, present and future, will be operating. New ventures have brought and will continue to bring new ideas, new services and more choice to our screens, things which not one of us here does not welcome; but, commercially, everyone is in the same market. They are competing for the attention and patronage of Britain's more than 20 million television homes. Their viability and profitability derive from gaining the necessary share of the finite market.
In this context there can be no room for special causes. Equity demands that all competitors play by the same rules. It is not only inconsistent but—worse —logically indefensible to advocate one set of rules for some of the players and another set of rules for others. We already have a market imbalance because of this inconsistency. We must seize this opportunity to correct it; otherwise the situation will worsen.
I have pointed out already that the co-ownership of newspapers and television channels gives enormous advantage in terms of cross-promotion. Given that the Government want to apply the 20 per cent. principle to the new Channel 5, this channel will operate without the support of a largely related newspaper interest, competing not only with entrenched terrestrial channels but also with non-domestic satellite operators who can, if so structured, use powerful print promotion to maintain and increase their market share. The Italian Government realised the danger of the situation just before their summer recess and responded by introducing measures similar to mine which recognise the injustice of preparing inconsistent legislation for the future of the single market.
This unfairness extends to any entrant to the market who is not blessed with cross-ownership exemption. It runs counter to natural justice and counter to the Government's own belief in free and fair markets. Instead of increasing viewer choice, the unfair advantages bestowed by the exemption threaten to diminish and restrict the number of new ventures. As time goes by, the unfair advantage will become more significant and be even more difficult to remedy. The time to act is now, fairly and rationally.
The advantage of setting January 1993 as the date to implement the regulation is that it allows enough time for any companies or individuals affected to make the necessary adjustments in ownership. This they can do knowing that early 1993 will be the period immediately following the Channel 3 and radio franchise auctions, when inevitably there will be unsuccessful consortia with their finances in place which will be interested to buy a stake elsewhere in the media industry. In practice this means that the
194
amendment cannot be misconstrued as being punitive since profit will be returned, jobs kept and choice maintained.
I commend the amendment to the House. The Government have the power to act in these matters and the public interest requires that they do so.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I put my name to this amendment not because I think it is necessarily a perfect solution but because it seems to be the best opportunity for achieving a consensus. When we debated this issue in Committee I moved the amendment on which we voted. That amendment sought to require proprietors to divest themselves of ownership to bring the figure to 20 per cent. On that occasion I said:
"These amendments seek to establish the principle of what is happening today and what should be altered in the field of cross-media ownership. I am concerned to establish the principle. I am not concerned immediately to divest a proprietor of holdings. If it were to take 18 months or two years to implement I should be content with that timescale. It is important first to establish the principle and see how the situation works out".—[Official Report, 11/7/90; col. 307.]
The noble Earl has come back with an amendment which gives a specific time of two years to divest and which seems in our opinion to be a fair way of dealing with the matter.
It also implements what was set out clearly in paragraph 6.48 of the White Paper. The passage dealing with ownership in the independent sector states:
"But clear rules will also be needed which impose limits on concentration of ownership and on excessive cross-media ownership, in order to keep the market open for newcomers and to prevent any tendency towards editorial uniformity or domination by a few groups".
It is amazing that despite such a clear statement—it is difficult to imagine anything clearer or more unambiguous—the Government left this loophole which relieved from those obligations any channel transmitted from a private or non-United Kingdom satellite operation.
Some 35 per cent. of the national press is owned by one company but Sky will be able to broadcast to the whole nation from the Astra satellite. I do not want to go into that point in any more detail and have another hassle over Mr. Murdoch and Sky. That is not what this is about. This is about achieving, as the noble Earl said, a level playing field so that by January 1993 everyone will have conformed to the same rules. If someone wants to come in sooner he will at least know that if he has more than 20 per cent. he will have to divest by 1993. That is why I believe there is a commendable clarity in the amendment.
I should like to deal with other countries for a moment. In America, if a newspaper publisher or owner buys up television stations in the same city, he has to divest himself of one interest or the other. This summer, Italy passed a new law under which a newspaper proprietor cannot own any television stations. That is now part of Italian legislation. It is strange that we should continue with this anomaly when we have a new Bill which is about to become a

195
statute. It would seem that this is the last chance to try to work out a solution to the problem so that it is really fair to everyone.
From what we have been told, it appears that by January 1993 there will either be other possibilities open to Sky Television or it will be in profit which obviously it very much hopes to be. There are, of course, other people who have tried unsuccessfully to obtain the terrestrial channels. At that time, with a certain amount of money around, they will have the opportunity to buy into the domestic or non-domestic satellite market. What is proposed forms for the time being a workable solution to the problem. I believe that the amendment before the House should be supported.
6 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, one of the advantages of your Lordships' House is that its Members are shrewd people who can see through things quite easily. Hearing my noble friend Lord Stockton move his amendment, one might have thought that it concerned nothing which was happening at the present time in television, that it was all to do with some long-distance position in the future, that it was obviously fair and that that was how it should be.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, blew that idea. I do not know whether it fooled many of your Lordships. However, she blew it completely because she immediately began to talk about Sky Television. Of course one knows perfectly well, as with previous arguments, that this is basically a Sky witchhunt. In my view it is not a fair witchhunt. There may well be times in the future when the perfectly proper order-making powers in the Bill can be used by a Secretary of State to deal with the size of newspaper ownership. That is perfectly proper. The power is there, and it was put there specifically for that purpose. However, does it make sense to use it now at a time when Sky Television has invested very considerable sums of money and when it has no certainty as to what its position will be in 1993?
The noble Baroness said that Sky hoped to be in profit by that time. Of course, everyone hopes to have profits; but it may well be that that will not be the case. At present, as my noble friend Lord Stockton said, the plurality of ownership, the diversity and the whole idea or the modern world of satellite providing diverse programmes and diverse ways of working is very good. No one can doubt the fact that Sky has made a major contribution to that end. There is no argument in that respect. The Sky News programme is reckoned to be very good. I have seen it. I shall not trespass upon other fields with which we shall deal later, but I believe that Sky News has a very high reputation. I admire it as do many other people. It will certainly waken up both the BBC and ITN and ensure that they compete with what is a very important news service.
Does it really make sense in these circumstances to use this Bill now to destroy something when the powers are there for the future? Whether one likes what it is doing or whether one likes Mr. Murdoch
196
does not seem to be a matter of issue. The issue is whether this is contributing to the new world of satellite television which is developing. I believe that the investment which has been made does so and that to destroy it at this time would be an enormous mistake. Therefore, I very much hope that Members of your Lordships' House will not follow down the way of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Stockton. I also hope they will not follow the argument so persuasively put both by him and by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I see the proposal for what it is. I do not want it that way and I hope that your Lordships will also not want it that way.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I agree with every single word said by my noble friend Lord Whitelaw. In my view the amendment is totally unnecessary. The Bill already provides measures to prevent the kind of abuse feared by my noble friend Lord Stockton. The Secretary of State has power under the Bill to prescribe restrictions on the extent to which a newspaper proprietor can participate in satellite services. That power is contained in Schedule 2 Part IV paragraph 2(5) (e). There is also existing legislation in the Fair Trading Act and in the Competition Act which deals with any future adverse concentrate on of media ownership and anti-competitive practices in the media industry.
In addition, there is EC legislation; for example, Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome deal with restrictive practices and abuse of a dominant position. All these measures are "effects-based", allowing each situation to be appraised on its merits before regulation is implemented. That is precisely what the Italians did. However, the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, represent "form-based" regulation which allows no assessment of the effects of the situation on the public interest. Instead, they automatically impose an arbitrary restriction.
The argument put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, really puzzles me. In my view, she owes it to the House to make her party's position on the matter clear. Only last week at the Labour Party conference Mr. Roy Hattersley, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, made a speech in which he said:
"Immediately we are elected, we shall ask the Monopolies Commission to examine media ownership in this country to recommend ways in which it can be more widely distributed"—
and so on. That power is in fact already contained in the Bill. On the other hand, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, appears to be supporting my noble friend Lord Stockton in trying to determine now what the remedy should be for a perceived wrong. That seems to me a case of firing first and aiming later. If the Labour Party is confident of winning the next election, it should wait until such time as it does before making a move on such an issue.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I should like to add a few points to the powerful remarks made by my noble friend Lord Whitelaw. I did not intervene on the subject when it was previously debated because, being a flat dweller, I had no opportunity to watch Sky Television. Whatever else may be said, all we are

197
talking about tonight is Sky. However, I was marooned in a French hotel early one morning. As people know, although the French may talk internationally they give practically no foreign news on their television programmes. Nevertheless, one French television channel shows Sky programmes in the morning. Therefore, I could see the international scene and analyse it from different points of view in five or six different capitals in five or six different languages. If such a service was generally available here, I think that it would improve our appalling linguistic performance. However, that point is by the way. The experience made me feel that I should like to intervene in the debate.
There is a grave inconsistency in the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Stockton. I say that because his accent was on the importance of innovation and the great degree of technological development in communications which we have seen and which we may see in the future. If one is to take advantage of a technological leap, it is customary to have to advance or invest a great deal of money; otherwise, many things would remain on the drawing board.
It seems to me that Mr. Murdoch—this great hate figure as seen by the other side of the House—did invest in what at the time was a possible but not a certain way of dealing with satellite broadcasting. A great deal of money has been put into it. I do not understand accounts enough to be certain whether it would be damaged by this divestment process. However, it could be. If that were to be the case, what encouragement do we give to the next person who comes across some important new technological breakthrough? We shall be saying, "Put all your money in. If it works and you start to make a profit, we shall jolly soon see that some of that is taken away from you". What is proposed can either be described as retrospective legislation or as a bill of attainder. In either case, I hope that the House will vote against it.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I wish to raise a voice from the Cross Benches on the matter. I recall our debates in July in Committee. The noble Earl, Lord Stockton, opened his case, if I may say so, for the prosecution, by saying that these amendments look to the future. Of course that is exactly what they do not do. He promptly followed that by saying that we must return to 1964 when the provisions against cross-media ownership were applied, which was when circumstances were different. Then, as if to anticipate the observation on developments since 1964, he said that proliferation of channels—that is, more competition or choice—may be no protection against concentration, or at any rate that is only part of the story.
The whole issue about Sky is that it is not moving into the domestic market with established viewers; it is hoping to carve a new audience for its distinctive offerings. As the noble Lord, Lord Morris, has said, there is protection against concentration implicit elsewhere in the Bill and in the general powers of the Office of Fair Trading.
198
I still do not fully understand the motives that prompt the amendments, but it seems to me that their purpose or result must be, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has said, to damage the commercial prospects of Sky TV so as to deprive enterprise of its prospective reward. The full requirement would be that by January 1993 the apparently despised News International would have to divest itself of control over satellite broadcasting channels for the best price that it could obtain in a distressed sale. Then, recalling that Sky operates via a Luxembourg satellite, provision is thoughtfully made to pursue it by a form of punishment that would make it a criminal offence to supply the channel with equipment or programmes, or to supply customers with decoders: in effect, to outlaw the unnamed target, who is of course Rupert Murdoch.
All that persecution is then justified on the pretext of frustrating the monopolistic tendencies in the printed and broadcasting media. Substance is lent to that argument by referring to the long-established principle of restriction on cross-media ownership. The long-established principle, going back to 1964, dates to a vanished age when there was one commercial channel only; that is to say, in the strict meaning of the words "a monopoly power" exerted by the suppliers of that programme in those days.
Since then there have been more than a dozen channels. Although I shudder at the thought, I am told that there are now 17 channels with more to come. Who knows how many there will be before the 1990s are over?
As I ventured to suggest in Committee in July, the trouble with the supporters of the amendments is that they take too backward looking and too static a view of a remarkably lively and expanding market. As a general rule, in judging monopoly power the best test is not to count the number of present suppliers (there may indeed be only one); the test is to see whether there are barriers that would prevent new entrants challenging the existing companies. That is the whole purpose of the Bill. To that purpose Sky has made its contribution.
If we truly favour competition, above all in the communications media, we should surely pay tribute to Mr. Murdoch as the entrepreneur who has broken the costly stranglehold of the print unions to enable more newspapers to enter the market. If we fear monopoly now in television we must acknowledge that the Astra satellite, with Sky TV's indispensable backing, has already added 16 new television channels with apparently a further 16 to come.
To my suspicious mind the amendments are founded less on concern to tackle the non-existent monopoly power of News International and more on the hope of holstering a domestic monopoly position for BSB which, incidentally, is also backed by other powerful media interests, including Reed, Pearsons and Granada, with plenty of scope for the cross-promotion of BSB programmes in the way that the noble Earl appeared to deplore in the case of News International.

199
If only the noble Earl would turn his gaze from the past and contemplate the present and future prospects for widening competition in broadcasting, he would not be building up a case against Rupert Murdoch but perhaps building a statue in his honour as a rare entrepreneur who has already done a great deal to enliven and enlarge the media market. I do not propose that other noble Lords should go that far, but I urge them to reject these dismal, destructive and damaging amendments.
6.15 p.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, perhaps I may express my strong support for every word that my noble friend Lord Whitelaw said. The amendments are technical in wording, well intentioned no doubt, but deadly in effect. If passed, they would put an end to what has been one of the major and most constructive, pioneering broadcasting innovations of our time. They would do that by making further investment in Sky TV a practical impossibility. The poison pill of course is sugar-coated by postponing the operation of the amendment for two years until the end of 1992. But who will invest in a high-risk venture in the knowledge that their equity will be diluted and at risk in 24 months' time?
If your Lordships commit the Government to a forced divesting of Sky it may not take effect for two years, but one thing will happen immediately: Sky News, will cease to exist, because of all the programmes that one is most in need of long-term capital investment, and it needs a long period to pay it back. My support for the news programme springs from the simple fact of seeing it for myself. It is impartial; it is comprehensive; it is lively; it is on for 24 hours; and throughout the Gulf crisis we have been able to keep immediately in touch with developments. That is a major and unique contribution to the public good.
The amendment would have other undesirable effects. The proposed sponsored arts channel would disappear; so would the proposal to transmit the best of British drama at the highest level. Those are concrete examples, illustrating how the amendment, far from enhancing competition, would stifle it along with choice, quality and diversity. It would damage Britain's position as a European centre for satellite broadcasting at the very moment we are making a major effort at greater financial union.
The amendment's choice of divesting date is wholly arbitrary. Who can say what will happen in 1992 and what is profitable? Profitable in terms of making a trading profit is one thing; profitable in terms of repaying some of the vast investment that has been put into the enterprise is another. Consumer and investor confidence would be undermined by uncertainty as to whether the guillotine would fall. The amendment is more like a sword of Damocles than a life-giver to a risky and worthy enterprise.
What are the arguments that we have heard put forward for the amendment? In the main, the only argument that we have heard is that it is a long-established principle of cross-media ownership
200
that there should be restriction in that field; but as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, pointed out, that principle is hardly venerable; it goes back only about 20 years, and in conditions totally different from those which pertain today.
As the great Lord Salisbury said:
"The commonest error in politics is to stick to the carcases of dead policies".
That is as true of media politics as of any other. Why all this brouhaha then? Of course it was exposed by my noble friend Lord Whitelaw in his delightful but trenchant way. It is the latest example of our great national virtue which is humbug. How will the mind of anyone be enslaved by four channels? One of them is news, admittedly impartially presented; the second is movies; the third is sport and the fourth is light entertainment. Who will be brainwashed by that? The real point on which my noble friend Lord Whitelaw put his finger is that one man is being penalised for one action: making a success where everyone else has failed and is likely to fail.
Finally, the amendment is totally unnecessary. There are powers for the Secretary of State to come to Parliament in the circumstances then prevailing and change the balance of ownership, if it be thought right. The difference between that provision and my noble friend's amendment is that the amendment operates in an arbitrary way in advance, without any heed to the situation which may prevail. The provision in the Bill will operate in the light of facts, experience and circumstance.
We are entering a new era in broadcasting, with unknown scope for market entry. The tide is flowing, whether we like it or not. With this amendment, my noble friend seeks to put a finger in a crumbling dyke. It may be a noble finger, and indeed an illustrious one, as one would expect from one bearing such a family name. However, it is a finger used on this occasion with ill-judged purpose. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn and, if it is not, that your Lordships will robustly reject it.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I hope that it will help the temper of the debate if I say immediately that I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, in his praise of Sky News channel. I also agree with those who have said that in his activities in the print media Mr. Rupert Murdoch has made a notable contribution to ensuring a much wider diversity of daily newspapers.
However, if we can get away from erecting statues in honour of Mr. Rupert Murdoch, perhaps the House may return to what I had assumed was its duty in dealing with legislation like this. The one point on which I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was that we should look to the future. We are passing the most important and major broadcasting Bill that the House has seen, certainly for a long time. It will set the framework for broadcasting for the rest of this decade. I should have thought that the purpose of the House in a proceeding like this was not passionately to take sides for or against a particular individual, but to ensure that the Act of Parliament that would go on the

