Lords Sitting of 30 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 Manchester.

Reading Standards in Schools
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the statement by the Secretary of State for Education and Science of 6th September 1990, what is their assessment of reading standards among seven year-olds at present in this country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Government announced in July a programme of action to obtain information about reading standards nationally. The Government commissioned the School Examinations and Assessment Council to survey existing evidence on reading standards held by local education authorities and invited Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools to focus on the teaching of reading in their inspections of primary schools in the autumn of 1990. It would not be useful to anticipate the outcome of that programme of work.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am glad that the Secretary of State is doing something positive. However, will the Government dissociate themselves from the report Sponsored Reading Failure by Martin Taylor which has been so strongly condemned in the TES by Professor Cox, Chairman of the National Curriculum Working Group, who described it as:
"a farrago of wild emotional outbursts, confused arguments and extravagant rhetoric"?
Is the Minister aware what harm unsupported allegations against teachers such as appear in that report could do to teacher morale?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Turner report revealed to the nation, and in particular to parents, the fact that we do not have that important data. The introduction of the national curriculum and a system of testing and assessment will remove the reasons for such speculative reports since we shall know what is going on in our schools.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that since Professor Cox was chairman of a so-called working group which recommended the elimination of the study of grammar and spelling from the teaching of English, his views on reading are not to be taken all that seriously?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall not be drawn into making personal comments either about Mr. Turner or about Professor Cox. I can say that concern has been highlighted about the standards of reading in our schools. The more objective the survey and the sooner we all know the standards of reading that are being achieved in our schools, the better. As I said,
1770
when the new system is in place, we shall know very much more and that system will not give rise to this type of speculation.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Minister has admitted that there is a great deal of public anxiety about reading standards in schools. In the light of that, and of the new commitment to monitor standards, can the Minister say why the Government abandoned the Assessment of Performance Unit and its work in 1988 and in doing so gave up monitoring national reading standards?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we are not in a position to say that there is anxiety about standards until we know what those standards are. There is considerable anxiety that we do not know what those standards are. Some people have an intuitive feeling that something is wrong and therefore we need the survey to tell us whether that is the case. The work of the Assessment of Performance Unit has been overtaken by and subsumed in the work of the School Examinations and Assessment Council. The expertise of the unit will not be lost in the work of the new council.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that her right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said, first, that he does not know whether teaching standards have fallen; and, secondly, (at col. 1397 of Commons Hansard of 18th October 1990) that if they have fallen it is the result of:
"certain teaching methods introduced by socialist educational practices and philosophies"?
Will the Minister ask her right honourable friend the Secretary of State whether he is aware that the Conservatives have been in power since 1979—which is 11 years—and that every child in school between the ages of 5 and 16 has been educated under the auspices of a Conservative Government? If there has been a fall in standards I should have thought that that was the fault of the other side.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is undoubtedly a very strong feeling that some teaching methods leave a great deal to be desired as regards the teaching of reading to our children. We shall only know the true position regarding the achievements in reading in our schools when we have the results of the survey. It is essential that the objective testing should evaluate methods of teaching. The Government have always taken the view that it should be professionals who determine methods. When we know whether or not those methods are effective, that will be the time to modify teaching methods.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, if the Government wish to encourage higher reading standards among pupils in school and to encourage children to read more, why have the Government presided over a major reduction in spending on school libraries?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not accept that we have presided over a major reduction in spending on school libraries.