201
statute book and be there for a long time was equitable and fair between various interests within the United Kingdom.
The reason why my name is on the amendment is simple. I believe that there ought to be the same law for all newspaper proprietors in terms of their ownership of access to the domestic television screens of this country. As I said at the Committee stage, I do not see why there should be one law that in terms of satellite broadcasting affects the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham—whom I see in his place at the back there —and another law that applies to Mr. Rupert Murdoch. That ought to be a matter of some concern to the House.
It would have been perfectly open to the Government, in promoting a radical broadcasting Bill, to say that the arrangements begun back in 1964 to limit the ownership of newspaper proprietors in commercial television contractors to 20 per cent. were out of date in the new age of satellite broadcasting. They could have brought in new proposals for an entirely different set of rules about cross-media ownership. Those would, however, have been rules that applied equally to everybody. The Government could have done that, but they did not. They are reinserting in the Bill the provisions with regard to the 20 per cent. limit upon ownership that have existed for many years and that have been generally supported as making at least some contribution to averting what is a danger in any democracy—that is, the over-concentration of ownership in the media that influences the climate of opinion.
The Government have deliberately created a situation in which they choose to discriminate in favour of one particular group. I must say that that seems to me to be inequitable. It is the point to which noble Lords ought to address their minds.
Of course I recognise the difficulties in which this puts the Sky enterprise. I may arouse some mocking laughter from the Benches opposite but we have been trying, as conscientiously as we can in the matter—starting from the basis that there ought to be equity of treatment between the various interested groups—to take account of the fact that Mr. Murdoch is engaged in a high risk enterprise. We have tried not to seek to bring him into line with other newspaper proprietors in this country until enough time has passed to enable him to have a profitable investment to deal with, in bringing himself into line. That is the case we seek to advance.
The Bill applies quite a number of broadcasting restrictions to the Sky enterprise. It comes through the cable systems and is under the legal obligation to exercise impartiality in news. It does not do so out of the goodness of Mr. Murdoch's heart, although I am sure he would run a high quality television news service for his own reasons. Many restrictions are laid by the Bill on the operations of Sky. For the life of me, I do not see how the Government can defend the idea that, as regards one of the central limitations that has long lain upon broadcasting policy in this country—
202
that is, the limitation of cross-media ownership—one particular undertaking should be exempt. That is why I have added my name to the amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it is noticeable that the only speeches in support of the amendment have been made by the noble Lords whose names are on it. All other noble Lords who have spoken have been extremely critical of it, following what seemed to me the most effective demolition of the amendment by my noble friend Lord Whitelaw. I see that my noble friend Lord Stockton has listened attentively to the debate. I hope that he will feel that the sensible action now is to withdraw an amendment which quite obviously lacks support. From the point of view of many of us it seems to be wholly wrongly conceived.
There are two aspects to the matter. One which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, tried, with his usual adroitness, to skate round is that its effect would be to eliminate Sky Television. As has been said, to some extent that is its purpose, which seems to me to condemn the amendment. I have had the pleasure of seeing a little of Sky Television; I wish I had seen more. What I have seen indicates to me that it is a most effectively and expensively contrived development which has involved heavy investment. It would be the greatest loss if it were to be thwarted by legislation. I need only refer to the 24-hour news service, which is a remarkable development and which enables people who are busily engaged in other work, whenever they have a spare moment, to catch up with the news. It is a brilliant and most effective conception. I should be horrified at the idea of Sky being eliminated by legislation.
The other aspect is the general question of principle. It is perfectly true that when, 20 years ago, we had one or two broadcasting media, it was thought right, for reasons which seem to me wholly adequate, to restrict the ownership of those media by people with press ownership because that might well involve too great a concentration of power in too few hands. In the circumstances of that time, that was a sensible idea. However, that has nothing whatever to do with the present situation. It is almost becoming difficult to count the number of television organisations which have come into being, or are coming into being in the next few months. There will be no question of any monopoly or near monopoly of the media. In those circumstances it becomes a sheer waste of time, quite apart from the effective damage it does, to restrain owners of newspapers or others from operating television companies.
I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Stockton, for whom one always has the highest regard, will not persist in pressing an amendment which quite plainly lacks support, which is quite plainly wrong and which would do positive damage to our developing television industry just at this most crucial moment when the Bill is passing into law and a new era in television is coming upon us. We are at a moment of great hope and promise. Let us not spoil it.
Lard Blake: My Lords, I wish to point out that my noble friend Lord Stockton is not the only person on these Benches who is in favour of these amendments. I too, am in favour of them. I was not in the least convinced by the arguments of my noble friend Lord Whit on this matter. The issue concerns how one can justify differentiating between Sky Television and all the other television stations. Why should there be restrictions on ownership of the other television stations and none as regards Sky Television? Surely the logic of a great many people who have spoken in this debate against the amendments of my noble friend is to abolish cross-media restrictions altogether. That might make sense in a way. However, the Government have not chosen to do that. It might have been wiser if they had. As they have not done so, a false position has been created. The amendments of my noble friend Lord Stockton are not malicious and, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, has said, they are not humbug. They are a perfectly genuine attempt to try to create a fair and open level field which does not discriminate against a large number of television stations in the UK. I shall support the amendment.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Blake, intervened just now I was about to rise to point out that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, had suggested that the only people to speak in support of these amendments were those in whose names the amendments had been tabled. I wished also to say that the last thing I wanted to do was to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. However, the noble Lord, Lord Blake, has already intervened and has done just that. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will not feel that he has been disappointed. Whether or not I shall disappoint him remains to be seen. He and I will have to listen to what I have to say to discover whether or not it is disappointing.
As indicated on Second Reading and in Committee, I declare an interest as chairman of TVS Entertainment plc and of its subsidiary TVS Television Ltd., which holds the independent television franchise for the South and South-East of England. Although I have been involved in various aspects of the debates on this Bill, I have not previously intervened on this aspect. However, I do so now to add a further voice, from the perspective of one involved in the commercial television industry, in support of the amendment of the noble Earl. I remind your Lordships that the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, has pursued this matter persistently and consistently from the very start of your Lordships' debates on this Bill. The noble Earl focused upon this matter as his main point in his Second Reading speech on 5th June. He has pursued the matter in Committee and today.
Whether or not one supports the amendment, a point on which I hope we can all agree is that in a democracy it is desirable to maintain diversity of ownership of the media of communication. That is the fundamental principle here and we should not lose sight of it. In saying that, I am sure it will not have escaped the notice of the noble Viscount, Lord
204
Whitelaw, that I have to disagree with the point which he made in his entertaining speech just now. I do not enjoy disagreeing with the noble Viscount on this because I feel very much in agreement with him on so many matters concerning broadcasting in this country. I should say, with respect, that the noble Viscount has played a considerable part in developing broadcasting in this country, not least as the principal architect—I hope I may put it that way —of the highly successful Channel 4.
I hope that in this debate we shall return to the point made just now by my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth. He spoke of the principle involved in this matter. Many of us genuinely and sincerely feel that we are most concerned about the principle that is involved here. What impressed me particularly about the argument of the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, was that he based it entirely on the principle involved and did not allow himself to be diverted by unfortunate references to particular personalities and companies. That point has also been emphasised by other noble Lords in previous debates on these matters.
The principle is a simple one. As has been said, it has been supported consistently by successive governments of different complexions over the years and indeed for more than three decades since commercial television began in Britain. That principle states that cross-ownership of newspapers and television interests should be strictly controlled to prevent them from being held in too few hands. That is why we have had the rule that national newspaper owners may not own more than 20 per cent. of a commercial television company and vice versa. The present Government have held to that principle and are applying it to ITV or Channel 3, to the new Channel 5 and to domestic satellite channels. That of course covers the British Satellite Broadcasting channels. Only in the case of what are called non-domestic satellite services have the Government abandoned that principle. There is no basis in logic for that decision of the Government. It was argued at one time that the Government could not extend the regulations to those services because they were outside the jurisdiction of our courts. That argument has been shown to have been misconceived.
It was also argued that jobs in Britain would be lost if the rule were applied to those services because, it was alleged, they would move to places abroad. That argument does not hold up either. It was also suggested that, if the 20 per cent. rule was extended to cover those non-domestic satellite services, existing services which were in breach of the rule would have to be sold when they became viable and that those who had set up those services would be penalised—that was the way it was put—because of their success. However, as has been stated, once viability was achieved, the business would be just as attractive and valuable to new bidders as to the existing owners. Therefore the existing owners would not lose out nor would jobs be lost because, with the newspaper

205
interests involved still based in this country, they could not get round the rules by threatening to remove television jobs to other countries elsewhere in Europe.
It has also been argued that new satellite services will be so numerous in the years ahead—this is the new technology argument that has been advanced on various sides—that it will be quite unnecessary to deal with them in the way that terrestrial services have been dealt with and that therefore there should be no restriction of the 20 per cent. kind in relation to them. However, as the Chief Executive of Channel 4, Mr. Michael Grade, pointed out in an excellent article in the Daily Telegraph on 5th June 1990—the very day on which we in this House had our Second Reading debate on the Broadcasting Bill:
"If there are going to be many more opportunities to provide satellite television channels, then we should be keener than ever to prevent concentration of ownership. The maintenance of cross-ownership rules will make for more, not less, diversity of new entrants".
The logic of that is inescapable. What is more, that logic is wholly in line with the present Government's philosophy —greater choice, wider ownership, more freedom. That is why it is so hard—indeed, I venture to suggest, impossible—to understand why the Government have abandoned their philosophy and principle in relation to just one form—one form only —of the communications media. Either there should be no regulation and restriction at all —my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth explored that possibility and it would at least have the logic of consistency to commend it and would in a sense be fair to all—or, if there is a case in the public interest for some regulation and restriction—clearly the Government believe that there is such a case, otherwise they would not continue to apply it to ITV/Channel 3, to Channel 5 and to the BSB channels —then that too should be fair to all and applied to all.
I hope that the Minister will either accept the amendment of his noble friend Lord Stockton tonight or will agree to look at the matter again with a view to bringing forward a government amendment.
Lord Annan: My Lords, there is one fundamental question before us tonight; namely, whether things have changed since 1964 on the question of cross-media ownership. I think we have evidence that they have changed. A year ago, the revolutions in East Europe began. They were fuelled by two agents. The first was the Lutheran Church in East Germany and the Catholic Church in Poland and the second was, I think, television. It was impossible any longer for opinion to be controlled in those countries and it seems to me unlikely that opinion can be controlled in this country by any one person who is an owner of newspapers and television.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, perhaps I may add a few words to what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said. Twenty years ago, I had a striking lesson in the power of international news services. At a UNESCO conference in Helsinki the Russians asked for powers to stop ideas crossing their borders. Their Minister of Culture—a beautiful and able woman, Ekaterina
206
Furtseva—told me the reason why her Government wanted to have those powers. She said, "The day may come when television programmes can be bounced off satellites and when that happens Communism may be completely undermined". I have never forgotten that prophecy.
What really matters now is our stake in the international news services. We have plenty of choice at home, but we want the power in international services to maintain English as the world language and to spread the values of free democracy. That takes a great deal of money, but it also takes something else. It takes the experience to gather news—accurate news, not false news. That is why I do not see why a newspaper which has had that experience should be excluded from owning a television channel now that television is, I suppose, the most powerful and penetrating of all international aggressors. So, to say that we should reduce our capacity to compete with success in the realm of international news is a very old-fashioned and foolish thing to do.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was a little premature in his remarks in suggesting that no one who had not put their name to the amendment wished to speak. It was simply that some of us on this side of the House were a little slower to get to our feet.
I am not quite clear about the relevance of the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, to the debate as it seems to me that the issue is about having one set of rules for one lot of newspaper owners and another set of rules for a different lot of newspaper owners. I very much regret that terms like "humbug" and "hate figure" have been used in the debate. They seem to be wholly inappropriate. I should like to agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said earlier; namely, that it is no intention of those who support the amendment to eliminate Sky TV. Again, I regret that motives which are certainly not there should be read into the words of those who support the amendment.
The reason for tabling the amendment relates to the very centre and purpose of the Bill. The Bill is about diversity and choice. The group of amendments is also about diversity and choice. It is not about hate figures or individuals. It is because it is about diversity and choice that it is totally consistent with the general tenor of the Bill.
There is, I believe, general agreement that it is dangerous and undesirable to concentrate the control of news and information in a very few hands. It can, at least potentially, give enormous power to a very small number of individuals to manipulate their readers and their audiences. The Government say that they are in favour of competition. Surely it is desirable to have as much diversity as possible in relation to newspaper, radio and television ownership.
At the Committee stage of the Bill the principle of applying the same regulations to non-domestic satellite as to domestic satellite broadcasters was debated at length. I heard no convincing arguments

207
that they should be treated differently as a matter of principle. Perhaps speakers on the Government side —indeed, perhaps the Minister—could tell us today why a difference of principle should be applied to different categories of broadcasters.
However, there were a number of arguments about the practical application of amendments on this matter that were put down at Committee stage—for example, in relation to the difficulties of measuring and policing percentages of audience penetration. There were also arguments about News International having to sell an asset involving massive investment which had not yet had a chance to become profitable —arguments repeated earlier this afternoon by the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw. I greatly regret that he has re-invented the arguments about witch-hunts. I hate to disagree with the noble Viscount, but I should like to say that no one who supports the amendments wishes to have a witch-hunt. It is he and others who have made that suggestion who are being disingenuous rather than those backing the amendments.
Today's amendment tries to deal, perhaps not 100 per cent. successfully, with those problems that were discussed at the Committee stage. It is more straightforward and easier to implement than the amendments put forward at that time. It sets a clear time limit by which divestment must take place. At that time Sky, according to its own projections, will be in profit—very much in profit.
The 20 per cent. limit applied after 1st January 1993 means. or ought to mean, that a more diverse pattern of ownership will become possible. Surely that must be desirable, given the considerable concentration of power that already exists with respect to newspaper ownership. As has already been said by a number of noble Lords in this debate, other countries make regulations to prevent cross-media ownership and to encourage the plurality on which democracy is based. We must surely do the same, and do it right across the board. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blake. We must apply the principle across the board or not apply it at all; otherwise it is totally illogical.
We must apply this principle not just in the interest of fair less between broadcasters but in the long-term interests of the nation. I beg your Lordships' House to accept these amendments.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, it seems to me that the Government are right and correct to draw a distinction between the ownership policies that should apply to ITV and BSB and those which should apply to the new world of broadcasting using international channels. Where there were four channels there are now 17 English language channels and a dozen others available in German, Italian and French. Without a doubt this will increase, giving us, as the English language capital of the world, tremendous opportunities in Europe and further afield. The amendments introduced this afternoon and this evening ask the same old questions: who owns satellite TV and who controls satellite TV?
There is a need for many different owners with drive and imagination to start new channels. So long
208
as it is possible to ensure that nobody controls more than a certain number of the channels available, multiple ownership should be encouraged. As the Sky channels become more successful we can expect to see more and more programmers taking advantage of the distribution system that Mr. Murdoch is promoting. On the other hand, BSB has been given a monopoly of the five British channels for direct satellite broadcasting. No one else can gain access to BSB's system to offer alternative programmes to those who have a BSB receiver. BSB is the gatekeeper of the system and nobody else can pass.
Yet, should BSB wish, it could rent channels on the Astra satellite and compete with Mr. Murdoch using Mr. Murdoch's own dishes. That is because Astra is an open system. Sky and the other Astra programmers have no ability to transmit into BSB's dishes. As Andrew Knight put it in the Daily Telegraph on 9th July this year:
"The broadcasting spectrum is no longer an acutely scarce resource, too dangerous to put into the hands of over-mighty men".
It is no longer the case that ownership of a broadcasting station means influencing the people. Pluralism is the key to multichannel ownership. When there were only two ITV companies with local franchised monopolies it was right that newspaper owners should not own more than 20 per cent. of any of the monopolies. All that has changed. Thanks to W.H. Smith, News International, BSB and others, there is an availability of channels. The problem will be filling them.
The proliferation of channels is breaking down the present monopoly in television. The Sky news channel, which has won widespread praise from all political sectors, has introduced a wider concept of television news in competition with the previous duopoly. A similar situation is taking place in films, light entertainment and sport.
In view of this technological advance, it seems to me that the only restriction on a newspaper owner or any investor in satellite channels should be to a certain number of channels. I hope that newspaper owners will be encouraged to transfer into television their resources in news, information and entertainment. If we force Mr. Murdoch to sell Sky we run a grave risk that Britain will be left on the sidelines as satellite television develops across Europe. BSB, as it constantly reminds us, is a British service. Mr. Murdoch, on the other hand, is developing his London base as a centre to transmit programmes throughout Eastern and Western Europe. Such innovations as Eurosport, which transmits to 20 million homes in Eastern and Western Europe simultaneously in three languages, would be threatened.
In conclusion, none of us can tell the future. I believe that we are at the beginning of a great renaissance of broadcasting which will deliver the competition, quality and choice that I and my friends wish to see. As has been seen in Eastern Europe, the proliferation of satellite television has made the

209
domination of news and opinion by anybody literally and physically impossible. For that reason I ask your Lordships to oppose the amendments.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the set of amendments which my noble friend Lord Stockton introduced deal with an extremely important and highly contentious argument which has surfaced at all stages of the Bill. We have heard again today the strong views that have been held on all sides. One side says that what is happening at the moment produces variety. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, says that this amendment would produce variety. It is quite difficult to know how to marry together those two arguments.
It has always been the view of the Government that the 20 per cent. limit on newspaper interests which would apply to satellites using UK broadcasting frequencies would not apply to satellite services which are receivable in the United Kingdom but which are not using broadcasting frequencies that are internationally allocated to the United Kingdom. My noble friend Lord Stockton, the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, and my noble friend Lord Blake argued that in some way that was inconsistent and illogical. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and the same rules should apply to both DBS and non-DBS satellite services. I understand that argument but the difficulty is that it simply does not compare like with like.
I want to make it quite clear that the Government's position has nothing to do with the technological differences between different kinds of satellite services. I hope I shall be able to explain it to my noble friend Lord Blake and the noble Lord, Lord Boston, who said that it was difficult to understand the Government's attitude and that it had no logic to it.
The position is that for the foreseeable future the United Kingdom is restricted by international agreement to a maximum of five DBS channels, all of which have been allocated by the IBA to the BSB, thereby giving British Satellite Broadcasting a monopoly. In contrast, non-DBS satellite channels have developed largely outside United Kingdom broadcasting regulations. What is significant here is that in this context there are potentially very many outlets indeed. As my noble friend Lord Colwyn said, there are 16 channels available on the satellite Astra. Astra II is promised. There is talk of eventually 48 or more channels from Astra. There are other satellites too. One estimate is that by 1992 there will be at least 160 transponders which will be capable of carrying satellite TV channels in Europe.
It follows from this that there is potentially an almost open-ended scope for non-DBS satellite channels under diverse ownership. Already significant investors in non-DBS satellite channels which can be received in the United Kingdom include not just News International but also Maxwell Communications, BT (Vision), W.H. Smith, D.C. Thomson, United Cable and a number of ITV companies.
The case for restricting ownership is therefore simply not the same for non-DBS satellite services as
210
it is in the case of the five DBS channels which are under a single owner. In that respect the position of DBS is much closer to the terrestrial channels than is that of non-DBS services. Both the DBS services—that is, British Satellite Broadcasting of course—and the terrestrial channels, which are 3, 4 and 5, are limited by spectrum scarcity whereas non-DBS services are not.
My noble friend Lord Stockton said with total and, in my view, misguided confidence that there is no justification for different rules for DBS and non-DBS satellite services. My noble friend is entitled to his view. I disagree with him. When one switches on a DBS service one hooks onto a monopoly. When one switches on a non-DBS service one hooks onto a variety of different services under different ownership.
My noble friend Lord Stockton said that his amendment is fair. I respectfully disagree with him. In the Government's view it would be quite wrong to jeopardise the increase in viewers' choice which is offered by the Sky channels by suddenly moving the goalposts in such a way as to force News International to choose between its newspaper or its satellite ownership. The owners of Sky have embarked on an enterprise of enormous expense, effort and great risk. It is one upon which they have embarked quite legally and it has created significant numbers of new jobs in England and Scotland as well as providing new television services for many viewers. If my noble friend's amendment were to be accepted, all that would suddenly stop and News International would be made to divest itself of 80 per cent. of that which it has built up painstakingly, legitimately and at great risk. My noble friend Lord Stockton says that that is fair. I should like to say to him that I am very glad he is not a judge.
We see no sufficient argument of principle and every practical disadvantage in enforcing separation between newspapers and non-DBS satellite services after an arbitrary date. I am told, for instance, that if News International were forced to prepare Sky for sale, one of the first things that it would have to do would be to close down Sky News. That is a service which, as my noble friend Lord Whitelaw said, has been widely acclaimed even though it is unlikely to be profitable until the late 1990s. To enforce the closure of a high risk but respected venture is certainly not in the viewers' interest. It would narrow and not increase choice.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that the amendment is not about Sky and Murdoch. Whatever the long-term philosophies, it is difficult to escape the fact that it is an area where Mr. Murdoch is the main target.
I find it hard to accept the argument that where people have quite legitimately seized entrepreneurial opportunities and invested in them sometimes at a minus return for many years, they should then be told to divest themselves of their work. Who will be the buyers? The worst scenario is that there may be none, in which case the enterprise closes. If my noble friend's

211
amendment were to be accepted, I suggest that the result would certainly be the closure of Sky News and perhaps of all Sky Television.
I do not believe that that can be considered as acceptable, fair or is even called for. It is not a question of personalising the argument or of taking sides between BSB and Sky. Experience shows that it is a great mistake for governments to try to back winners. In the Bill we are trying specifically not to do so. The Government's position simply recognises the genuine differences in development and number of outlets between direct broadcasting satellites and the non-direct broadcasting satellite services.
My noble friend's later amendments latch onto and are part of this provision. They seek to make it a criminal offence for those in the United Kingdom to advertise on or otherwise support foreign satellite services targeted at the United Kingdom simply because newspapers happen to have interests of more than 20 per cent. in those services. I believe that that is a draconian measure. I believe that the logic of my noble friend's argument does not stand up in terms of enterprise, fairness or consumer choice. Its raison d'être relies on the view that there should be the same application of standards for two sources which are totally different. In that respect I believe that it is wholly flawed. I invite your Lordships not to agree to the amendment.
7 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, it is extraordinary that throughout the remainder of the Bill in endless lists and categories the Minister itemises the various categories of broadcaster; and in every one, save on this issue, the non-domestic satellite is on the list. It is unrealistic to say that the playing field is different. The playing field should be level.
My noble friends on this side of the House—including my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord St. John of Fawsley—have said that if the amend Trent is carried News International may have to close down the news channel. Any businessman decides the future of his business on an understanding of the market in which he operates. He does so on the basis that it is a single, fair and finite market, not one that favours some and inhibits others. If Sky News can operate in a fair market, then it is up to News International to decide whether or not it will continue.
I believe that my noble friend Lord Whitelaw would have done better to examine the realities rather than imputing dishonourable motives to me since I have no connection with any of the satellite broadcasting systems. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked me to look further into the future. I fear that his horizon may be limited by the next general election.
It astounds me that the support that my noble friends on this side of the House have given the Government is not extended to removing the cross-media controls from DBS satellite broadcasters, Channel 3 or Channel 5. If there is humbug, that is real humbug. It comes as no surprise to me that my noble friends, who have strong views about the bias
212
that they claim is exhibited by terrestrial broadcasters against the Government, are quite happy to swallow such humbug and in such quantities.
I do not accept the nice attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to throw me out of court as having no support in your Lordships' House. I have to ask that. the House make its decision.
7.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 36) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 124.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jay, L.

Alport, L

Jeger, B.

Ampthill, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Ardwick, L,

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Birk, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Blake, L.

Liverpool, Bp.

Blakenham, V.

Longford, E.

Blease, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bridges, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Nicol, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ogmore, L.

Carter, L.

Oram, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Parry, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Prys-Davies, L.

David, B.

Rea, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rochester, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Seear, B.

Faithfull, B.

Sharples, B.

Foot, L.

Shaughnessy, L,

Gallacher, L.

Stockton, E. [Teller.]

Galpern, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

[Teller]

Tordoff, L.

Grey, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hampton, L.

Walpole, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

White, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Hooson, L.

Winstanley, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Auckland, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Balfour, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Beloff, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Belstead, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Bessborough, E.

Colwyn, L.

Blatch, B.

Cox, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Craigavon, V.

Blyth, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Boardman, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Borthwick, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Brigstocke, B.

Denman, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Brookes, L.

Eccles, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Butterworth, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Caithness, E.

Elles, B.

Caldecote, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

213

Ferrers, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Gainford, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Goold, L.

Newall, L.

Greenway, L.

Newcastle, Bp.

Hailsham of

Norrie, L.

Saint Marylebone, L.

Northbourne, L.

Halsbury, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Orkney, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Harrowby, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Harvington, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Hastings, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hemphill, L.

Polwarth, L.

Henley, L.

Prior, L.

Hesketh, L.

Reay, L.

Hives, L.

Rees, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Renton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Renwick, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Romney, E.

Ingrow, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strange, B.

Layton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Sudeley, L.

Long, V.

Swinfen, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Swinton, E.

Lyell, L.

Torrington, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Tranmire, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Trumpington, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Tryon, L.

Margadale, L.

Ullswater, V.

Merrivale, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mersey, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Milverton, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wise, L.

Monson, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Morris, L.

Wynford, L.

Moyne, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Munster, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.15 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 37 to 46 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Establishment of Channel 3]:
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Clause 15 [Applications for Channel 3 licences]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 13, line 27, at end insert:
("(bb) the applicant's proposals for promoting the understanding and enjoyment by—

(i) persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, and

(ii) persons who are blind or partially-sighted, of the programmes to be included in his proposed service;").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 48 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 50, 53, 110, 147 and 185. During the Committee stage my noble friend Lord Ullswater undertook to consider how the Bill might be amended to include a provision which would give greater access to television services for those with disabilities of hearing and sight. The Government's Amendment No. 48 gives effect to that undertaking. It requires an applicant for a Channel 3 or Channel 5 licence to indicate in his application the extent to which he would seek to promote greater access to his service for people with
214
disabilities in relation to hearing and sight.
Amendment No. 110 enables any such undertakings to be included as licence conditions
It may be as well if I speak to the other amendments. I hope that my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth) will forgive me if I make one or two observations about her amendments which she will move later. Her Amendment No. 49 invites the applicant to indicate what provision he will make in relation to sign language. Amendments No. 50 and 53 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, require applicants to indicate their proposals for providing audio descriptive services. Amendment No. 185 requires the ITC to conduct research relating to such services.
What is at issue here is whether the Bill should refer specifically to the provision of an audio descriptive service for those with sight difficulties and the provision of sign language for those among the severely deaf for whom sign language is the primary or only means of communication. I think that we would all agree that the potential of these two services has been much less tested in the context of television than has the provision of subtitling. That is now a well-developed system with a large and appreciative audience.
We cannot know the extent to which audio descriptive or sign language programmes will be taken up until we provide them. But I think that the nature of the technology associated with audio descriptive services, and the implication in terms of screen usage for sign language coupled with our lack of knowledge of the likely demand for these services, inevitably mean that it would not be sensible to contemplate the same kind of statutory provision for them as we have done for subtitling services. I do not, for example, think that it would be sensible to set targets for audio descriptive services or sign language services in the Bill. We could not at this stage impose the kind of target that we have for subtitling, nor could we set any realistic dates by which those targets could be met. There are just too many unknowns.
I am unattracted to the idea of giving the ITC a power to impose requirements on licensees during the course of the licence period. It seems unreasonable to expect a licensee to bid for a licence without being aware of the likely requirements which he will face. We have to balance the legitimate expectations of those who suffer from sight or hearing disabilities against the legitimate right of licensees who will have to bid for their licences and for whom requirements of this nature would represent a substantial additional financial commitment, to know precisely what is expected of them.
In that connection it is worth bearing in mind that some 4 million people are deaf or hard of hearing but nevertheless they can benefit from subtitling. And yet, only 50,000 are so disadvantaged that sign language alone would meet that need. While that disability must be acutely inconvenient, we must recognise that there are limits to the obligations which can be placed upon television companies. Subtitling can be made available

215
only to those who wish to see it while signing superimposes itself upon the television screen and is obliged to be seen by all.
For those reasons we have brought forward the amendment standing in my name. The advantage of that approach is that the licensee would give the undertaking and that undertaking would then be incorporated into the licence conditions under Clause 32. Therefore, it would be for the licensee to determine exactly what he could reasonably offer in that connection.
I understand that an audio descriptive service may need the use of up to one VVI line for its transmission. Amendment No. 147 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, makes provision for that. I can tell the noble Lord that his amendment is unnecessary because Clause 47(3) (c) already gives the ITC power to reserve spare capacity for services which are ancillary to programmes included in the service. It could certainly use that provision to allocate spare capacity for the purposes of an audio descriptive service. I beg to move.
Bareness Darcy (de Knayth)Bareness Darcy (de Knayth) moved as an amendment to Amendment No. 48, Amendment No. 49:
[As amendments to the above amendment]
Line 4, after ("hearing") insert ("including those who use sign-language").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to say immediately that the Minister's amendment is very welcome, particularly as no commitment was made in Committee in relation to deaf viewers.
Before saying why I feel that we need Amendment No. 49, the purpose of which is to include reference to sign language in the Bill, let me say that I appreciate that: he Minister obviously discussed all the amendments together because his amendment refers to both disabilities. However, it would be helpful if we discuss my amendment on its own, come to a decision on it and then debate the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. He and I are totally in agreement about that because the amendments deal with totally different issues.
Amendment No. 49 has all-party support and the organisations for deaf people—in particular, Deaf Accord, which includes the British Deaf Association and the Deaf Broadcasting Council—feel that it is essential if the government amendment is to have its desired effect in respect of deaf people who use sign language.
I feel that the Minister is right to place the requirement on the applicant. I have little doubt that he intends his amendment to cover sign language. He made that clear at our meeting in September and has said that again today. Why are we so convinced that our amendment is necessary and that we need to write sign language on the face of the Bill? If our amendment is agreed to, it will insert the first and only reference to sign language in the 260-odd pages of the Bill. The whole of Clause 34 refers to subtitling for the
216
deaf which is most welcome. As the Minister has already said, the vast majority of deaf viewers will benefit enormously from the subtitling provision.
If no reference to sign language is made in the Bill, there is a very real possibility that applicants will think simply in terms of more subtitling when considering what to do to promote deaf people's understanding and enjoyment of programmes. Completely new applicants may well be unaware of sign language and not think of providing it. Other applicants may take the easy option of forgetting about sign language as competition intensifies. Our amendment does not oblige prospective licence holders to include proposals for sign language in their applications any more than the government amendment does. It ensures only that signing is considered as an option.
The Minister said that he was against setting targets. The amendment imposes no minimum requirement and no scheduled timing. Deaf sign users would obviously hope for some access to mainstream news and information programmes. Certainly they do not expect sign language to be added to many different types of programme. It is very important to emphasise that. We are talking about only a few news and information programmes. I have been very struck by how profoundly moderate are the deaf in their aspirations. The majority of broadcasters have always been reluctant to take up the challenge of including sign language and our amendment would require them to think again.
Why are they so reluctant? There is the cost argument—and the Minister raised the question of cost. In fact, signing is relatively cheap. According to the 1988 figures by the BBC, one hour's ordinary news costs about £54,000 and to add signing would cost another £200; that is about 0.4 per cent. of the total. That is not very much. The report of the Select Committee on televising the other place found that there were no technical problems but that the difficult area was the aesthetic appeal. I believe that broadcasters have been unduly apprehensive about how hearing viewers would feel. In Committee on 19th July at cols. 1074–5, the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, gave an eloquent description of how sign could both enhance viewers' appreciation of a programme and increase the interest of others in sign. Since May, Channel 4 has shown five minutes of signed news at 9 a.m. That is the first time that signed news has been shown nationally. There have been no adverse reactions and in fact viewing figures have increased although there is no evidence as to whether that is keenness to find out about the Gulf situation or interest in sign. However, the figures have not diminished in any way. Sweden has a weekly 20-minute news programme with sign and viewing figures are three times the size of the deaf population.
Profoundly deaf sign users are fairly isolated from events and from the hearing community. They cannot listen to the radio, many have difficulty reading newspapers or following subtitles and sign is their first language and the language with which they feel at ease. It is a visual language so that television is the perfect medium. Indeed, it is the only suitable

217
medium. The Government have acknowledged that by issuing a video in sign language on the community charge. Access to news and information would mean that sign language users would be less isolated from events and from the hearing community. This amendment would ensure that their needs are at least considered by prospective licence holders. I beg to move.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, in supporting Amendment No. 49 to which my name is attached, I welcome very warmly Amendment No. 48 moved by the noble Earl and to which Amendment No. 49 is an amendment. I acknowledge, as did the noble Baroness, that the amendment moved by the noble Earl goes a very long way towards satisfying demands or anxieties expressed by noble Lords on all sides of the House when the matter was debated in Committee.
On the question of sign language, I think I can speak from some experience. Among the many television programmes which I presented over a period of 30 years, I presented over 4,000 programmes which were signed for the deaf. That is a fairly significant number. Those were programmes of a special type; namely, information programmes. They contained information about benefits, citizens' rights and information which is absolutely essential to people with hearing impairments.
Of course I know that not all deaf people use sign language but I can testify from my experience that the presence of this lady signing the programme in the corner of the screen was not found to be obtrusive and a nuisance to others. Indeed, many viewers liked it and enjoyed the balletic quality of the movements. I remember once visiting an old lady who welcomed me warmly. She said, "Oh doctor, I love your new programmes that you are doing for people who cannot speak". That shows that what we were trying to do was not always fully understood but the fact remained that it did not destroy the enjoyment of other people from those programmes nor did it in any way interfere with the benefit which could be gained from them. What it did—and this is important—was greatly to increase the awareness of sign language not only among those with hearing impediments but also among their families and other people.
I have no doubt that those signed programmes which went out on a regular basis did a great deal to encourage people who had not previously done so to learn sign language. I am sure that was of immense benefit to the deaf, and also to the families of the deaf. I can say without fear of contradiction that I know from my own knowledge that many people with perfectly full hearing, relatives of people who are deaf, took active steps to learn sign language as a result of seeing sign language regularly on those programmes of mine.
It is true that it may not be essential to include these words in the Bill. But we should like to see something to ensure that this is a matter which is considered and is not merely one which is referred to in some kind of sympathetic way. Amendment No. 48, moved by the
218
noble Earl, is immensely valuable. We welcome it and I do not wish him to think that we do not. But the addition of these words might also be immensely helpful. I support the amendment to the amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, the noble Baroness and others have spoken admirably when proposing this amendment. All those with hearing or visual impairment must be grateful for the thought that they have given to this issue.
Noble Lords may have heard of Her Majesty's Government's intention to reduce the grant paid to the Royal National Institute for the Blind for talking books or, to be a little more precise, books in braille. I assure your Lordships that this point does relate to the amendment. Since 1979 the grant for the braille books has varied from £179,000 to £355,000 but it was frozen at £250,000 in 1984.
Six financial years have passed with the grant figure frozen at that level, so the £250,000 has been devalued by £100,000. To rub salt into the wound the grant was reduced to £200,000 for this financial year. This grant for the Royal National Institute for the Blind is abysmally small when one considers that it is helping to meet the £3.5 million spent annually by the Royal National Institute for the Blind in producing talking books or books in braille.
Very few of us—only two—saw a presentation made nearby in the Jubilee Room this morning by the Royal National Institute for the Blind. What we saw and what the noble Baroness has already mentioned, are surely worth investing in for the benefit of those with less hearing and sight than ourselves. One demonstration was of audio description, which is already practised in the United States. The federal budget allows 2 million dollars per annum, which is matched by the television programmes on a one-for-one basis. There. are also the electronic daily newspapers, in speech or braille, produced in Sweden, as we have heard already. Both require a television channel. Both therefore require some legislation by Government to ensure that the television companies provide that channel.
I am a patron of SENSE (South West) which is the National Deaf-Blind and Rubella Association. It is an organisation which cares for, teaches and trains those duo-sensory afflicted adults, the deaf-blind. Many practise manual speech using their hands and fingers as a form of communication. They would justifiably raise two fingers to those of us who will not pay attention to their plight; not as a Churchillian gesture of defiance, nor as a sign of contempt and abuse—certainly not in this noble House—but to illustrate and underline the importance of fingers. These two fingers are vowels, "I" and "E"; id est, or "that is to say" in manual speech. Without braille, using their fingers, they will not know what people say.
I beg the House to support the amendments which urge Her Majesty's Government to ensure frequency or channel allocation specifically catering for the sensory disabled in our society, and to be socially

219
sensitive and responsible in providing a realistic budget and updated grant aid for those with audio or visual disabilities.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, while genuinely support-ing the amendment moved by the Minister, I should also 1ike to support the amendment to that amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). We are not asking that sign language should be used to any great extent, just that the prospective licensees should consider the use of sign language.
On radio and television there are already a number of programmes devoted to languages of immigrants into this country; not very many, but a few. It is not known to any great extent that British sign language is the fourth British language used in the United Kingdom. English, Welsh and Scots Gaelic are the first three. We should allow those who use that fourth language as their first and only language to have some benefit from television.
One of the difficulties for those who learn British sign language as their first and only language is that it is not easily translatable into English and English into sign. Subtitles do not fill the bill as far as they are concerned. A number of those with hearing difficulties also have sight difficulties. I often find subtitles of programmes on television, particularly those in a foreign language, extremely difficult to read. The subtitling is normally in a single colour and frequently there is little or no contrast at all. It is then a waste of time. Signing in a corner of the screen has extremely good contrast and can be easily read. It does not have to be very large and is not intrusive.
It is of interest and possibly even of relevance to this debate to note that there is being published this year for the first time a dictionary of British sign language. That shows that there is a demand for it and that that demand is growing.
This afternoon I checked with the Conservative Party at its conference. I understand that signing is taking place there, probably only for a handful of people. The same took place at the conferences of the Liberals and the Labour Party. If politicians think it is worth while to provide sign interpretation for a mere handful of people attending those conferences, is it not worth while considering, on just a few programmes on television—and we are only asking for it to be considered—providing it for 50,000 potential viewers? It does not cost a great deal, as the noble Baroness Lady Darcy (de Knayth), said. It costs only about £200 an hour to add it to a film. I believe the cost of an advertisement running for 15 or 30 seconds is about £30,000. The cost is ridiculously cheap compared to that.
The Government, as we have been told, considered it worthwhile producing a video in sign. It must have resulted in the collection of a suitable amount of community charge, otherwise it would not have been worth producing. Again, sign would be extremely useful for current affairs, news programmes and documentaries. I can see absolutely no reason whatever for the amendment to the government
220
amendment not being accepted. It may be said that it is not essential, but it would make the television people think of using sign.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth) in Amendment No. 49. I understand that many viewers find no inconvenience in having sign language on their screens. All the different people I have asked say they do not mind and that it does not interfere with viewing.
I also support Amendment No. 50 and my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh who has spoken of the audio-description presentation we had this morning. We saw one example from America on the screen. It is very much needed, though not for all types of programme. The dialogue-based programmes are already easy to follow but audio-description is needed principally for drama, films and serials.
Figures produced by the Royal National Institute for the Blind show that 51 per cent. of visually handicapped people cannot go out on their own; thus, information and entertainment are particularly important in their own homes. The overwhelming majority of blind people—about 90 per cent—in fact have some useful vision. Audio-description helps to make sense of what they can see. Many of those people already watch television but it can be a frustrating experience so I hope that the Government will be able to accept the amendments.
Baroness David: My Lords, this has been an extremely interesting short debate. It has been informative and I have learned much from it. In fact, I am rather ashamed about that because my name is on the amendment, but I have learned a lot.
The importance of sign language has been strongly highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and again by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. I believe that if we have sign language on the screen it is also important for other people. It makes the viewers perhaps think a little about people with disabilities. There is a further important point. Many people who are severely deaf, perhaps from birth, find learning to read difficult and therefore following subtitles is not easy for them. As has been said, signs can be unobtrusive and people have not objected.
We are not asking for a financial commitment, as suggested by the Minister when he first spoke. We are only asking that people applying for licences should think about sign language. Although there are not many people involved—50,000—they are an important 50,000 and it can make a considerable difference to their lives. We should at least go this far by including the proposed words in the Bill so that the producers of programmes will have to consider sign language and be positive about it. I support the noble Baroness and, together with others, express my gratitude for the Government's amendment.
7.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I realise that your Lordships feel strongly about this matter, and I understand why. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, and others, for welcoming the move that we have made in our amendment.