Shellfish: Algae Research
2.41 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether investigations have begun into ways of controlling the multiplication of algae in warm spring weather which has made dangerous, at times, the human consumption of crabs and shellfish caught along some stretches of the English and Scottish coastline.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, the Government are carrying out research into the effects of the algae on different species of shellfish and are planning further work to investigate the conditions which trigger its production. The results of that work will strengthen further our arrangements to protect public health from this natural hazard.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her reply, which shows that action is being taken. Is she optimistic that a recurrence can be prevented, so avoiding losses by fishermen resulting from another government ban on the sale of shellfish to the public?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I cannot be optimistic because the causes are the dormant spores of the algae, which are present on the sea bed at all times of the year. In certain areas of the coast water currents carry up the algae into surface waters where, if the temperature and sunlight conditions are conducive, the spores grow and reproduce.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the government research to which she referred comes under the control of her department or whether it is a joint effort between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Health? If it is the latter, can we be assured that the confrontation between the microbiological and the medical will not unduly obstruct the production of some fairly urgent findings in this area? Although not a large number of fishermen are involved, does she agree that it is undoubtedly true that many of them are wholly dependent on shellfish and crab for their livelihoods?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the research programme that is being developed in the light of this year's experience is carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. The European Commission is also considering carrying out various research programmes into this problem. The noble Lord referred to fishermen and loss of income. It was very important that we acted quickly. Had we not done so, and had there been cases of illness, fishermen would have suffered much longer and much more owing to the after-effects of illness among people.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister tell us, if this is a natural phenomenon, how we can control it? Is she aware that the red tide in the Indian Ocean off Cape Town causes a similar problem?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, toxic algae occur all over the world, including North America, Australia and the Far East as well as other parts of Europe.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in this instance the shellfish were eaten in a month in which there was no "r"?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, there is no "r" in mussels.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can my noble friend say what co-operation is being sought from other European countries in view of the fact that plagues of algae have occurred elsewhere in Europe?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, scientists in a number of countries are working on problems associated with these toxic algae. There have been a number of international scientific symposia. Some of the issues involved were examined at recent discussions within the EC on shellfish hygiene and the EC is considering the need for further research.

Car-Boot Sales and Crime
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there is any evidence that car-boot sales encourage crime; and if so, what steps they intend to take.
Lord Reay: My Lords, we are not aware of any evidence that car-boot sales encourage crime.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that rather short reply. Is he aware that petty crime is on the increase and, if so, will the Home Office undertake some research into the problem? Uncontrolled car-boot sales could be a very convenient way to get rid of garden tools, workmen's tools, videos and other such goods which are stolen.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the police are aware that car-boot sales could be used to dispose of stolen property. They will take action if they consider it to be necessary. But we have no evidence that such sales encourage crime and we do not consider that at present there is a case for further research.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of Section 22(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1893? It states:
"Where goods are sold in market overt, according to the usage of the market, the buyer acquires a good title to the goods".
Is he further aware that a sale made in market overt destroys the true owner's title to the goods and that "market overt" was defined in 1971 as being out of doors between sunrise and sunset?
Lord Reay: My Lords, my noble friend draws to my attention some statutes which I had overlooked. I am not entirely sure whether she is in favour or opposed to these sales. However, as I said, we see no reason to suppose that they are linked to crime.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I am not quite sure what a car-boot sale is; but is the noble Lord aware that it is quite clear that it is not market overt, at whatever hour it is held?
Lord Reay: My Lords., the House must be grateful to my noble and learned friend.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether there are any statistics to indicate the amount of thieving from car boots and the amount of stolen booty put into car boots?
Lord Reay: No, my Lords. There are no statistics available on crime committed at car-boot sales or linked to car-boot sales. There must always be a risk of stolen property changing hands at car-boot sales, as, for example, there is in a street market. However, there are occasions when ordinary, law-abiding people want to get rid of unwanted articles and a car-boot sale offers an opportunity to do so which they might otherwise not have.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, will my noble friend look again at this matter because there is a very strong belief that many of the wirelesses that are torn out of motor cars find their outlet at car-boot sales?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am happy to look at the point which my noble friend raises.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that on Thirsk racecourse each Sunday there is a car-boot sale which seems to attract the attendance of more people than a race meeting?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am not aware of how many people normally attend Thirsk races. Certainly car-boot sales can range up to more than 3,000 cars. Probably more commonly they are small sales organised by community groups to raise funds for schools, churches and so forth.