221
Frankly, our view is that when a licensee applies for a licence he is bound to have drawn to his attention by the Independent Television Commission the requirements in the amendments which we have tabled; that is, that they are obliged to say what they are going to do to make services available to those who are deaf. In my view it is inconceivable that, if an applicant is asked what he intends to do to enable the deaf to understand the programmes, he will not consider sign language.
The noble Baroness wants to put such a requirement in the Bill because, she says, that will make applicants think about what they should do. It will give people a prod—almost lobbying them to remember sign language. One should ask whether it is right to use an Act of Parliament as a lobby or a prod when in fact applicants are obliged to say what they will do for such disabled people. It is literally inconceivable that an applicant for a licence, asked to outline what he will do, will not consider sign language.
I am glad that the noble Baroness did not seek to put a duty upon the ITC to incorporate sign language. My noble friend Lord Swinfen pointed out that it had been done at the Conservative Party and Labour Party conferences. That may be so, although I have not seen it. However, it was done without a statutory obligation to do so; it was done because it was thought to be right. I believe that licensees will take into account what is being done and the mood, and that they will be bound to say what they will do for the deaf, and that must include sign language.
My reservation is simply that I do not believe it necessarily right to push the matter in the Bill because that is using a statute for what one might call lobbying. I hope that the noble Baroness will understand and will accept that the obligation is there for applicants to outline their intentions.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, will the noble Earl think again about the use of the word "lobbying". I cannot see that there is any lobbying at all. If the noble Earl objects to accepting the words proposed by the noble Baroness will he perhaps consider writing a letter or putting in so many words outside the Bill, that signing should be considered by applicants? That assurance would greatly help those of us who feel strongly that the wording should be incorporated in the Bill but who appreciate the force of his arguments.
None of us has the noble Earl's confidence—I certainly have not—that applicants will be bound to say what they are doing about signing. I do not think that will necessarily be so. However, if the noble Earl will be good enough to say that he will write a letter, or somehow make the consideration of signing an obligation when applying, that would be of considerable assistance.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course I will reconsider the word "lobbying". It was a colloquialism which I used in an endeavour to suggest that the amendment was being used to draw attention to something that in
222
any case would be taken into account. I shall certainly see what I can do to meet the request made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I shall write to him and outline what is expected should be done. I hope that that assurance will satisfy both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness.
I am wholly at one with the desire of noble Lords but my sole reservation concerns putting something on the face of the Bill when an obligation is already there.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I thank all who have taken part in this debate and for the universal support I have received. I shall not single out any speaker in particular because I am sure that we all want to move swiftly to supper.
I am disappointed with the noble Earl's reply. I was rather shocked by his use of the word "lobbying". I am glad that he is reconsidering it. To me it is a question of redressing the balance. The noble Earl said that when people apply for a licence they will be obliged to say what will be provided. He said that it is literally inconceivable that they will not think of sign.
In trying to explain this amendment I thought I made it clear that I find it totally conceivable that people will not think of sign. I talk about redressing the balance. The whole of Clause 34 deals with subtitling for the deaf. We are very grateful that 50 per cent. of programmes will have to be subtitled within five years of the new franchises. That is wonderful for the vast majority of deaf people who will benefit. However, there is not one mention of the words "sign languages" in the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, 50,000 is a small number of people, but they are important people. For 50,000 viewers their first or main language is sign. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, it is a British language and it is the fourth British language.
A small number of people are involved. I am increasingly convinced by this reluctance to write the words into the Bill. However, unless we encourage the franchise holders to be positive, this group of people may perhaps never be fully able to understand television. I ask the noble Earl to go a little further than his remarks to my noble friend, Lord Henderson. Will he agree to instruct the ITC to write in its illustrative guidelines that sign language must be one of its considerations? If he cannot answer that question for me I shall have to test the opinion of the House. A letter will not be enough.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I quite see the problem that the noble Baroness has described. I was reluctant to rise to my feet because I was cogitating the request which she made to me as to whether it would be suitable to instruct the ITC.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, those were perhaps the wrong words.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it would be difficult for me to instruct the ITC because I do not think it would be appropriate for a Minister to instruct such a commission. However, I am prepared to invite it to

223
consider this matter. I shall invite it to include that provision into the codes. If that meets the noble Baroness's position I should be grateful.
Bareness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Earl's reply. I am in something of a quandary. I think that there is enough doubt. There has been so much evidence of broadcasters being reluctant to provide sign. I know that the situation is getting a little better. I must test the opinion of the House.
7.53 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alport): My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 49 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the Contrary "Not-content". I think the "Not-Contents" have it. Clear the Bar.
Division called.
Tellers for the "Contents" have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 51. A Division therefore, cannot take place, and I declare that the "Not-Contents" have it.
Amendment negatived.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved as an amendment to Amendment No. 48, Amendment No. 50:
Line 5, after ("partially-sighted") insert ("with particular reference to descriptive services").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment standing in my name and that of my colleagues. I begin, as others have done, by thanking the Government warmly for tabling the amendment that the noble Earl has moved in response to our debate at Committee stage. I would like the noble Earl to recognise that we are grateful. The purpose of this amendment is simply to strengthen the noble Earl's amendment and to put in a specific reference to what are now known as descriptive services.
Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I had the privilege the other day of seeing the descriptive services' operation in action. It was a poignant experience for me because it involved donning a pair of special glasses which put one in the position of being a person who is 75 per cent. blind. I then watched a television programme through those glasses with the help of the descriptive services. I am bound to say that it made a dramatic difference to the comprehension, enjoyment and understanding of that programme.
As a result of the discussions about the descriptive services at the Committee stage of this Bill, an immense impetus was given to various organisations to progress the technology of audio-description. It is now certainly the view of the Royal National Institute for the Blind that audio-description is now technically feasible in this country. I therefore move the amendment with the specific purpose of seeking to encourage this hopeful but relatively new development.
I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 147. Its purpose is to require the ITC to have regard to the need for information services for blind and partially
224
sighted people to be provided before deciding how much spare capacity in the television signal is available for sale by auction. Under Chapter 5 of the Bill the ITC is required to auction off spare capacity in the television signal. The Royal National Institute for the Blind believes that this kind of provision is essential. If it was left to join the auction and enter the highest bid it would be a formidable obstacle to offering this kind of help.
That is the background to the amendments. It was not quite clear to me from what the noble Earl said in his introductory words whether he felt that my second amendment was not necessary because the ITC already has the powers. I would however press the importance, as the noble Baroness has done in another context, of encouraging the ITC in this case to take steps to ensure that the needs of the blind and the poorly sighted are dealt with fairly and properly before the commercial disposal of the various other channels takes place. I beg to move.
8 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I support the amendment to which my name is attached. I am very happy to see the government amendment. I would have been even happier to see a more specific requirement. It is important to use new ideas for the benefit of the people who need them most. There must be encouragement to push innovative developments; otherwise they are often ignored. It is important that the amendment should specify what we should like to see to assist the blind. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, has described how these descriptive services operate and how effective they are.
A great deal of research has gone on in America where the development has been found very useful. It included in the all-important world of television people who either cannot see at all or who have very poor eyesight. So many things are barred from them. This development will help older people who cannot get out. They will be able to follow what is happening on television without frustration. It is worth pointing out that not all programmes require audio description. It would be needed principally for feature films, television movies, comedy, drama and serials. That represented only 34 per cent. of ITV's programme transmission in 1989. I hope that the Minister will regard the amendment in a favourable light.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I warmly support these amendments as they are also in my name.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl will make a sympathetic reply to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Thomson. However, my hopes are not buoyed by the realisation that at the moment the Government allow a registered blind person a rebate of £1.50 on a television licence otherwise costing £71. That does not seem to indicate an immense amount of sympathy on the part of the Government for the blind. Can the noble Earl comment on that point when he replies?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the last of the questions asked by the noble Lord,

225
Lord Thomson. He said that he was not quite certain about the position. I shall try to put him clearly in the picture with regard to Amendment No. 147 which comes later. An audio-descriptive service may need the use of up to one VBI line for its transmission. The noble Lord's amendment is not necessary because Clause 47(3)(c) gives the Independent Television Commission power to reserve that kind of capacity for services which are ancillary to programmes included in the service. It could certainly use that provision to allocate spare capacity for the purposes of an audio-descriptive service. But it could not do it for downloading for the Guardian.
A blind person would presumably need only a black and white television licence which is consider-ably less expensive than the colour licence. That is the answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley.
I understand the concerns lying behind the amendment. I am wholly with noble Lords in wanting to see help given to the blind or deaf. It is difficult to include a provision about audio-descriptive services on the face of the Bill because this is a new technology. It has not been wholly perfected. It is mostly operative in another country. I do not believe that we have many such services here. Therefore it is difficult to include such a provision on the face of the Bill. However, I shall get in touch with the IBA and ask whether it can specifically draw attention in its guidance to sign language and to audio-descriptive services. If we can do that I hope that we shall satisfy the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). I shall get in touch with the IBA and let both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness know the outcome. I hope that that meets the noble Lord's concerns.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I did not mention the digital newspaper to which the noble Earl referred. Can he explain why that would be outside the scope of the Bill if the ITC decided to allocate frequencies to it? It would be a tremendous boon for blind people. I was very impressed by what I saw of it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, this is a technical matter concerning spare space on lines already allocated which can be used at times of the night. I do not profess to be an engineer. One has almost to be an engineer to understand these wretched things. That is why they could not come under the Bill. I shall certainly give the noble Lord a more detailed and accurate assessment.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that answer. In the light of the major assurances about getting in touch with the new shadow ITC and inviting it to make applicants aware of both the sign language provisions and the new technological developments that might help the blind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to Amendment No. 48, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 48 agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage does not begin again before 9.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Clyde Port Authority Bill
8.10 p.m.
Lord Goold: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The promoter of the Bill is the Clyde Port Authority, which is a self-governing public trust port operating under its own Acts of Parliament, the principal enabling legislation being the CPA Order of 1965 together with successive amendments and additions. The authority was formed on 1st January, 1966.
Its present board numbers 10, comprising seven non-executive and three executive members, the former drawn from local government and trade union backgrounds, in addition to shipping and commercial interests. The Secretary of State for Transport is responsible for non-executive appointments, including that of the chairman.
The Bill received its Second and Third Readings in another place, where it was not petitioned against. A petition has been lodged against the Bill in this House, by the Greenock Waterfront Heritage Association, but this is a matter for the scrutiny of the relevant committee of the House and not, as I see it, a matter for the Second Reading debate today.
Similarly, the promoter of the Bill has undertaken to draw to the attention of the appropriate committee of this House certain minor technical amendments to the drafting of the Bill; but I believe these also are not of relevance to our Second Reading debate.
Clydeport is the principal port on Scotland's west coast, uniquely endowed with natural deep water facilities, capable of accommodating the world's largest ships. I know the port authority was delighted recently to act as host to the QE2 on her visit to the Clyde, her birthplace. The Clyde Port Authority's jurisdiction extends over 450 square miles of the River Clyde, its estuary and sea lochs. Principal areas of port activity are Glasgow, Greenock, Hunterston and Ardrossan. Together, these provide a range of modern and well-equipped facilities for handling bulk cargoes, containers and break-bulk traffic.
The authority's port traffic has changed dramatic-ally over the last 20 years. Britain's trade with Europe has increased significantly while trade with America has reduced. Therefore, there has been a decline in shipping traffic to the west coast in favour of ports on the east coast. This, together with the mechanisation and rationalisation of port facilities in this country and the decline in traditional industries in the west of Scotland, has led to the reduction in the traffic using the port.

227
The authority's powers principally relate to the operation of a port undertaking. Its powers are severely restricted by existing legislation, which prevents the authority from developing its business and from competing commercially. Changes to the authority's powers and structure can only be achieved through legislation. The Government have been reluctant to permit any extension of powers without increased accountability such as is found within a limited company structure and have encouraged the trust ports to utilise the Private Bill route in order to restructure.
In mentioning the Government, I am delighted to note that, speaking for the Government, my noble friend Lord Cavendish of Furness will be making his maiden speech in this debate. I am sure that we all welcome him and wish him well.
Having considered the need to take the Private Bill route, the authority's board unanimously supported the proposal to lodge such a Private Bill for the express purpose of enabling the authority to restructure itself, recognising the need for the port to create a strong, commercial base and to diversify.
Existing legislation restricts the authority from operating its business on equal terms with Continental ports or rival ports which are already in the private sector and not bound by trust port legislation. In particular, the authority's present powers are severely limited in relation both to the acquisition of land and to investment opportunities. For example, the authority has no ability to acquire new land for other than port development and must dispose of its interest in surplus land once redeveloped. At the same time its borrowing powers are limited by statute and, accordingly, funding of major opportunities is extremely difficult without approaching Parliament for an increase in the borrowing limit.
These are merely examples, stated very briefly, where the present powers of the authority have inhibited its activities. Further, the constant need to verify the limits of the authority's powers, to ensure that the board is acting intra vires at all times, places an additional and unproductive burden on the board and its executive, who are expected to run the port on a wholly commercial basis.
The Clyde Port Authority Bill retains the existing powers, duties and responsibilities of the authority regarding the maintenance and improvement of the port undertaking. I must emphasise that the authority's commitment to the port will be reaffirmed by the restructuring scheme. The core port business will be operated by the successor company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the new holding company, which is created by the Bill. The successor company will inherit and preserve the statutory duties of the authority including the general duty,
"to take such steps from time to time as they consider necessary for the maintenance and improvement of the port and the accommodation and facilities, including navigational facilities, afforded therein and in connection therewith".
In another place concern was expressed on the subject of dredging, but let me make it quite clear. If dredging were, in the authority's estimation, necessary
228
to maintain and improve the port then the authority would dredge. The successor company will be in exactly the same position as the authority in relation to statutory provisions.
The holding company will have wider commercial powers than the authority has at present. For the moment, it is anticipated that four separate elements will be involved in the share capital structure of the new body. These will be: first, that the authority will put forward an employee share ownership plan (ESOP); secondly, that current employees will be invited to subscribe for shares for which interest free loans may be available to assist; thirdly, that past employees, pensioners and their spouses will also be invited to subscribe for shares; and, fourthly, that the authority will seek subscription by institutional investors, with a preference for institutional support in the west of Scotland.
Noble Lords will be aware that Sections 114 to 119 of the 1990 Finance Act put in place a mechanism whereby the Exchequer can share in the proceeds of the sale of shares in trust ports, given that these ports are not owned by government.
The authority has stated that, under this new structure, which is similar in concept to that of Associated British Ports, existing cash reserves will be applied to fund essential repairs, maintenance work and investment in plant and equipment to upgrade the port's facilities. The proceeds will also be required to expand these facilities in the future and to develop its business.
I am convinced that it is essential for the authority to be freed from the restrictive powers of trust port legislation. The restructuring programme will increase job security for current employees—around 350—and it is hoped that in due course it will lead to increased employment throughout the west of Scotland. The change in status will allow the company to increase its role in local projects for renewal and regeneration of the Clyde waterfront, as well as enabling the authority to continue to expand upon its involvement in environmental projects. Future initiatives could include using the spoil from dredging operations in the production of bricks and for conversion to topsoil.
The operations at Rothesay Dock have stimulated some, but limited, local scrutiny. Rothesay Dock is part of the core business of the authority. It was built to handle coal and has traditionally been the home of less environmentally attractive cargoes such as coal, scrap and salt. They may be unsightly, but they are significantly beneficial to the local and national economy. Non-operational areas in Rothesay Dock could be developed, but only successfully when the increased powers of the restructured authority afford it the opportunity to do so.
We have before the House today a Private Bill which is supported not only by the board of the Clyde Port Authority but also by the employees and trade unions and not opposed by any of the relevant local authorities. Taking into account the fact that there is only one petition against the Bill, and that is concerned with a small area at Greenock which will

229
not in fact be affected by the change in status, I believe that I can say it has the support of the wider community of Glasgow and the west of Scotland. It is clearly in the interests of the authority itself, the local Clydeport economy, the docks industry and the local community for the Bill to proceed without delay.
Opportunities abound for the authority, but they can only be pursued if the authority is freed from the constraints of trust port legislation. The authority needs to be able to develop its business opportunities and to compete fully within today's marketplace. It needs to diversify and to establish a strong, commercial base. It needs to ensure job security for its existing employees and, in the longer term, strive for job creation. It needs to protect the environment and develop further environmental initiatives. More than anything else, it needs to be freed from existing restrictions so that it can be run properly on a wholly commercial basis.
I commend the Clyde Port Authority Bill to your Lordships for its Second Reading and seek your full support for the Bill today. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. — (Lord Goold.)
8.20 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we all thank the noble Lord, Lord Goold, for his introduction of the Bill although not, I hasten to say, because we accept its purpose. We all accept that a great deal has happened since the Clyde Port Authority Order was passed in 1965 and that a great deal needs to be changed, but this is the wrong way to do it. We should be grateful to the noble Lord because he gave us rather more information than seemed to be available to the mover of the Bill in another place. I shall read the noble Lord's words with great interest before we reach the next stage of the Bill because we now have more information than we had before.
At the outset I should explain that we on this side of the House will, by convention, not oppose the Bill at this stage, it having been passed, however acrimoniously, through the elected Chamber. I shall also take the opportunity to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness, to the Front Bench to reply to the debate on behalf of the Government. My only disappointment is that I thought it was Furness on Loch Fyne. It is the other Furness. Nevertheless, although he is from just across the Border, we are pleased that he can take part in the debate. We look forward to hearing what he says and hope to hear from him frequently in the future.
We are entitled to reserve our position with regard to the next stages of the Bill. There are amendments. We do not as yet know much about them. We have been told several times that they are technical. I understand that we shall not know the details until the Committee stage, and so we obviously have to reserve our position.
230
It is unfortunate that the Bill is a Private Bill. The matter is too important to the Clyde to be left to this forum merely because the Government's timetable is in a mess, which is the basic reason for the procedure. Although I have not been able to trace it in the press —it may have been on television—I understand that the Secretary of State for Transport has made a decision as to the privatisation of ports. The noble Lord, Lord Goold, may be more aware of that than I am. There was today an announcement about government legislation on the privatisation of ports, and that may change matters considerably. It may be because there is a shortage of legislation for next Session and therefore the Government are putting in a few more measures.
A great deal has happened to the port since 1965, which was the last time the Clyde was discussed in Parliament. No one —not even my honourable friends in another place—advocates leaving things as they are. Ministers in another place normally do not speak for long on Private Bills. The Minister for Aviation and Shipping, Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, in a brief intervention compared this Private Bill with the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill. I believe that that was wrong. He correctly said that the measures were almost identical, but there is a big difference because if I read it correctly the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill was concerned primarily with a large port development designed to take ships of 200,000 tonnes. The opposition to the Bill was national and concerned the future of the mining industry. That Bill was different.
From the little information we have been able to obtain, the Bill is clearly concerned with the development of large and valuable tracts of land on the banks of the Clyde. The Minister made it clear that the Government would receive 50 per cent. of the proceeds from the sale of the shares. One valuation of the assets is £53 million. I do not know how accurate that figure is. It was referred to at col. 775 of Commons Hansard of 2nd July 1990. No one corrected Mr. Brian Wilson, the Member for Cunninghame North on that point and so we must work on that figure.
I have been told that little money was involved in the building up of the Clyde Port Authority, but I would not call the £26 million, which according to Mr. McCloughlin, the Secretary of State will receive from the sale of the assets, an insignificant contribution to public funds. We should add that to what has been put into the Clyde Port Authority and, going further back, to the Clyde Navigation Trust, by the Government and local authorities. There is no doubt that there was a great deal of good will. A great deal of invisible help was given to the Clyde Navigation Trust over decades by the riparian burghs and the municipalities when it was built into an effective and helpful body in terms of port development.
We are told that port development will follow from the profits of diversification, but I have heard nothing —including the helpful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goold —which approximates to the Tees and Hartlepool legislation. If there are big ideas for port

231
developments, we have not heard of them. We have merely heard about bits and pieces. The only big ideas we have heard about relate to land development. They are the Braehead scheme, which is sub judice, that of the consortium which is opposite the marvellous Clyde Port Authority building in Robertson Street and that at the Broomielaw which is partly Japanese. I am sad about the fact that the port authority cannot have a bigger say in that development. I am not anti the combination of public and private capital. It is just that that is not development by the Clyde Port Authority or the Clyde Development Authority.
Mr. Allan Stewart in another place has made much of the support of Mr. Lawrence McGarry and Mr. Tom O'Connor. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Goold, refrained from doing that. Although they are in the same party as I am, I happen to think that they were wrong to be as enthusiastic as they were. I have discussed the measure with one of them and he has no doubt about my position on it.
We here have a different function in Parliament. I should like to probe the mover and the Government on some aspects of privatisation which have been put to me. Had this been a government Bill that could be done in Committee. We can discuss in Committee matters which are not admissible before a Select Committee or a Private Bill Committee.
On dredging, the noble Lord, Lord Goold, with all his clout as a former chairman of the Scottish Conservative Party, says that this should appear on the face of the Bill. There is a power to carry out dredging but no duty to do so. I anticipated that the assurances of the noble Lord, Lord Goold, could not be considered law.
I could go into the question which was discussed in great detail that if a private company has been set up with no one to curtail it in any way and no duties from the Minister of Transport or the Secretary of State for Scotland, the only duty of that company will be to look after its shareholders. In terms of company law that is its proper duty. It may well decide that having got so far up the river, dredging beyond a certain point will not be profitable and it will make nothing from it. Someone cleverly in another place discussed the question of what is a port. Once we get beyond a certain point we can say, "It is a port but only for boats of a certain size or ships of a certain size". I may be wrong, I know that there are experts present but I believe that beyond a certain distance up river the Clyde can only take 27,000 tonnes. That is pretty small for modern shipping.
For example, if the Yorkhill Dock were no longer considered profitable, would the new Clyde Port Authority stop dredging beyond it? That might possibly cut out sailings of the "Waverley", as well as losing a second boat. The noble Lord, Lord Goold, may have read debates in another place and be aware that this argument was never properly answered. The new company will have a free hand to do as it pleases.
This is an unsatisfactory Bill. Privatisation is not the way we think such an important function should be carried out. However if there is to be privatisation,
232
we should know much more about the body for which the public will be asked to subscribe—if the public, and not just the Scottish financial institutions, is the only source other than a few employee shares. What will be the price of shares? How many will there be? How will the value of the shares be decided? How will they be allotted to the employees and their relatives? Will it be on the basis of years employed, the salary scale or a combination of these? Can they be sold in the market or must they be made available to the board first? That is not uncommon. Anyone who knows the football scene in Scotland will know that with certain clubs one can only sell the shares back to the board. I believe that that is the situation in a number of places.
Gas, electricity and water privatisation was much more open. I do not wish to embark upon the question of ownership, but it may be quite important in future to know that a comparison was made between the sale of the TSB and this case—who owns the Clyde Port and who owned the TSB. While it may have been proved in law that the TSB had no real owners—and we had long, acrimonious discussions in the House about this—everyone felt that there was something slightly wrong about the way in which the TSB was taken away from its ordinary depositors. There will be the same feeling in this instance. The Clyde Port Authority and the old Clyde navigation, rightly or wrongly, are felt by people to be a public body, responsible to the public, given certain grants by the public and given a great deal of goodwill by the riparian owners. For that body to be taken away and suddenly sold to people who, as was said in another place, may turn out to be bankers in Zurich and Tokyo, cannot be considered in the best interests of the people of Scotland, particularly those in the west of Scotland. Having said that and registered my attitude, I reiterate that we shall certainly not oppose the Bill at this stage.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I think that at this hour of the night it behoves us all to express as best and as briefly as we can our strong and heartfelt support to my noble friend Lord Goold for introducing this important Bill. Your Lordships may wonder why an Angus loon like myself should speak in support of the Bill. Glasgow and the economic life of the west of Scotland are of particular importance to all of us who live in Scotland, even 70, 80, 90 miles or more distance away from Glasgow. It is in that spirit that I seek to say a few words in support of my noble friend's Bill this evening.
I also wish to congratulate in advance and say how much we look forward to hearing the first remarks of my noble friend Lord Cavendish. I am sure he has picked an excellent Bill on which to make his maiden speech this evening. Your Lordships may not be aware that the Clyde Port Authority were kind enough to afford me and my noble friend Lord Goold a tour of the entire port authority area last month. As I toured the area beyond the tail of the bank, having seen Greenock and various aspects of the Firth of Clyde, the immediate thought came to me that we had had a

233
debate in your Lordships' House on the subject of "Oceanspan". I have the report and I shall spare your Lordships from hearing it quoted. Noble Lords will remember the great debate we had on it, particularly my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy who is to follow me and the noble Lord, Lord Home, who was to speak and who may attend later. Those noble Lords will be aware of the great and excellent concept of 20 years ago.
In his Bill this evening my noble friend is putting more flesh on that concept. Perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to one or two aspects of the Bill and several remarks made in the report and accounts of the Clyde Port Authority for 1989. The chairman of the authority refers in the report to the members to the port of Ardrossan. Your Lordships will see a particularly glossy picture on the back cover of the report which shows the facilities of this excellent port. The chairman mentions the possibility of increasing trade with Northern Ireland. I strongly recommend that, because anything that can reduce traffic going south on the A.77 to Cairnryan and Stranraer should be supported. On my brief trip to the Firth of Clyde I was able to see the magnificent deep water port and terminal at Hunterston with, as I am sure my noble friend will agree, considerable room for development.
Perhaps I may briefly refer to four points raised by the chairman of the port authority in his report. First, he mentions what he calls the "new trades" which will have a new opportunity further up the river and I hope also at deep water ports. Secondly, the chairman refers to the re-opening, at least partially, of the Granary which I think is familiar to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, although possibly he did not refer to it this evening. Thirdly, the chairman refers to the new goods shed at Greenock of which there is a picture in the report. Fourthly, the chairman mentions Ardrossan.
On my tour of the area with my noble friend I noticed one enormous object that I thought was very much part of the scene. I thought, "What is this?" and asked my noble friend and the guide. I was told it was a memorial to the battle of Largs in 1263 which is familiar to all Scottish schoolchildren. What happened there was a 13th century concept of "Oceanspan". Alas, the Vikings and the Norsemen did not organise their procedures as well as my noble friend Lord Goold. Unlike the Vikings and the Scots who chased them out, I shall be merciful tonight and not refer to that.
I only wish to add my support for this excellent and professional concept whereby the Clyde Port Authority wishes to take some action which is spelt out in the Bill. It is complicated, but if noble Lords read through the Bill they will find that it will give the power to the Clyde Port Authority to improve the entire Firth of Clyde and, I believe, the west of Scotland. I wholeheartedly support the Bill.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, the authority's area of operations includes the estuary as well as the river. The Firth of Clyde has deep sheltered water near land at Hunterston. It is all within the authority's jurisdiction. I am personally glad to support the Bill because 20 years ago I took the planning decision as Secretary of State which enabled Hunterston to become a deep water port and enabled the ore terminal to be built which has since supplied the steel works at Ravenscraig. A year after my decision Ravenscraig was accepted as one of the principal steel making centres in the United Kingdom and appropriate resources were invested there.
In 1970 the era of massive bulk ore carriers had arrived. That was one of the reasons for the planning decisions at the time. The ore carriers could not go up the River Clyde as the small ore carriers had in the past. Containerisation and other shipping developments meant that all the natural assets of the Firth and the river could be adapted to modern uses. As a result the responsible authorities have developed the necessary facilities, including those at Greenock and Ardrossan. To be able to compete with other ports at home and abroad, the authority needs to diversify its functions. The city of Glasgow was in the past the commercial centre of the British Empire. It should not continue to be placed at a disadvantage because of restrictions on the activities of the authority which supervises its shipping traffic.
The changes proposed in the Bill will encourage sea traffic to and from the industrial and most populated part of Scotland and will make employment in the port industry and associated businesses more secure. My noble friend Lord Goold mentioned the recent visit to the Clyde of the QE2. I shall end with a recollection of my own. As a boy living near Glasgow I was taken by an uncle in a chartered steamer from Ardrossan to see the first queen, the Queen Mary, soon after her launch at John Browns on Clydebank, carrying out her speed trials on the measured mile off the Isle of Arran. That was in the early 1930s but it is not the kind of occasion one forgets.
The Clyde and Glasgow have made a prodigious contribution to our country's progress, especially in maritime affairs. The Clyde must be allowed to function in the 1990s without having to suffer disadvantages compared with other ports. This Bill should receive our wholehearted support.
8.43 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I wish to add my name to the supporters of the Bill. I wish too to extend my good wishes to my noble friend Lord Cavendish on the occasion of his maiden speech. I hope and expect to hear my noble friend often in the future. We in Britain have always been at the forefront of navigation and trade by sea. The Clyde is the main artery of Glasgow. Therefore the Clyde Port Authority which controls "doon the water" to the sea is a pretty important body. However, its powers are strictly limited. These can only be extended or increased by legislation. That is the reason for the Bill.

235
The only complaint against the Bill is a petition from the Greenock Waterfront Heritage Association on the ground; that the new powers might interfere with lands feued to it in 1772 by my ancestral noble kinsman Lord Cathcart. The Clyde Port Authority has said that its restructuring proposals in this area would only be to deepen the channel so that ships could pass up it.
The present Clyde Port Authority is not renowned for its efficiency nor for the lowness of its dues. This, in part, is the result of the limitations under which it has to act as a trust in total contrast to the port of Ayr which is not owned by an inhibiting trust. I have been told that Ayr "runs rings' round the Clyde Port Authority", and that its charges are very much less. The net result of the Bill will be to free the hands of the Clyde Port Authority so that it can be as competitive and efficient as Ayr. I support the measures.
8.45 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsey and Abingdon: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief in view of the other business before y our Lordships' House. I wish to support my noble friend Lord Goold on this Second Reading debate of the Clyde Port Authority Bill. I also wish to extend my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness, on his recent appointment. I look forward to hearing his maiden speech.
My interest in this matter arises from the fact that for part of the time I live within an hour's drive of the area under discussion. I therefore took the opportunity during the recent recess to cover as much of the ground in that area as possible. I drove from Govan on the south bank of the Clyde at Glasgow along the old A8 to Port Glasgow and Greenock and then down the A78 to Hunterston and Ardrossan. At Greenock I tried to establish the whereabouts of the waterfront land which is the subject of a petition brought by the Greenock Waterfront Heritage Association against the Bill. From what I saw of the area I believe there is a real opportunity for controlled development by the Clyde Port Authority. It is obvious that under its present constitution the powers of the Clyde Port Authority are too restricted. I am also convinced on employment and environmental grounds that the benefits will outweigh any disadvantages which may arise.
Finally, the west coast must be given every opportunity to revitalise itself—my noble friend Lord Goold referred to this in his speech—because of the severe competition it faces from east coast ports both in England and Scotland.
8.47 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I, too, look forward to the contribution of my noble friend in his maiden speech. I am sure that Cumbria's loss will be the gain of your Lordships' House. The Bill is an essential vehicle in ensuring the future of port operations on the Clyde. It does not require too much imagination to see the effects of the change in commercial pattern that has occurred over the past few decades. This makes it essential to arm management with sufficient flexibility to counter the
236
ravages of the recent past and to continue to offer a level of employment to those whose lives are bound up with an industry whose roots are historically linked with those of Scotland.
It is important to concentrate for one moment on the changing patterns of trade over the recent past. What has happened is entirely beyond the control of the authority. Some 73 per cent. of Britain's trade is now with Europe. That trade has shifted across from the west to the east and south coasts of England. Scottish industry is now based mainly on financial services in the high-tech province which is concerned with high value and low volume and is serviced by air freight or containers. There has been the advent of North Sea oil. Some 12 million tonnes of crude oil trade from the Middle East has been lost to the Clyde.
Scotch whisky used to be made from maize and corn from the United States and Canada. Today, except for a few tonnes of maverick imports from France, it is made from home-grown barley. Britain was formerly a net importer of 30 million tonnes of grain and cereals per year. The European common agricultural policy has changed that. We are now essentially self-sufficient. If anything, we are a modest net exporter.
In 1970 the Clyde exported 1.6 million tonnes of general cargo, mainly to Australia, New Zealand and the Far East. Containerisation changed all that. The trade was lost. Nevertheless the Clyde managed to convert some of it into 750,000 tonnes of container traffic. It is in that container business—dealing with the handling of those massive units—that I have been involved for a large portion of my life in industry.
We see today the effect of movement in the containerisation field. All it takes is for one shipper to leave a port and a dramatic decrease of over 73 per cent. can take place within a year. These are fairly difficult times. And there is a definitely difficult period ahead for anyone who operates a port. However, if management is to redress the imbalance, it must have the freedom to manage and use its experience to create the competitive environment so essential to its customers, the carriers and Scottish industry. By passing the Bill, we give it the tools to do the job. I am sure that the faith that we show will be well rewarded.
8.52 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, apologise to your Lordships for delaying what I know will be an admirable maiden speech. I shall be only two brief minutes.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, suggested that it might have been more appropriate for the Bill to have been introduced as a public Bill. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that the Bill was introduced in another place and that this very point was raised with the Speaker before the Second Reading there. It was raised at the same time in relation to another Bill with a similar purpose—the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill which is still before another place.
During the Second Reading of the Tees Bill in March this year, the Deputy Speaker stated that the Speaker was satisfied that the Bill was proper to be

237
proceeded with as a Private Bill as it was concerned with the regulation of an authority that had been established by means of a private Act. Subsequently, at the Second Reading of this Bill—the Clyde Port Authority Bill—in May, the Deputy Speaker confirmed that the point had been dealt with by the Speaker and there was nothing further that he could add.
Bearing in mind that the present Bill was introduced in another place and that the Speaker considered and ruled on the specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, I hope that Members of this House will appreciate that the doctrine of comity in the two Houses makes it undesirable for this House to take a different view on the question of the propriety of proceeding by way of a Private Bill.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. He will realise that I was making a general political point—not a procedural point—that the Bill could have been introduced as a government Bill. We thought that that would have been preferable, but we have no objection. The other place plays around with procedure much more than we do.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I rise this evening very conscious of the fact that I am making my maiden speech and addressing your Lordships from the Dispatch Box for the first time. I would ask your indulgence on both counts. I would also like to express my most sincere thanks to my noble friends and to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for their kind and generous words of encouragement.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to say that the principle which underlies the Bill, and the very similar Bill which is being promoted by the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority, has the Government's support.
The trust ports are independent statutory bodies. They are not accountable to anyone. Their powers and sources of finance are limited by their constitutions. Most of them simply run small harbours, but a smaller number run undertakings which play an important part in this nation's trade. These have to hold their own in what is now a highly competitive industry with ports run by companies such as Felixstowe and the Associated British Ports group. Those company ports have greater flexibility to raise capital and broaden their scope.
The Government have long recognised that the major trading trust ports need similar scope, but if they are to diversify they should also be made more accountable. To convert them into public companies needs primary legislation. The private initiative taken by both the Clyde and the Tees and Hartlepool port authorities followed encouragement on the part of the previous Secretary of State, my right honourable friend Mr. Paul Channon, in an address to the British Ports Federation. He told the trust ports that he could not hold out any prospect of early government
238
legislation on the subject. As an alternative, he suggested that some might table their own Bills if they saw benefits in turning themselves into companies.
Although the measure before the House is a Private Bill, it is in many respects a close parallel to the provisions in the Transport Act 1981 which converted the British Transport Docks Board into Associated British Ports Ltd. The new company will be the harbour authority with just the same responsibility and powers as the present Clyde Port Authority; no more, no less.
There is however one important difference. Trust ports have no explicit owners. The introduction of this and the Tees and Hartlepool Bill therefore raised the issue of who should get the proceeds from the sale of shares when a trust port is turned into a public company. That was a matter for Parliament to decide.
On the one hand there were the interests of the taxpayer and the need to ensure a level playing-field between existing private ports and the newly privatised trust ports. On the other hand, we had to recognise, first, that those port authorities had taken the initiative in introducing their Private Bills; secondly, that they intended to invest their new funds in new developments; and, thirdly, that there would be the bonus of their conversion into companies earlier than would otherwise have occurred.
The Government accordingly proposed that 50 per cent. of the proceeds of the sale of shares following enactment of these Bills should go to the Exchequer. Provisions to that effect were approved by Parliament and are incorporated in the Finance Act 1990.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, referred to remarks today by the Secretary of State for Transport indicating that there may be government legislation on the subject in the coming Session. I cannot at this stage add to what Mr. Parkinson said and there will be an announcement in due course. In the event of the Government bringing forward general enabling legislation, it will be for the sponsors of the Bill to decide their further course of action. Their initiative is well ahead and they may feel that they should hold on to the lead which they have won.
I hope that the Clyde Port Authority Bill will be the means for that body, in its new guise, to strengthen its business and reinforce the contribution that it already makes to the local economy.
9 p.m.
Lord Goold: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Cavendish on an excellent maiden speech. It was positive and robust, for which I thank him. It cannot have been an easy speech to prepare knowing that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport was making relevant announcements this afternoon at a certain south coast resort. I am sure that we all look forward greatly to many more speeches from the Front Bench by my noble friend.
I should also like to thank all noble Lords who took part in this interesting debate. I believe that it has been constructive and helpful. I know that the promoter of the Bill, the Clyde Port Authority, will appreciate it. I