Scottish Office: Representation in Lords
2.50 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they propose to appoint a Minister of State to answer in the House of Lords on Scottish affairs.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have a ministerial team in the Scottish Office which is well able to cover the full range of its responsibilities. Those responsibilities of course include the important duties of representing the Government on Scottish affairs in your Lordships' House.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House accept that the Question is not designed to reflect on the Parliamentary Under-Secretary who will answer for these affairs in this House and whose grandfather answered similarly in 1955? However, is the Minister aware that since January 1957 successive governments have had a Minister of State for Scottish affairs answerable to this House? Does he accept that the transfer of the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson—I am delighted to see the
1774
noble Lord in his place today—to the thankless task of repairing the conflicts within the Conservative Party in Scotland is an untidy way of dealing with the internal troubles of the Conservative Party and at the same time diminishes the status of an important office in this House?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I understand why the noble Lord asked the Question. I am grateful to him for what he has said about my noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. However, the noble Lord was not entirely right in referring to a continuous period of Ministers of State for the Scottish Office in this House. For about five years during the 1960s when the noble Lord's party was in office, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was a distinguished Parliamentary Secretary for the Scottish Office. He became a Minister of State in 1969.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House has not answered part of my noble friend's Question. How does he justify depriving this House of a good Minister of State merely for the purpose of seeking to resolve the dire political problems of the Conservative Party in Scotland?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is important to ensure that the Government are well represented in your Lordships' House. I am the first to say that we were very well represented by my noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden. We continue to be well represented by his successor, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in whom I have complete confidence.
Perhaps I may make this point to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. Ministers in Scotland have been putting forward a wide range of reforms on such important subjects as education, health and housing. I think I am right in saying that they have put forward what have become a dozen Acts in the last three years. That does not represent division; it represents a ministerial team working in concert.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Question raises a wider issue: the gradual diminution of Ministers of State from our noble and notable Front Bench? Some of us are very anxious about the lack of a Minister of State for Energy.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, your Lordships' House has exactly the same number of Ministers of State at the moment as our predecessors had when we succeeded them in office in 1979. My noble friend Lord Lauderdale states that the Question opens a wider vista. It is important to look at the sum total of government representation in your Lordships' House. One of the good things about this Government—I refer back to 1979—is that for 11 years in addition to a Scottish Office Minister we have always had a Lord Advocate in your Lordships' House. Looking towards the Woolsack, it can hardly be said that the Government have neglected Scotland in the highest reaches of government both in Cabinet and in your Lordships' House.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that the removal of the noble Lord,

1775
Lord Sanderson—whom I much admire—to his present very difficult task which takes him out of the government of Scotland will do the Tories far more harm than good?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden does good wherever he goes.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, does the Minister accept that diminishing the status of this important position in the House of Lords is causing some dismay in Scotland? It is generally regarded that the Prime Minister is totally insensitive to the needs of Scotland and has already written it off in electoral terms.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has been very fair this afternoon. However, I believe that he has fallen over his own feet at the last fence. Public spending in Scotland per head is almost a quarter higher than it is in England and Wales. I call that fair to Scotland.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement to be made in another place on the European Council in Rome.
Adelphi Estate Bill

  London Underground Bill
  2.57 p.m.
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. These are two Commons Bills still under consideration in another place. This House is being asked to agree with another place that they should be carried over into the new Session.
  Moved, That this House do concur with the orders made by the Commons set out in their Message of yesterday.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

  House of Lords Offices: Select Committee Report
  2.58 p.m.
  The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move that the 4th Report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be agreed to.