239
thank also the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for his usual courteous, thoughtful and thought-provoking speech. He raised a number of points and, as he said, most of them can be discussed at the next stage of the Bill. However, I should like to touch on two of them.
First, the noble Lord mentioned dredging. I want to repeal that the authority at present has a power but not art obligation to dredge. As I just mentioned, that power will be transferred to the successor company, which no doubt will wish to exercise that power to keep open the navigable areas of jurisdiction and thereby ensure a continued source of revenue. I can also add that those advising the port authority are not aware of any port authority which is subject to an obligation to dredge but there will be no change in the duty on the successor authority.
The noble Lord also mentioned amendments. When the Bill was considered by the Select Committee in another place, counsel for the Speaker advised the committee that in his view a number of amendments were desirable and two were essential. The authority gave n undertaking to that committee to propose at the Committee stage in this House that the two amendments which counsel to the Speaker regarded as essential should be included in the Bill. The authority also undertook to draw to the attention of counsel to the Lord Chairman the other amendments which counsel to the Speaker regarded as desirable. Pursuant to the se undertakings, the authority's parliamentary agent, wrote on 20th July this year to counsel to the Lord Chairman to draw his attention to the undertakings and provide details of those amendments.
With regard to ownership, which was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, I would remind him that this Bill has the support of the board, the employees and the trade unions and is not opposed by any of the riparian local authorities to which he referred. I firmly believe that it is a Bill which will benefit the employees, those same riparian local authorities and the wider community of the west of Scotland.
I thank also my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, who, as Secretary of State, had so much to do with earlier Clyde legislation. It is good to have his wholehearted support for this Bill today. I also thank my noble friends Lord Lyell, Lady Strange, Lord Lindsey and Abingdon and Lord Oxfuird for their contributions and obviously genuine interest in the Clyde and this Bill.
As has been said, the new technology that has come into the west of Scotland and is doing so well does not require the same type of freight transport as did heavy engineering years ago. As the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, said, because of North Sea oil, which is very welcome, no longer do we have oil shipments from the Middle East, nor have we many other bulk imports. The whole pattern of shipping has changed since 1965. The authority is asking for greater flexibility and powers to develop the port in the way in which it feels necessary and which will provide job security and help the wider community. That is what this Bill is all about I ask noble Lords to support it.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 10 minutes past nine.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 9.4 to 9.10 p.m.]

Broadcasting Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 15.
Lord Birkett Lord Birkett moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 13, line 48, at end insert ("and

(h) a statement by the applicant that when proposing an original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work be created for inclusion in a broadcast the applicant will not require the creator to enter into a contract with a publisher nominated by the applicant.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment was largely debated earlier today. It would be intolerable for me to make a long speech at this stage although I promised to speak to Amendment No. 51 in its proper place in the Marshalled List. I am very conscious that it is just as possible for a small number of people to be wearied as a large number.
I need to say two things at this stage. Your Lordships will recall that the amendment concerns worries shared by a number of noble Lords about the practices of ITV companies which own music publishing houses which insist, when engaging a composer, that that composer's work shall be published by their own publishing houses.
I am well aware that the noble Earl believes that the amendment is unnecessary because there are other remedies for the composers either through the Office of Fair Trading or in the Bill. With his invariable courtesy he has pointed out exactly what those remedies might be. However, I do not believe that either of them will work.
In Clause 2(2) (ii) the Bill states that it shall be the duty of the commission,
"to ensure fair and effective competition in the provision of such services and services connected with them".
The matter was referred to the Department of Trade and Industry and when the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading reported upon it he found no reason to conclude that the practices of those ITV companies amounted to anti-competitive behaviour. He further found that the bargaining power of the ITV companies was constrained by the presence of other potential buyers.
In both those cases competition is the nature of the thing. One would imagine from that that we were addressing a competitive issue: that an ITV publishing company was in direct competition with another publishing company willing and wishing to publish the music.
That is not the case. The principal problem arises when the ITV companies insist upon a publication clause and thereby are clawing back 50 per cent. of the

241
PRS fees that they are obliged to pay to composers. The phrase "clawing back" is often used and was used this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, when he graphically outlined the situation. That is the problem and competition does not enter into it.
The bargaining power of the ITV companies is not that against other publishing companies but the naked power of somebody enabled to say to a composer, "Will you write music for me but if you do it shall be published through our publishing company?". If the composer says no the company can find another composer. That is not strictly a bargaining power but it is a position of power that can be and has been used in some cases, though not in all, to bully the composers out of 50 per cent. of their legitimate PRS fees.
I have no complaint with what has been said by the Office of Fair Trading. I believe that it is wrong about this issue but I do not suppose that it has been lax in its inquiries. I do not believe that its offices or the Bill will cure the problem. Amendment No. 51 provides that the applicant for a licence—in other words an ITV company—will not require the creator, and in particular the composer, to enter into a contract with a publisher nominated by the applicant. The amendment states simply "will not require". There is no reason why, if the offer is made and the composer likes it, there should not be a perfectly amicable relationship. The companies should not have the power to insist upon it.
The amendment is exceedingly simple. It will cure an activity which is known to exist even if that is not large or wide enough for the Office of Fair Trading to make recommendations for legislation. There is an injustice which could easily be cured by the amendment with no damage whatever to the Bill. I hope that the Minister will agree to it. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, having listened to what he said, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Birkett. There is nothing that I can add, so I shall not take up the time of the House. I hope that the Government will look upon the amendment sympathetically.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I stated the Government's view about the matter when speaking to the earlier amendment with which Amendment No. 51 is grouped. I repeat that I understand the anxiety expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, that companies should not bully composers. There are some companies which have subsidiaries and others which do not. It may well be that it is perfectly fair that people who compose for a company should put those rights through the company's subsidiary. If it is fair there is no reason why it should not be done. If it is unfair there are provisions in the Bill for the Independent Television Commission to correct that.
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, referred to Clause 2(2). It provides that the commission shall:
"ensure fair and effective competition in the provision of such services and services connected with them".
242
It is clear that, if companies are by the nature of their business being unfair to those who compose for them, the ITC has the power to take the necessary action. That proviso is contained in the Bill and I suggest to your Lordships that it is sufficient.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I hope that without discourtesy I explained to the noble Earl why I believe that it is not sufficient. If one could rely totally on either the Bill or the Office of Fair Trading I should no longer be worried. However, I remain just as worried and late though it is I have no option but to test the opinion of the House.
9.19 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 51) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 53.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Birk, B.

Longford, E.

Birkett, L.[Teller.]

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Buckmaster, V.

Mersey, V.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Morris, L.[Teller.]

Carter, L.

Moyne, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Newall, L.

Craigavon, V.

Raglan, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ross of Newport, L.

David, B.

Seear, B.

De L'Isle, V.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Gallacher, L.

Tordoff, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Walpole, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Long, V.

Auckland, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Balfour, E.

Lyell, L.

Barber, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Belstead, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blatch, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Boardman, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Borthwick, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Butterworth, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Caithness, E.

Reay, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Romney, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Sharples, B.

Crathorne, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Denham, L.[Teller.]

Strange, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Faithfull, B.

Swinfen, L.

Ferrers, E.

Swinton, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Trumpington, B.

Goold, L.

Ullswater, V.

Harvington, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Henley, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hesketh, L.

Wynford, L.

Hives, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingiy
9.27 p m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 14, line 25, leave out from ("Commission") to end of line 27 and insert ("a specified amount of money in respect of the first complete calendar year falling within the period for which the licence is in force (being an amount which, as increased by the appropriate percentage, is also to be payable in respect of subsequent years falling wholly or partly within that period).").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 52 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 62, 68, 69, 72, 73, 154, 156, 160, 161, 189, 191, 195, 198, 199, 248, 250, 255, 256, 273, 275 and 277.
These amendments provide for the indexation of cash bids for licences in the relevant parts of the Bill. On 18th July during the Committee stage I undertook to consider a change on these lines if a detailed analysis of the advantages could be produced. I am most grateful to my noble friend, Lord Stockton—at least on this occasion—for providing such a paper. The essential arguments for indexation are that it makes the annual payments for the licence equal in real terms. It removes a major area of uncertainty in formulating a cash bid, and it prevents unintentional overbidding due to miscalculation of the rate of inflation.
Under these amendments, applicants for licences will bid a cash lump sum for the first calendar year of the licence. Where the bid is accepted, that sum would be pay able in the first year but would be increased in the second and subsequent years of the licence by a percentage representing the year-on-year rise in the retail prices index for the November preceding the year in question.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Stockton for drawing this problem to my attention and giving me details. I commend these amendments to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Clause 16 [Procedure to be followed by Commission in connection with consideration of applications for licences]:
9.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 14, line 34, leave out from ("that") to ("he") in line 35.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment it will be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 153, 190, 249 and 272.
These amendments are concerned with the requirement on the ITC and Radio Authority not to consider awarding a licence to an applicant unless it appears to them that the applicant can maintain the service throughout the licence period. In meeting this requirement the authorities are obliged to have regard to the information supplied by the applicant. These amendments delete this proviso. We consider that the existing provision could limit the authorities' freedom of action where information which is not supplied by the applicant led them to believe that he would not be able to maintain the service.
This change in no way prevents the regulatory bodies taking fully into account all the information which is supplied by applicants in considering their applications, but it enabled the ITC or Radio Authority to look at any further information, whether or not supplied by the applicant, in determining whether he would be able to maintain the service for the whole of the licence period. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Halsbury The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 15, line 33, at end insert:
("() that religious programmes maintain the centrality of the Christian faith, while still allowing opportunities for the views of other religious groups to be expressed;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Committee I moved an amendment requiring the ITC and the Independent Broadcasting Authority to maintain the immemorial tradition of Christianity in this country. In his comments on the wording of my amendment the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, took issue with some of my drafting and, with implied approval, quoted the draft guidelines on religious broadcasting composed by a working party of the IBA and the shadow ITC.
I therefore decided to take those draft guidelines as a model for my present amendment since we are, I thought, unlikely to disagree on the wording which the noble Earl had quoted in an approving way. I have in fact made only one alteration to the wording. For purely grammatical reasons I have replaced a pronoun with the subject to which it refers; namely, religious programmes.
The issue is therefore whether or not it should appear on the face of the Bill either as the amendment I now move or as an instruction to the future ITC to incorporate its substance in the guidelines which it must authorise and publish as required by the Bill.
Through the courtesy of the noble Earl I had a conference with him and his advisers at which I was accompanied by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing and a representative of other Members of your Lordships' House, together with Lady Watherston, the chairman of the National Council for Christian Standards in Society, and her consultant, Mr. Littler. My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing and I have been working together as close colleagues for a long time past on this matter.
I accept the noble Earl's argument that one should not give a statutory body responsibility for a particular action and then interfere with it in carrying out that responsibility. Therefore, my alternative proposal of incorporating the words quoted by the noble Earl as an instruction in the Bill is not for discussion this evening. The amendment in its final form is as it is printed on the Marshalled List.
My main reason for hammering away at putting it on the face of the Bill is that I am alarmed by the moral degeneracy of our increasingly secular society. I find secularist quislings at every level of government and administration undermining the only factor which can withstand the onslaught on our morals, and that is religion. Some secularists, I admit, are men of high character. I know them in this House. I am friends

245
with them and admire them, but they are in fact living at second hand off the morals indoctrinated in them long years ago. I doubt whether they will be able to pass them on to their grandchildren. Therefore, I see a regression to the deplorable morals of the Roman Empire through which Christianity swept like a forest fire until it became the empire's official religion within a very few centuries of our era.
One reason for its acceptance was man's self-disgust with man's own corruption. Look at the achievements of the Christian religion. Has any other ethical religion abolished slavery? Has any other ethical religion emancipated women, children, the sick and the very old? Why does it have to be Mother Teresa who dedicates herself to the sick and the poor of Calcutta? Why cannot those who worship according to the doctrines of the Hindu religion or Islam do it for themselves? It is true that Christianity has taken us a long time and that we have made many mistakes on the way. It is imperfect and the work is not finished, but it will not be finished by uninspired secularism.
The noble Earl had technical reasons for not wanting the amendment on the face of the Bill. As they are technical I do not intend to argue them on the Floor of your Lordships' House this evening. I would be equally reluctant to divide the House at this late hour provided that I can get certain assurances from him as to the composition of the working party on the guidelines when the Bill vests. I remind your Lordships that the IBA goes out of existence when the Bill vests and the ITC and the broadcasting authority come into being.
In particular, CRAC (the Central Religious Advisory Committee) loses the statutory status conferred on it by the IBA and reverts to being a domestic advisory committee of the BBC. Its composition as being representative has been questioned from time to time but it has not been fully argued. I therefore hope that the noble Earl will be able to give me two assurances: firstly, that the shadow ITC and broadcasting authority have, with respect to religious broadcasting guidelines, undertaken to consult representative bodies of others interested in religious broadcasting and not only what is left of CRAC.
Such other bodies include the evangelical community represented in the other place by the right honourable Member for Selby, Mr. Michael Alison, and the Christian Choice in Broadcasting group, together with the conservative—with a small "c"—traditionalists represented in this House by the noble Lords who have put their names to this amendment, and the National Council for Christian Standards in Society. On that basis all those arguing about religion in broadcasting and putting forward arguments that have been voiced many times in your Lordships' House and another place will be satisfied that they have been heard. As a result, when the guidelines are finally published, they will represent the wishes of the Christian community as a whole.
Those were the undertakings that I hoped to obtain from the noble Earl. As I say, I do not want to divide the House. That was the speech that I drafted over the weekend and which I was hoping to deliver until noon today when there took place a most surprising denouement. Representatives of the National Council for Christian Standards in Society conferred yesterday with the IBA, the shadow ITC and the shadow Radio Authority. The meeting was a hostile one. They were told that CRAC was in and everyone else was out. As regards consultancy, they were told that those were the guidelines, but they are not such as the noble Earl referred to during the previous debate in this House.
Therefore, I find this very difficult. Unless the noble Earl and these ghostly bodies, such as the shadow ITC and the shadow broadcasting authority, get their act together and decide the guidelines and what authority lies behind them, I do not believe that I have the basis for a deal, as it were, with the noble Earl in which he will give me the assurances that I seek. Being a man of honour, if he gave me his word I know that he would comply with it. Is he in a position to do so? I do not know.
Therefore, I must reserve my position until Third Reading. The rules of Third Reading are basically that the points taken at that stage should be the passing of a little sandpaper over drafting points on the one hand, or allowing the Government to comply with undertakings that they have given at earlier stages on the other. It is not to be used for introducing material that has already been settled at earlier stages of the Bill. But this amendment, together with any assurances the noble Earl can give me, is not a matter which has been settled definitively at any stage of the Bill prior to Third Reading. I must therefore reserve my position for Third Reading to decide what is best in the light of what transpires between us this evening. I beg to move.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am a loyal but rather bewildered supporter of the noble Earl. It is not clear to me whether he has done a deal, whether someone has defaulted on a deal or whether he has done a potential deal. Whatever deal he has done, I am sure that it has been arranged for the highest possible motives. My loyalty might turn out to be that of the men of the Duke of York who were marched up to the top of the hill and then down again but remained loyal to the end. I am loyal to him but I hope that he will be very firm, if not now then at Third Reading.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I support the noble Earl in what he has said. I, like him, attended the debate in Committee. We took a rather uncertain vote at a quarter to midnight. I am glad that on this occasion we have done slightly better and brought the debate on two hours earlier. It is a matter of great importance. We thought originally of putting the words "mainly Christian" in the amendment but it was felt that that was perhaps provocative in some way. I would not myself find it so but we were advised that it was. We have progressively backed down. This formula, which was taken straight out of what the Minister himself said, has the apparent approval of the ITC's religious direction.