  There was only one item on the agenda for this meeting, namely, the conference of the parliaments of the European Community. The committee met last week to consider a memorandum from the Leader of the House proposing that the costs of travel and accommodation incurred by representatives of the House of Lords attending this conference should be
  1776
  paid from the House of Lords Vote. The conference is to be held in Rome at the end of November before the inter-governmental conference to be held in December. It will consider proposals concerning economic and monetary union and political integration in the Community with particular reference to the role of national parliaments and the European Parliament. Two hundred and fifty-eight parliamentary representatives have been invited to attend the conference of which two-thirds will be members of national parliaments and one-third members of the European Parliament. Eight of the 26 seats allocated to the United Kingdom Parliament will be taken by Members of this House.
  The committee duly authorised the appropriate expenditure from the Vote with one dissentient voice. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the 4th Report from the Select Committee be agreed to. (HL Paper 89)—(The Chairman of Committees.)
  Following is the report referred to:
  Conference of the Parliaments of the European Community
  The Committee have considered a proposal by the Leader of the House that the costs of travel and accommodation incurred by representatives of the House attending a Conference of the Parliaments of the European Community should be paid for from the House of Lords Vote.
  The Committee were informed that the Conference had been convened by the President of the European Parliament and the Presidents of the two Chambers of the Italian Parliament. It will be held in Rome from 27th to 30th November and will consider proposals concerning Economic and Monetary Union and political integration in the Community prior to the Intergovernmental Conference to be held in December under Article 236 of the EEC Treaty. 258 representatives have been invited to attend the Conference of which two-thirds will be members of national parliaments and one-third members of the European Parliament. Eight of the twenty-six seats allocated to the United Kingdom Parliament will be taken by Members of the House of Lords.
  The Committee agreed to the proposal and accordingly authorised the appropriate expenditure from the House of Lords' Vote.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Broadcasting Bill
  2.59 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.
  Moved, That the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  MOTIONS MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN OTHER OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
  [References are to the Bill as first printed by the Lords (HL Bill 82): the Commons reasons and amendments are printed in italics.]

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  1 Clause 15, page 13, line 2, after ("the") insert ("programming and other")
  The Commons disagreed to the above amendment for the following reason—
  1A because it is unnecessary.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 for the reason to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 1A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. I to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 1A.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENTS
  2 Clause 16, page 14, line 11, after ("programmes") insert ("and documentaries")
  The Commons disagreed to the above amendment for the following reason—
  2A because it is undesirable to confer a special status on documentaries.
  3 Clause 16, page 14, line 15, at end insert:
  ("(aa) that a sufficient amount of time is given in the programmes included in the service to programmes with an educational purpose;
  (ab) that a sufficient amount of time is given in the programmes included in the service to social action programmes.")
  The Commons disagreed to the above amendment for the following reason—
  3A because it is undesirable to confer a special status on programmes with an educational purpose and social action programmes.
  4 Clause 16, page 14, line 42, at end insert:
  ("(fa) that programmes of each type are shown at appropriate times of the day and week, having regard to the potential viewers of programmes of that type;")
  The Commons disagreed to the above amendment for the following reason—
  4A because it is undesirable for the Independent Television Commission to be concerned with the scheduling of programmes.
  4B
  Baroness David Baroness David rose to move, That this House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 2–4 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reasons numbered 2A–4A but do propose the following amendments in lieu thereof—
  4C Page 14, line 11, after ("programmes") insert ("and documentaries (except that section 27(2) (b) shall apply to this paragraph with the exception of such documentaries)")
  4D Page 14, line 32, at end insert:
  ("(iii) to programmes with an educational purpose and social action programmes;")
  4E Page 14, line 34, after ("(ii)"), insert ("or (iii)")
  4F Page 14, line 34, at end insert (";
  and that any programmes so included in accordance with this subsection are shown at appropriate times of the day and week, having regard to the potential viewers of programmes of that type.")
  4G Page 14, line 48, at end insert:
  ("(2A) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that the requirement imposed by subsection (2) (c) (iii) above applies only to regional Channel 3 services.")