247
What is disturbing is that it seems from the drafts we have seen of the ITC code that the ITC and the Radio Authority have already made up their minds. They have decided to use CRAC. I am not against CRAC but it is unwise to give one body control over religious broadcasting across the whole spectrum—public service, independent, satellite broadcasting and goodness knows what else.
I was speaking to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, earlier today. In his report in 1984—a very full report of 500 pages—he made the strong recommendation that as more and more channels came forward it was unwise that all of them should be controlled by one body, whatever its merits. From the discussions reported to me it appears that the Independent Radio Authority—I must not use the term "IRA"—said that it had made up its mind so there was no point in discussing it.
I hope that if we cannot write this provision into the Bill we can have an assurance that, before these draft codes become temporary tablets of stone, there will be an or opportunity for those of a different form of the Christian faith—Evangelicals and the more traditional conservative element of which I am a member and supporter—to be at least consulted to see whether the draft code as outlined by the two organisations is acceptable to the whole spectrum of Christian thought.
I hope that my noble friend will be able to reassure the House so that we can have it firmly in Hansard that there should be a freedom—he underlined that in his earlier remarks—for the separate organisations to have separate advisers. There is no reason why the whole thing should be dominated by, whatever its merits, the Central Religious Advisory Committee.
I should like to put on record that I wrote to George Russell on this matter and that in his reply to me he said:
"Proselytising has not been acceptable. Nor was it in the days of Lord Reith".
I am afraid that there has been a good deal of distortion there. Lord Reith was a great and ardent Christian. In his day he was known as the "powerful man from the manse". He dominated the BBC in those days with the power of his personality. What has been said is not correct. I say that because I have the words here with me. Incidentally, they were also contained in the original CRAC manifesto, which was drawn up in 1948. Its task was:
"To provide opportunities for that challenge to personal faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord which is the heart of conversion".
That represents a very different outlook to the present terms of reference to CRAC.
I hope that that aspect will be looked at and that we shall have a more tolerant and firm belief in the Christian faith, which, after all, is the faith of most people in this country—I believe that the figure is 70 per cent. It is the established Church of this country, to which we all bow, and our Sovereign is Defender of the Faith. The faith is not any other faith. It is not a multifaith; it is Christianity. I hope that it will be possible to accept this amendment, but if it is not
248
possible to do so then I hope that this will be written very firmly in the code of practice now being drawn up by the ITC and the Radio Authority.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, this amendment highlights the argument between religious and Christian broadcasting, and it is not new. A BBC broadcasting policy statement in 1935 asserted that,
"while nothing could be less effective than a religious lowest common denominator, it has been found possible to disseminate a spiritual highest common factor from which the listener can profit and of which no church need be ashamed".
However, what is new is the liberal/multifaith stance taken by those currently in charge of religious broadcasting at the IBA and CRAC. That is supported by an article in The Times of 18th July which indicated that the original Christian broadcasting intention had been changed to,
"the Reithian principle that there should be a fair balance, carefully kept and monitored, representing religious bodies throughout the world".
Is that not multifaith theology rather than a Reithian principle? I do not wish to stifle in any way expression of other religions, but surely we must allow freedom of expression for separate religions.
I too am unhappy to hear that the ITC has decided to take advice from CRAC. I trust that it will not take advice from this group and its own religious advisers alone. I agree with the head of youth programming at the BBC who, at the Edinburgh Television Festival, urged that CRAC be abolished in the interests of good religious broadcasting.
At the same festival, another voice of dissent came from the Reverend Gavin Reid, who is a former member of CRAC and a member of the General Synod. He said:
"The broadcasting authorities bring us together twice a year and wine us and dine us in style. They never allow us to discuss any programme in advance … I personally feel that there has been a degree of elitism in religious broadcasting under our present system and that this needs to stop".
As I mentioned in Committee, I strongly object to the BBC producers' guidelines for religion containing the words:
"Guests invited to take part in religious programmes … may not use the opportunity to evangelise".
So there we have it. Presenters, and guests likewise, are not allowed to evangelise. It sounds to me like a ban or censorship targeted at Christians who take the Gospel seriously.
Clearly, I do not want to interfere with CRAC's BBC public service religious broadcasting or to misrepresent the motives of those who work for religious programmes. However, I do not want the ITC and the Radio Authority to be prejudiced against Evangelical Christians while allowing liberal multifaith people to broadcast. I support the amendment because I believe that the centrality of the Christian faith is a Reithian principle which is already in danger of being compromised.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I too am happy to support the amendment. I became treasurer, and subsequently patron, of the Christian Broadcasting

249
Council in 1983. In September 1989 it was my privilege and pleasure to present the CBC film awards, among which there was one to Captain Brown of the Salvation Army for his film "To Poland With Love". In his speech of thanks the captain announced that on the same day the IBA head of religious broadcasting had banned the film because it,
"promoted the work of the Salvation Army".
That should not be confused with the IBA ban on the 1987 evangelical Salvation Army film after it was advertised in the TV Times, which was mentioned on Second Reading by my noble friend Lord Halsbury.
Fortunately, "To Poland With Love" has now been successfully broadcast by Vision Broadcasting on cable television network, like other films banned by the IBA religious broadcasting department because they were evangelising or proselytising. Surely in a democracy it cannot be acceptable for certain people to have a monopoly control over the spread of ideas.
The Cable Authority operates under the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 and CRAC is not involved. The man who regulates religious broadcasting is the authority programme controller, a certain Mr. Tony Currie, who happens to be an atheist. The authority seems to have no problems regulating religious broadcasting or advertising.
Christians must surely be allowed to determine their own programming without editorial censorship. The public can then choose what it wants. If it wants a clear expression of or insight into positive Christianity, that should be available; but if it wants establishment religious programming it should still be able to obtain that from public service BBC broadcasting.
In the face of the widespread moral decay that we see around us today, the break-up of family life and the escalating crime rate, it is my sincere hope that a new generation of Christians will have the freedom to preach the Gospel in broadcasting as in every other sphere of public life.
On 10th February 1988 the then Home Secretary addressed the General Synod of the Church of England and challenged it to a,
"strong reassertion of underlying Christian values".
So I applaud strongly those members of the Christian public who are increasingly expressing the Gospel with use of video, compact discs and other media. If the work of organisations like the Blackburn Diocesan TV and the United Christian Broadcasters on the Isle of Man, of which some of your Lordships may have heard, is broadcast it may improve matters. It can hardly make matters worse.
If we want Christianity to become a living, expanding faith in Britain today; if we want to uphold Christian morals against the overwhelming power of evil in our society of which the Strangeways riot is a fitting symbol, we have to give Christians the freedom to preach their message. That is why I support the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, when I read the amendment, I hoped that it meant that the
250
noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and his friends, as they probed into the ways of the IBA—CRAC and all—had discovered a rather better set-up than they thought. The amendment is word for word, as the noble Earl told us, what the IBA wrote and it was written on the basis of the three guidelines which CRAC put to the Annan Committee in 1977. I remind your Lordships that the first of those three guidelines was to reflect the worship, thought and action of the principal religious traditions represented in Britain, recognising that these traditions are mainly, though not exclusively, Christian. The second was to seek to present to viewers and listeners those beliefs, ideas, issues and experiences in the contemporary world which are evidently related to a religious interpretation or dimension of life. The third was to seek also to meet the religious interests, concerns and needs of those on the fringe of or outside the organised life of the churches.
I determined that I would sit and listen with the greatest care to what was put by the noble Earl and his noble friends. I heard first a moving defence of Christianity with which I identified wholeheartedly. I believe in a strong assertion of the Christian faith and of Christian living.
Alas, the debate has turned into another attack on fellow Christians which I regret very much. It has apparently not listened to a whole series of factual answers which have been given as regards CRAC but repeated some of the attacks on religious broadcasters who serve us in my view extremely well. An assertion has been made again, even though it has been answered before, that evangelicals need to be represented and are not presented on CRAC. Probably one-third of the membership of CRAC would call themselves evangelical Christians. The noble Lord shakes his head; alas, he does not respect their faith and position.
CRAC includes members of the Jewish, Moslem and Hindu faiths. I thought that the charge about censorship had been dropped. It was made in Committee and on Second Reading. The noble Earl himself said that he had a better understanding of the way in which CRAC works And that it never censors programmes before they happen. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, wants to stand for Lord Reith's view of religious broadcasting and to carry that torch. I have much sympathy with that wish. The 1977 guidelines were a recognition of a situation in our country which had changed from Lord Reith's day. I do not believe that we can put the clock back, but we can and do argue for a thoughtful, vigorous exposition of Christian belief and Christian living, together with giving a proper place for other faiths.
The amendment, therefore, which uses the words of the IBA based on the three principles of CRAC, is introducing nothing new. That is what CRAC tries to ensure happens and I believe that it does happen. What is new is that these words should appear on the face of the Bill or as an instruction. We need to understand the case for putting them on the face of the Bill.

251
If I understand aright, the purpose is to put up a signal or some signals. It might be one of three or a mixture of the three. First, a signal to the nation that Parliament wants to see the Christian faith central in religious broadcasting. If that is the purpose, I would happily vote for the amendment, for it is what I personally am committed to and what I am committed to as chairman of CRAC. They have borrowed our words and that is precisely where we stand. Secondly, will the amendment be seen to put up a signal to people of other faiths? We need to tread sensitively here lest the signals say to them that we do not want them to have a prominent place in broadcasting.
In one breath we encourage people of other faiths to enter fully into the life of this country, not to stay in a ghetto-like corner. It would contradict all that if, with our next breath, we caused them to perceive a signal that we do not want to give them more than a marginal place in television and radio. However, I do not want them to hear this again as a signal of an attack on current religious broadcasting.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark said in Committee:
"We have a common conviction with people of other faiths about our humanity and our citizenship and we are able to welcome this without denying our faith".
I am happy about the signal if it affirms our wish for the Christian faith to be strongly affirmed provided we intend to give proper space and prominence to other faiths.
Thirdly, in the light of the debates we have had on Second Reading and in Committee and the speeches we have heard this evening I am bound to ask whether the signal this amendment is putting up is really one of disapproval of religious broadcasting as it stands and of the arrangements that are made as regards advice. If this amendment were put to the vote, I should be obliged to abstain because of the way it has been presented. I could not vote against words that I profoundly believe in. However, if the intention of the measure puts up a signal I do not agree with, I should be bound to abstain from voting.
I do not want these words to be heard as an attack on current religious broadcasting. That broadcasting is not perfect but it is an honest and sensitive attempt to share the faith. I hope I can share with the Committee how this concept works out in the planning and scheduling of programmes. Last month, as chairman of CRAC, I spent an afternoon with the producers of the "Everyman" series of BBC television. In a little while I shall do the same with the producers of "The Heart of the Matter". Part of my reason for asking for the meeting was to encourage the producers to give time to examining where deep Christian motivation comes from and what its effect is in people's lives. I wished to encourage them not to be coy about that. One question I asked to which they replied with real seriousness was whether they thought exploring orthodox Christian belief might be interesting. We had a lively and, I hope, creative discussion. I believe those Members of the Committee
252
who have spoken so far would have identified very strongly with the kind of points that I put to the producers.
Towards the end of the discussion the producers told me that the "Everyman" series has an audience of 3.5 million and that that figure is higher than that for all the "televangelists" in the United States put together. That illustrates what some of us mean when we talk in this debate about broad casting or narrow casting when church people may have the freedom to say whatever they like when they are watched by other church people and a few of their friends.
If, as the Bill requires, a sufficient amount of time is given to religious programmes on Channels 3 and 5, the question arises whether religious programme times will be scheduled when there is a large viewing audience. The controllers of television channels will understandably insist that religious programmes should be of a quality and an interest which will not lose them their audiences which they have worked hard to win. Religious people do not have a right to feel they own some slots with which they can do as they desire.
Years ago I recall criticising a producer of a programme I had appeared on for what I considered to be the shallowness of the debate which the format of his religious programme produced. His reply was, "You should see my ratings". I thought that that too was a shallow reply. However, now I realise that ratings are life and death to a channel. That will be even more the case in the broadcasting era which this Bill ushers in. If series such as the "Everyman" series or "The Heart of the Matter" became church magazine programmes they would almost certainly be rescheduled to a time when many fewer viewers were watching such as the time when "Visions" is broadcast at 12 o'clock on a Sunday. Those programmes would not gain the audience figures that their producers have worked so hard for were they to be broadcast late on a Sunday evening. That would not be a conspiracy of some supposedly dominant religious group setting out —I regret that those words have been used again—to ban or censor other traditions. It would be the controllers of the channel concerned insisting that religious programmes engaged the interest of a good proportion of those who watch their channel. As religious bodies, we do not own slots on channels. The challenge to us is to begin where viewers and listeners are, not where we might hope them to be.
I shall seize the opportunity to turn to another matter which has received little attention in the debates on the Bill; namely, religious advertising. There was no debate at all in another place. We had a short debate in this House when I put down some probing amendments. The landscape of religious broadcasting will change sharply in that respect. We have all assumed that religious broadcasting would reflect the worship, thought and action of the principal religious traditions represented in Britain.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate used the word "traditions" in the plural. There is only one tradition in this country and that is in the singular. It is the Christian religion. It is agreed that

253
Jews are the ancestors of the Christian religion, but it is the same tradition. There are no outstanding traditions in the plural.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I have made my position clear. I do not believe that that is the situation. There are other religious traditions which are part of this country. We want to encourage the followers of those traditions to feel that they are fully citizens of this country. I hope that we shall stand by that position.
Religious advertising will not reflect the position about the Christian tradition which we have all assumed that it would reflect—roughly speaking, the membership of churches and people at worship. I made the point in Committee that it will not be main-line churches which will pay for religious advertising. They are stretched to the limit to provide a ministry all over the country. It is much more likely to be fringe groups of all faiths—not just Christian—which happen to have some supporters with the wealth to be able to buy religious advertising.
When the subject is discussed, everyone says that they hope there will be restrictions to prevent some religious bodies from advertising. The difficulties to be surmounted in order to provide such restrictions may be greater than your Lordships think. I hope that there will be some careful debate before that new animal is set free.
254
There are those who argue that religious advertising should not be allowed at all. Some of your Lordships will have seen Metropolitan Anthony Bloom's letter in yesterday's Times. He asks why it is considered inappropriate for the use of financial strength to be deployed for political advertising, which is forbidden, but appropriate for religious advertising. I am not sure that that question has yet been answered. The Jewish community has expressed strong reservations about allowing religious advertising without some careful restrictions. The noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, the Chief Rabbi, has told me that he regrets that he cannot be in his place this evening because it is the Feast of Succoth or Tabernacles. He has written to me saying that he wishes to support in every way my plea for further careful thought before restrictions on religious advertising are lifted.
I have approached the proposed change about advertising with a good heart, searching for some wise rules which would not ensnare the ITC in litigation if it refused an advertisement. The more I have looked at possible ways of providing clear, litigation-proof fencing, the more difficult it has appeared. I do not believe that it is possible to refuse some religious bodies on religious grounds while accepting advertisements from others. I hope that the Minister and the Minister in another place will take a careful look at the code which the ITC will need to draw up about religious advertising before it takes the brakes off that restriction.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, that, due to a misunderstanding, I was not in my place when he moved the amendment.
There is a great deal of misunderstanding about including a reference to Christian faith in the context of religious broadcasting. I should like to make just a few brief comments in support of the amendment, looking to the future and not to past problems.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool made some very strong points and, if I may say so, made them very fairly. He asked what signal we wanted this amendment to give. I believe the signal is that we seek to improve religious broadcasting within the context of Britain as basically still a Christian country with a Christian sovereign at the head of an established Christian Church. But I say very strongly to the right reverend Prelate that that in no way implies that those of different faiths should be discouraged, let alone prevented, from proclaiming their faith.
Any religious programme is governed by Clause 6(1) (d) which rightly prohibits abusive treatment of any religious views. Indeed, I am much in favour of the closest co-operation with those of other faiths or of no religious faith in the relief of poverty and help for the sick and aged. But such a wholly admirable objective should not in any way water down the affirmation of our own Christian faith. Those who support the amendment seek only the removal of any obstacle which stands in the way of proclaiming that faith kind the good news of the Gospel. Unfortunately, whatever the right reverend Prelate may say, in some circler. there is real concern—I do not know whether or not it is justified—that some of the existing guidelines on religious programmes seem to be at variance with the principles that I have mentioned.
I do not think that any of us believe that the vast majority of those who, like the right reverend Prelate, work so hard in this difficult and sensitive field want to obstruct the proclamation of the Christian Gospel because it might perhaps contain the risk of making a convert and therefore be a little embarrassing or unacceptable to someone else. I believe that it is of real importance to establish the position of the Christian faith in the context of this Bill and that of a basically Christian country so as to remove any misunderstandings that may now exist, looking particularly to the future and not worrying too much about the disagreements that we have had in the past.
What matters is the future of this country. We all want to live happily together. In this country there are many people with different faiths. However, that does not mean that we should not be proud, always ready and strong to proclaim our traditional Christian faith. For those reasons I srongly support the amendment and hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will feel able to accept it.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am activated in this matter by my very great support for the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. There is very good reason for that support. After all, I was
256
Home Secretary at the time of the riots in Liverpool. I saw what the right reverend Prelate and, indeed, the Roman Catholic Archbishop, the most reverend Derek Worlock, did to calm the situation on that occasion. I shall not forget it as long as I live.
That is why I shall always give the utmost support to the sensible and straightforward views that the right reverend Prelate has put forward tonight. He has stated what he believes, and I believe it too. I fully understand the views of my noble friend Lord Caldecote. However, I remain one of those who maintain that we are a Christian country. I am a strong supporter of the Christian religion but at the same time I believe that there are people of other faiths who are also entitled to their feelings. In our society surely that is a reasonable position for everyone to take.
Looking at our situation, we can see what the right reverend Prelate, as the leader of CRAC, has done in the religious broadcasting field. I cannot see any good reason for changing what has happened in that field, when one considers what has been achieved by CRAC.
I do not see any conflict in anything that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has said. I do not believe that we have conflicting views in what we say. I feel that we can all unite to achieve something that is enormously important: to continue in the future with a religious broadcasting system based on much that has been done extremely well in the past.
It is a great tradition in this country that while many believe in one Christian faith we are prepared to be tolerant of others. If we can achieve such tolerance in this country—and that is something that all too few countries can achieve today—that is what we ought to be doing.
10.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I fully understand the desire of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, to make explicit the central role of Christianity in religious programmes to be shown on Channels 3 and 5. I wholly agree that religious programmes on Channels 3 and 5 should maintain the centrality of the Christian faith while allowing opportunities for the views of other religious groups to be expressed, as my noble friend Lord Whitelaw said. I have no doubt that the Independent Television Commission will see that this policy is implemented in practice.
The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, made an impressive speech. He said that he was concerned about the degradation of humanity and lowering of morals and felt that Christianity was the only saviour for that. That is understandable. The noble Earl may well be right. If that is so, that is a matter for the Church. It is not necessarily a matter for Parliament to put in an Act of Parliament.
Much of the debate today has been about CRAC. I felt sorry for the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, its chairman, as first one salvo and then another came towards him. If I may say so, he stood

257
up for himself well and gave as good as he got. I do not propose to enter into that argument other than to say that by my reckoning the score was 30-all.
The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said that the Government were unlikely to disagree with the wording; that the only disagreement might be whether or not the wording should be put on the face of the Bill. The noble Earl is quite right. In both the 1984 and the 1981 Acts and in previous broadcasting legislation going back to the 1950s, Parliament has decided not to qualify the word "religious" where it occurred in statutory requirements. I believe that Parliament was right then and I think that it would be right to do the same now.
This has not prevented religious programmes on both the BBC and ITV from being predominantly Christian in tone and content in the past. I see no reason why the position should change with regard to Channels 3 and 5 in the future.
As the noble Earl rightly explained, the words in his amendment are taken from the IBA's own briefing document for the Committee stage of the Bill. The IBA briefing document clearly envisaged on behalf of the shadow Independent Television Commission that this policy would be carried out under the new regime.
I can repeat this assurance today. The shadow ITC has confirmed that its guidelines, which will be the subject of full consultation before they are finalised, will seek to reflect the words which the noble Earl has contained in his amendment.
I should point out to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that that is not a deal; it is a fact. I know that he was worried about deals that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has done. I can only assure him that I am not aware of any deal. I have never dealt in Christianity before, and I do not propose to start. That is a fact.
A theme which has already arisen is the need to achieve the right balance between the primary legislation and regulatory guidelines. As I have said, there is no question but that the ITC will use its guidelines to give effect to the aims of the amendment: there is a clear understanding to do that. A statutory formula must inevitably be less detailed and it could give rise to undesirable challenges. For instance, some potential future litigant might seek to argue that the noble Earl's formula, if it were included in the Bill, could mean that every religious programme had to give centrality to Christianity and provide outlets for other faiths. That may seem far-fetched but we are dealing with a subject of the greatest importance and sensitivity and I cannot help thinking that it would be better to seek to capture the policy intention—upon which everyone is agreed—in guidelines rather than in the confined space of a short statutory formula.
I hope that I can offer another reassurance to the noble Earl. I can report that the shadow ITC has given an undertaking on consultation about the guidelines relating to religious broadcasting. It has given an undertaking that it will make its draft guidelines available for comment before they are finalised or if
258
they are later substantially revised. The consultation will certainly include organisations such as Christian Choice in Broadcasting and the National Council for Christian Standards in Society, among others, at the same time as CRAC is consulted.
The noble Earl was concerned that CRAC should be the body which the ITC consults. The ITC can take what advice it likes. If it wishes to take the advice of CRAC it is at liberty to do so. The ITC has said that it will continue to consult CRAC while the present ITV contracts are running; in other words until the end of 1992. However, neither it nor the Radio Authority have said that they will not let other religious bodies have the opportunity of commenting on their draft guidelines. Neither have they pre-empted the question of from where they will obtain their advice after 1993.
The shadow Radio Authority has now produced an early draft of its religious programming code and it is giving the three organisations that I have mentioned, among others, the opportunity to comment. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said that there was an acrimonious meeting and that they appeared not to get very far. The noble Earl has an advantage over me because I was not at the meeting. I understand that at the meeting yesterday only the draft Radio Authority programme guidelines were available and that they were only an early draft. The ITC draft guidelines have not yet been produced. I understand that any group which wishes to see copies of the draft programme codes for radio or, when ready, television may do so and comment upon them if they wish.
I hope that the noble Earl will consider that the Government have gone a long way to meet the concerns which have been voiced about religion as regards the Bill. We have amended the Bill in four separate ways in an attempt to strike the right balance between freedom and responsibility in religious broadcasting. I hope that the undertaking which I have confirmed today will further reassure the noble Earl and your Lordships about the future. This is a Bill which opens up unprecedented opportunities for responsible broadcasting by Christians and other religious groups in this country. In the light of what I have said I hope the noble Earl will feel content not to press his amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down perhaps I may be permitted to say that the uncharacteristic silence from these Benches does not mean that we are not deeply involved in the argument. We strongly support the position taken by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. When looking around the world at the present time one sees that one of the most explosive forces for evil as well as for good is religion in all its forms. Surely there could not be a moment when it would be more important that we should learn about and not merely tolerate other religions.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, listening to the debate to some extent I have been reminded of a line of T. S. Eliot:
"Words … slip, slide, perish, Decay with imprecision, will not stay in place".