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name which is supported by the noble Lords, Lord Norrie, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and Lord Plowden who, with me, were the sponsors of the amendment that another place seeks
  1778
  to overturn. Their names would have been on the Motion if more than one name were allowed. We are pursuing this matter because of the strength of feeling about it and the support that our proposal had and still has. In this House we had the large majority of 27 in favour of our amendments. There was support from all parties and not one noble Lord spoke against them in Committee except the Minister.
  Outside the House 39 major voluntary agencies got together to send a letter to 10 Downing Street on the day of the Third Reading here. They asked the Prime Minister to leave documentaries, educational programmes and social action programmes in the Bill. I quote from their letter. It stated:
  "We are major voluntary agencies concerned with domestic and international issues. We represent a large number of ordinary men and women across the country for whom TV acts as both a major source of information and a catalyst for their participation in and understanding of national, local and world events".
  Among those agencies were the United Nations Association, the National Council of Voluntary Organisations, Voluntary Service Overseas, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the Save the Children Fund, Community Service Volunteers and the World Wildlife Fund. Their pleas were ignored.
  In another place last Thursday the Minister produced a string of reasons showing why the amendments accepted by your Lordships' House were unnecessary or undesirable. That so many arguments were apparently required may suggest that none was very strong. Indeed, some contradict each other, while others are based on a misunderstanding of the Bill. Mr. Mellor claimed that extending the list of protected categories has the effect of narrowing and not broadening the requirement of diversity. That is a misinterpretation of the Bill. The diversity requirement stands independently of the list of protected programme categories and is not limited by it. The quality threshold sets out items for specific protection where they are threatened. It does not restrict programmes to those items only.
  The Minister further suggested that the amendments were unnecessary but there is a general requirement for diversity; the ITC will issue illustrative guidelines which will include such programmes, and therefore the programmes are not threatened. But illustrative guidelines are merely that; they have no power to require, as would be necessary when there is pressure to cut costs on expensive programmes. Only such categories of programme as are listed in the statute will be allocated minimum amounts of time in the guidelines; others will not be.
  Mr. Mellor said that he did not want to extend what he called the laundry list, although he had the grace to admit that he had started it and added to it. "If documentaries, education and social action programmes, why not arts, sport and drama?", he asked. Because of its popularity sport is certainly not under threat. Many arts programmes will be documentaries or have an educational purpose. The

  1779
  Minister admitted that arts programmes will be shown on some commercial services and therefore do not need more specific protection by statute.
  The argument that the kind of programme that we seek to safeguard will be provided by BBC 2 and Channel 4 does not meet the situation. Those services do not have the audiences of Channel 3. It is precisely because Channel 3 has large audiences that we want such programmes to be shown on it—to catch those who might not switch on BBC2 and Channel 4. As my honourable friend Mr. Robin Corbett pointed out last week, programmes of an educational nature on the environment and third world issues screened at peak hours on BBC 1 or networked on ITV have audiences of between 2 million and 5 million. The same programmes on BBC 2 and Channel 4 attract only about 1 million. ITV is a crucial mass channel. That it is so cannot be made an excuse for pushing its content down to the lowest common denominator.
  It was suggested that social action programmes should seek sponsorship. A few programmes might be able to attract commercial sponsorship but they would be on only a limited set of safe issues. Voluntary organisations cannot hope to sponsor such programmes out of their own resources. At great cost they already provide an enormous amount of back-up support such as staffing telephone help lines, dealing with an increased number of clients after a programme and drafting information packs.
  Mr. Mellor went on to say that a requirement that programmes be shown at times appropriate to their potential audience would restrict the flexibility of licence holders to compete against satellite and cable services. Here he is admitting that such programmes are at risk. Either they are not at risk, as he asserts when he speaks of the power of the guidelines, or they are at risk, as he says when he speaks of flexibility. His flexibility means the flexibility not to make and to show documentaries, educational and social action programmes because they are expensive and unattractive to advertisers and sponsors.
  When education is to be at the top of the political agenda, as was said at the Conservative Party Conference, and when on all sides it is admitted that in education and training we fall far behind our competitors, it is ironic that educational programmes are not on the list of protected categories in the Bill. At the end of the day the argument is about quality and finance. The Government say that they want quality but they are not prepared to take the necessary action to ensure it. Finance, the size of the bids that they will receive from the TV companies, matters more. Admittedly the bids may be smaller if certain obligations for the quality threshold are insisted upon. Competition for advertising and sponsorship among ITV, satellite, cable, the new radio services and the press will intensify, although the amount fought for may not increase.
  However, we all want a broadcasting service that performs a public service of which the nation can be
  1780
  proud. It was in order to ensure that the service would be of that kind that the 1981 Act imposed on the IBA an obligation:
  "to provide the television and local sound broadcasting services as a public service for disseminating information, education and entertainment".
  No such obligation is included in the present Bill. It is that omission that we seek to remedy.
  I turn to our new amendments tabled in lieu. As redrafted they apply only to Channel 3 and no longer to Channel 5. Hence the references to Clause 27. The Government have argued that flexibility not to offer documentaries, education and social action programmes for reason of cost is necessary to enable new services to get started. Channel 5 is not yet established and has no tradition of offering such programmes. Therefore, it is accepted that it may be fairer not to require the channel to show them. The case for those requirements on Channel 3 is not disturbed. It is a mass channel covering the whole country, whereas Channel 5 will cover only 70 per cent. of the nation. Channel 3 has a tradition of offering documentaries, education and social action programmes. They are the programmes that are under threat.
  I ask noble Lords to accept our amendments in lieu and support the many organisations that make up the broadcasting consortium and the third world and environment broadcasting project. If one counts the larger and smaller organisations, there are between 50 and 100. We want to avoid what has happened in other countries where in a deregulated climate the service has markedly deteriorated. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reasons numbered 2A to 4A but do propose Amendments Nos. 4C to 4G in lieu thereof. —(Baroness David.)
  Lord Norrie: My Lords, I support the amendments. I believe that Members of this House still have a rare opportunity to secure the future of much of the best and most valuable in British broadcasting. I last spoke on this aspect of the Bill on 18th July, and since then I have joined the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and Lord Plowden, for a meeting with my noble friend Lord Ferrers to press the Government on these issues. I followed closely the arguments put against our amendments by my right honourable friend Mr. Mellor, the Minister in another place. Far from being persuaded by the Government's arguments, I am now even more convinced that the amendments are essential for the protection of documentaries, social action and education programmes. They are all seriously endangered species.
  As the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, the Government are trying to make their case using quite contradictory arguments. On the one hand, they are saying that the quality threshold, taken together with the illustrative guidelines, protect those programmes. On the other, they are saying that when the competition from satellite and cable services pushes the licence holders to cut costs and deliver the largest

  1781
  possible audience to their advertisers, the licence holders have the flexibility to abandon quality standards.
  They cannot have it both ways. Either the Government want to give real protection to those programmes or they do not. As I set out in my speech on 18th July, it is my fear that the flexibility which the Government wish will have an adverse effect on these programmes because of production commitment and cost.
  Perhaps I may clarify that with two examples. In the "Viewpoint 89" series made for Central Television and transmitted across the ITV network last year one programme was called "Can Polar Bears Tread Water?" That was filmed on location in India and Bangladesh. It was not about polar bears but looked at the causes and consequences of the greenhouse effect. Its costs were great but its value was far higher. In the "Viewpoint '90" series there was a one-hour programme entitled "When the Bough Breaks—Our Children, Our Environment". That was shown on 25th May and looked at the effects on children of global warming, toxic waste and the population explosion. I cannot believe that in a climate of intense commercial pressure, such vital, brilliant and informative but costly and time-consuming work will continue to be produced on Channel 3 without the specific protection afforded by our amendments.