259
I have been much concerned with asking myself from time to time whether we are using the words we are talking about, about the same things and meaning the same things. I have never wished to launch any attack upon CRAC or the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. I have never wished to attribute unworthy motives to anyone.
I was hoping to put—and perhaps this would have been of assistance to the noble Earl, Lord Longford —something like a clarion call on the face of the Bill. However, the Minister has convinced me that it would be inadvisable to press for that and that I should settle for a bleeper in the guidelines. I am prepared to do so.
I was greatly disturbed by the fact that yesterday's meeting seemed to have gone back entirely on a meeting which I had had with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, last week and which presented us with an entirely different formula from that which he gave us in Committee. However, it seems to me that this evening he has explained the discrepancy between what happened between us last week and what happened yesterday. Under those circumstances, knowing that he is a man of his word and that he will implement what he promises, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may ask him whether that means that he will move no amendment at all on Third Reading. I was attracted by the idea that he would move an amendment at that stage.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I believe now that it will be unnecessary to do so but perhaps I may reserve my position until I have read in Hansard exactly what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has promised to do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Award of licence to person submitting highest cash bid]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 16, line 38, leave out ("exceptional") and insert ("particular").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 56, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 57 to 61. This amendment returns us to the question of Channel 3 licences and the highest cash bidder. There is a substitution of words. Clause 17(4) defines the exceptional circumstances in which a licence may go to an applicant who has not submitted the highest cash bid. However, in ordinary or unexceptional circumstances Clause 17(1) states that the licence should go to the applicant who has submitted the highest bid.
While we welcome the compromise reached to address the anxieties of the industry about quality, the word "exceptional" is too heavily weighted to ensure that money has primacy over quality. The amendment replaces "exceptional" with "particular" to assert that quality can be considered as the key determinant of licence allocation in circumstances that are less than
260
exceptional or unusual. That would not affect the thrust of Clause 17 that licences normally automatically go to the highest bidder. I beg to move.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I support what the noble Baroness said. This is quite an important and significant amendment. Perhaps I may say to your Lordships that it is also quite an ingenious amendment. It goes to the heart of the question of the balance of quality and price. At present the Government have felt able to go only as far as saying that in exceptional circumstances quality can take primacy over price. We suggest that if the word "particular" is substituted, that would enable the ITC on a more general plane to give quality primacy over price.
Earlier this year Mr. Mellor, the Minister responsible in the Commons, said that it was the Government's intention to amend Clause 17 to override the highest financial bid in order to award the licence to an applicant offering a significantly higher quality of programming. Our amendment goes very close to the intent of the words of the Minister at that time. If the Government were disposed to accept this change in wording it would help to indicate that they consider the quality of the output of the new programme contractors to be certainly as important a factor as the price they were ready to bid for the contract.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Bill provides for Channel 3 and Channel 5 licences among others to be awarded by the process of competitive tender. We believe that that is the fairest and most transparent way of allocating licences for commercial television. But we have always accepted that licences for Channels 3 and 5 should be awarded not just on the basis of the money bid in the tender but also, and most importantly, on the basis of the quality of service being offered. Hence the requirement that applicants for these licenses should first pass a substantial quality threshold before they are eligible to bid.
The quality threshold is designed to ensure that only those applicants capable of providing a high quality service are eligible to bid for a licence. Thereafter there is no need to make further fine distinctions on the relative quality of the applicant's proposals. The successful applicants should be, to use an expression used earlier, on a level playing field for bidding purposes and, in the normal course of events, the highest bidder should win. Nevertheless, we have accepted that there may be exceptional circumstances, which could include circumstances where the quality of programming offered by one applicant was exceptionally higher than the applicant offering the highest cash bid, when it would be justifiable for the ITC to award the licence to the lower bidder. We therefore included the provisions in Clause 17(3) and (4) for the ITC, in exceptional circumstances, to accept a lower bid.
These amendments—described as ingenious by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson—would enable the ITC in "particular" circumstances to disregard the highest bidder. As there is no full definition of what might be regarded as particular circumstances, one could easily

261
imagine that the ITC could award the licence to a lower bidder in any circumstances provided that it could find some element of the favoured bid which it could particularise. I do not believe that it is necessary or desirable for the ITC to have that discretion. It is one thing for the ITC to judge whether applicants cross the quality threshold, but quite another for it to make fine judgments about relative quality differences, which might be quite small, in applicants' proposals. That would not differ significantly from the system which has operated hitherto and which has been widely criticised as being arbitrary and opaque.
Amendment No. 60 would give the ITC power to award the licence to a lower bidder in particular circumstances where the quality of the applicant's bid was significantly higher than that of the highest bidder. That presupposes that the ITC will be capable of making this level of judgment about the relative quality of different proposals. But I doubt whether any universal definition of quality could be determined. People's taste and interests differ and they are likely therefore to perceive differently the various programme promises which are made by applicants. I believe that it would give the power to the ITC to choose, and that is a very powerful power. It has been criticised in the past and that is what we have tried to move away from.
On the basis that the quality threshold will ensure that only those applicants who are capable of providing a high quality service should ever be eligible to bid, I see no reason why the ITC should need to exercise any further discretion on that awkward question of quality. Exceptional circumstances can be invoked where the quality of one application is head and shoulders above the rest, but thereafter I really think that fine tuning is not appropriate.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am sorry that the Minister has taken that line. Words have different meanings; that is the whole point of language. It is a pity to be stuck with one word, especially in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said in quoting the Minister of State in another place who used the words "significantly higher quality of programming". There is a difference between "significantly" and "substantial" just as there is a difference between "exceptional" and "particular". It is strange that it is thought that the ITC would be in some difficulty and unable to distinguish between these nuances, which are so important. I doubt whether that would be so, but it does not appear that we can take the matter much further tonight so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 57 to 61 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 17, line 28, leave out ("instalments of the amount specified in his cash bid") and insert ("any amounts payable by him by virtue of section 19(1)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 52. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 63 and 64:
Page 17, line 44, after ("shall") insert ("(subject to subsection (14))").
Page 18, line 23, at end insert:
("(14) Subsections (1) to (9) shall not have effect as mentioned in subsection (10) if the Commission decide that it would be desirable to publish a fresh notice under section 15(1) in respect of the grant of the licence; and similarly, where any of the following provisions of this Part provides, in connection with the revocation of a licence, for this section to have effect as if the former holder of the licence had not made an application for it, this section shall not so have effect if the Commission decide that it would be desirable to publish a further notice under this Part in respect of the grant of a further licence to provide the service in question.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 11 and I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 18 [Revocation of licence where holder refuses to begin providing promised service]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 18, line 34, after ("shall") insert ("(subject to section I7(14))").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was also spoken to with Amendment No. 11. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 18, line 43, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 80 to 83, 136, 139 to 141, 145, 166 and 208. These amendments make clear that termination penalties under Clause 18 and 100 are payable whenever a Channel 3 or national radio licence is revoked by the ITC or the Radio Authority. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am pleased to see Amendment No. 83 on the Marshalled List because in Committee we proposed an amendment to limit the time for which a Channel 3 licence holder could provide an adjacent service to a maximum of 18 months. At the time the Minister replied that the provisions of Clause 41(8) were only intended to be temporary and that he would bring forward an amendment on Report to clarify the position. He has done that, for which we are grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 19, line 5, leave out ("section 41,") and insert ("any other provision of this Part,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I offer your Lordships an apology. I spoke to the wrong amendment. I confused the amendments. In fact, it is these amendments which refer to the termination penalties under Clauses 18 and 100. The previous amendments refer to the fact that the ITC may invite another licensee to extend his existing service to a certain area and may vary his licence conditions accordingly. I apologise for confusing your Lordships. Despite that, I hope that your Lordships will approve Amendment No. 67. I refer also to Amendment No. 254.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Additional payments to be made in respect of Channel 3 licences]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 68 and 69:
Page 19, leave out lines 23 and 24 and insert:

("(a) in respect of the first complete calendar year falling within the period for which the licence is in force, the amount specified in his cash bid;

(aa) in respect of each subsequent year falling wholly or partly within that period, the amount so specified as increased by the appropriate percentage; and").

Page 20, line 43, at end insert:

("(It) In this Part "the appropriate percentage", in relation to any year ("the relevant year"), means the percentage which corresponds to the percentage increase between—

(a) the retail prices index for the month of November in the year preceding the first complete calendar year falling within the period for which the licence in question is in force; and

(b) the retail prices index for the month of November in the year preceding the relevant year;
and for this purpose "the retail prices index" means the general index of prices (for all items) published by the Central Statistical Office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, both these amendments were taken with Amendment No. 52. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Cla use 20 [Duration and renewal of Channel 3 licences]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 21, line 7, leave out ("but not beyond that date") and insert (`having regard to subsection (9)").

The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 71, 74 to 76,157, 158, 162 to 165, 196, 197, and 200 to 203.
These amendments effectively make two detailed changes to the procedures relating to renewal of licences. There is a requirement that renewal must be made not later than the relevant date, or, if that is not reasonably practicable, then renewal should take place as soon after that date as is reasonably practicable. The relevant date is the latest date on which the ITC would have to begin fresh competitive tender arrangements to be sure of having a new licensee in place at the end of the current licence period. Clearly, if the renewal process were to extend significantly beyond this date, then there would be a danger that, if the renewal process were to fall through, the ITC would not have enough time to award the licence to a new applicant before the new licence period began.
It is made clear that the clauses relating to licence payments apply equally to a renewed licence as to an original licence except in terms of the amount of the payments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 21, line 8, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Earl said: I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 72 and 73:
Page 21, line 36, leave out from second ("the") to first ("the") in line 38 and insert ("first complete calendar year falling within").
Page 21, line 47, leave out ("a cash bid") and insert ("section 19(1) (a)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, both these amendments were taken with Amendment No. 52. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 74 to 76:
Page 22, line 2, leave out ("not formally") and insert ("formally renew his licence not later than the relevant date or, if that is not reasonably practicable, as soon after that date as is reasonably practicable; and they shall not so").
Page 22, line 13, after ("holder") insert (", and subject to any determination made under subsection (7) (b) above;

(aa) (subject to paragraph (a)) that section shall have effect in relation to the period for which the licence has been renewed as it has effect in relation to the period for which a Channel 3 licence is originally in force;").

Page 22, line 17, at end insert:

("(11) In this section "the relevant date", in relation to a Channel 3 licence, means the date which the Commission determine to be that by which they would need to publish a notice under section 15(1) if they were to grant, as from the date on which that licence would expire if not renewed, a fresh licence to provide the Channel 3 service formerly provided under that licence.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, all these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 70. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 21 [Restriction on changes in control over Channel 3 licence holder]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 22, line 25, at end insert ("and the body to which a Channel 3 licence has been awarded or transferred").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to subject any potential takeover of a Channel 3 licence holder during the moratorium to the approval of the licence holder. The Bill currently prevents any change of ownership of a Channel 3 company during the moratorium period if the ITC has not previously given its approval. This amendment additionally requires the licence holder's approval to be sought before any takeover or change in ownership can occur. That will effectively prevent attempts at hostile takeovers during the moratorium.
During the period leading up to and immediately after the start of broadcasting in 1993, the programme makers and senior management should not be distracted by the threat of a hostile takeover of their company. Even during the period of the moratorium potential buyers of Channel 3 companies may make unwelcome and distracting attempts at takeovers. If, in addition to the ITC's approval, the licence holder is required to approve any change in ownership, then any attempt at a hostile takeover would prove pointless. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, Amendment No. 77 seeks to ensure that the body to which a Channel 3 licence has been awarded or transferred, as well as the Independent Television Commission, is content with changes in its licence during the moratorium period, before such a change can be approved. This is unnecessary. It is designed, as the noble Baroness fairly said, to prevent a hostile takeover which the company wished to resist. But the approval of the company, in this context, means the approval of its shareholders; and if the majority of those were opposed to a hostile takeover, they would presumably not sell their shares. If they did, they would presumably be content with the prospect of a takeover.
Amendment No. 78 seeks to extend the moratorium period to the end of the second anniversary of the licence coming into force. The purpose of the moratorium period is to give licensees an opportunity to concentrate on their licence obligations without the potential distractions of takeovers. After one year of broadcasting, the companies need no further protection from the prospect of takeover, which is after all an important market discipline.
I accept that there are those within the industry who would find a longer moratorium very agreeable. But one has to balance that with commercial reality. In our view, it would be wrong to insulate licensees unduly from market forces. A one-year moratorium period will in fact give at least a two-year period of stability since it will run, for Channel 3 licensees, from the award of the licence—probably early in 1992—to the end of 1993. It is worth noting that the chairman designate of the Independent Television Commission is content with a one-year moratorium. After the moratorium ends, there will certainly not be a free-for-all for takeovers. Clause 5(4) and (6) continue to give the Independent Television Commission a locus regarding any change in control of licensees. This is bound to have a moderating effect on any takeovers after the moratorium period.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, it is late. I should like an opportunity to read what the Minister has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 22, line 39, leave out ("first") and insert ("second").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment extends the length of the moratorium period by one year from the date of the award to two years after the start of broadcasting. As we all remember, at Second Reading a great many speeches were made in favour of a moratorium. But the matter rested there. In Committee, the Government came back with a period of one-year's moratorium up to the award of the licences and then a one-year period after the start of broadcasting. It is only fair to say that during the debate in Committee everyone who spoke, apart from the Minister, was anxious that the moratorium should be extended to two years after the start of broadcasting.
Although some reference was made to the views of the chairman designate of the ITC, there has been no public statement or anything on record that he is against this extension. I shall not say much more because we know the position quite well. We feel that there would be far greater satisfaction not only on these Benches but around the House if there were a longer moratorium period. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to say that the chairman designate of the ITC has not said that he is against these proposals. In fact, I said that he was content with the one-year moratorium. Obviously many people will think that a longer moratorium would be desirable. No doubt the noble Baroness will recall that originally the Government thought it would be inappropriate to have such a moratorium and there were also those who wanted quite long moratoria. We went some way in order to meet those concerns which had the approval of the chairman designate.
I should tell the noble Baroness that we feel that a one-year moratorium is appropriate. As I said, it gives a two-year period of stability. After that time, it is reasonable to suppose that companies should be subject to market forces, which are not always bad; indeed, on the whole, they are a good discipline. That is why we believe that a one-year moratorium is the best option.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I do not agree with the Minister, but it is quite clear that I shall not get very much further in the matter. In the circumstances I shall not take up any more of the time of the House and, accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 23, line 15, after ("shall") insert ("(subject to section 17(14))").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 11. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 80, 81, 82 and 83:
Page 23, line 17, leave out ("to (8)") and insert ("and (7)").
Page 23, line 18, leave out ("and the revocation of that licence").
Page 23, line 19, leave out (", and the revocation of a licence,").
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
("Temporary provision of regional Channel 3 service for additional area

—(1) Where it appears to the Commission—

(a) that (whether as a result of the revocation of an existing regional Channel 3 licence or for any other reason) there will be, in the case of a particular area determined under section 14(2), a temporary lack of any regional Channel 3 service licensed to be provided for that area, but

(b) that it would be reasonably practicable for the holder of a licence to provide a regional Channel 3 service for any other such area to provide his licensed service for the area referred to in paragraph (a) as well,

267
the Commission may invite the holder of that licence temporarily to provide his licensed service for that additional area.

(2) If the holder of that licence agrees so to provide his licensed service, the Commission shall authorise the provision of that service for the additional area in question, during such period as they may determine, by means of a variation of the licence to that effect.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 84:
Before Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Meaning of "Licensed Services"
For the purposes of sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 of this Act a licensed service shall include a teletext service within the meaning of section 48(2) of this Act, and programmes shall include pages of text shown as part of that teletext service.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is similar to one which I moved in Committee. At that time my noble friend Lord Ullswater undertook to look at the matter and come forward with alternative amendments. As this amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 93 and 239, I shall move it formally but I intend to withdraw it. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for moving this amendment which, as he said, has been grouped with Amendments Nos. 93 and 239.
268
The amendments tabled in my name are intended to meet the points which he made in Committee; namely, that the consumer protection requirements in Clauses 6 to 12 of the Bill should be applied to the designated teletext service which is authorised in Clause 48(2) of the Bill.
I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing the matter to our attention. I believe that the amendments I have put forward address the matter more appropriately than his amendment. If my noble friend feels able to withdraw the amendment, I hope that he will accept my amendments.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the work he has put into the matter. I am delighted to accept the alternatives. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at six minutes before eleven o'clock.