  The Government have said that the illustrative guidelines will ensure that continuation. However, an illustration is what it says. It is not a requirement and therefore will not be effective. As the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, in practice those categories of programmes which appear on the face of the Bill will be given a minimum output time in the administrative guidelines. If documentaries, educational and social action programmes are not statutory requirements, it will be left to the commercial discretion of the licence holders and their assessment of the market.
  I accept that flexibility is necessary to get a new service off the ground. That is why, in response to the Government's case, we emphasise that our proposed amendments would not extend to Channel 5. However, Channel 3 is a different matter. It is an established and major avenue for information and education for a mass audience. It has a tradition of documentary, educational and social action programming which has made an invaluable contribution to the growing awareness and positive response to the problems of the world about us. That is why I support these amendments and commend them to your Lordships.
  Lord Birkett: My Lords, I was very struck that in another place it was urged that these amendments amounted to a laundry list. I can see nothing wrong with a laundry list. Any parent who has ever sent a child off to school will know that without such a list you would be lost. The whole point of a laundry list is to make sure that nothing gets left out. The fact that your Lordships agreed to the original amendments meant that your Lordships were urging that documentary, educational and social action programmes were not left out. Fairly broadly, these
  1782
  amendments do what the original amendments did; namely, they ensure that those programmes are not left out. I hope that noble Lords will see no reason to change their minds.
  3.15 p.m.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sure that we all enjoy documentary programmes. I should have thought that there is no difference between any of us on that. The question is whether the two words "and documentaries" must be written into the Bill, having been deleted by Members of another place.
  I suggest that we do not insist on those words being restored. I suggest that it is quite unnecessary for us to do so because if we look at Clause 16(2) (d) to which the noble Baroness, Lady David, has already referred, we find that there is an obligation to produce high quality programmes. In a sense the matter is taken care of there by the words:
  "(other than news and current affairs programmes)"
  which are referred to in the previous paragraph.
  Also, the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, was quite right to draw our attention to the fact that Channel 3 is to have some particular responsibilities which include the provision of public information and education; that is fair enough. However, we need not write those words back in.
  In passing, perhaps I may say that we are inclined to try to stuff far too much detail into legislation when there is no real need to do so if we have made clear the general intention of Parliament which, as I say, is achieved partly by the choice of Channel 3 for its particular purposes and partly by Clause 16(2) (d).
  I need not emphasise—but greatly daring I shall do so—that our job is to give another place a chance to think again on any matter which goes from here to there. On this matter they have done that. Surely it is not our function as a revising Chamber—a job which we do not only thoroughly but well—to bang on endlessly and send unnecessary matters of detail back to another place.
  As I say, this is unnecessary for the reasons I have given. It is undesirable because it is not within the true interpretation of our constitutional position. Surely enough is enough and on this Bill we have done more than enough. Therefore, I hope that we shall agree with another place and not insist that those words "and documentaries" be put back into the Bill.
  Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, I find it extremely odd that at the last minute we are offered this amendment which aims to particularise certain programmes which must be made and which says that some of the programmes must be shown at peak viewing time and others must be shown at other times. As the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, they are all to be enumerated.
  However, when we debated the government amendment on 22nd October, which was merely an instruction to the ITC to take account o certain items when it drew up its code on impartiality, there were great protests from the Opposition Benches and sometimes from the Government Benches that we

  1783
  were trying to tell the ITC, which had been appointed by the Government, how to do its job. It was said that that was a monstrous infringement of its authority. That was not a monstrous infringement of its authority. It merely said, "In drawing up your code, which is similar to the one you already have, please take account of certain items".
  The same people who protested about that are now telling the ITC exactly what programmes must be shown. Our amendment and the government amendment never said that about due impartiality. It never said at what time programmes must be shown. And yet we are now faced with a proposition in which the ITV companies must put out particular programmes of particular kinds at particular times. That is entirely without any regard to what the viewers want. How do we know that they want to have a lot of so-called social action programmes? Goodness knows what those are. I imagine that they are nice, jolly old left-of-centre programmes and no doubt they would come under the rules of impartiality as provided by the ITC code.
  However, I believe that it is utterly absurd at this stage to be trying to bounce an amendment which gives detailed instructions to the ITC as to what the television companies should be showing and at what times.
  I also believe that it may be an attempt to sabotage the entire Bill. If your Lordships were to carry the amendment it would need to go back to another place. There is little time before Prorogation, and there may not be time for the other place to insist on the amendment being moved again. I do not know the exact constitutional position, but noble Lords may be pushing their luck a little too far if we again send back a contradiction of an amendment from another place, the other place having considered the original amendment we tabled. I therefore hope that the House will reject the amendment and support the Government.
  Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, I intervened briefly in the early stages of the Bill, not so much on this part but on the part connected with radio. I remind your Lordships that I have a personal interest in the radio side. The amendment relates to television. I believe that the House should reject the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady David, not because I can argue the detail with her—I cannot—but for a different reason.
  The Bill came before the House many weeks ago. We considered it at great length and often late into the night with tremendous care. I am sure everyone will agree that it is a much better Bill now than when it first arrived here. I believe I am right in saying that we made over 600 amendments to the Bill as it came to us from the other place. According to the Marshalled List today the other place disagreed on only four. That is a score of well over 99 per cent., which is not bad. I do not know what other noble Lords feel, but often one does not achieve 100 per cent. of what one wants and if one achieves 99 per cent. that is not doing badly.
  1784
  Another more serious point arises. The other place substantially disagreed with us. I do not have the voting figures, but it is clear that the other place considered the question twice, and twice said that it did not like the idea. The second time it said that by a substantial majority. The proposal of the noble Baroness—she argues quite rightly—is marginally different to the original proposal. However, I am sure that she would agree that the difference is only marginal.
  I wonder whether it is the business of this House to say to the Commons, "Once again go back and think". As my noble friend Lord Renton said a few moments ago, our business—I am a newer Member of your Lordships' House than many other noble Lords—is to ask the other place to think again. We did so. The other place thought again and did not agree with us. Perhaps we should now rest upon our laurels. We improved the Bill, not beyond all recognition but enormously. We achieved 99 per cent. of what we asked for. That should be enough. I believe the House should not agree with the noble Baroness but agree with the Commons in its disagreement to the amendment.
  Lord Willis: My Lords, I support the amendment for a very simple reason. The Bill is predicated on a premise that is fundamentally flawed. It is that there will be sufficient advertising to go around. That is not so. Not only is there BSB and Sky but we are now talking of Channel 5. The great big cake of advertising is supposed to go all around those various companies. The inevitable pressure in the future will be to reduce the value and the cost of programmes; to cut down. That is absolutely inevitable. The pressure therefore will be to get rid of documentaries and other programmes that have been the prize and treasure of British television.
  I beg noble Lords to support the Motion in spite of the dreadful warnings we heard from other noble Lords about what will happen if we reject a Commons amendment. I value more than I can say the great prize of British television. Whatever anyone may say, it is not the worst television in the world but the best. We have obtained enormous pleasure from television over the years. If we do not lay down the right guidelines there will not be sufficient money to go round and there will be pressure to reduce quality. I heartily support the Motion.
  Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I too strongly support the amendment. Like my noble friend Lord Birkett, I cannot see what is wrong with the laundry list. If the Government were prepared to give a legislative guarantee to children's and religious programmes I do not see why they cannot extend it to documentaries, educational and social action programmes. They are just as essential in the diverse quality broadcasting system and just as potentially vulnerable in the future if finances are uncertain.
  I should like to hone in briefly on why the amendments are important for people with disabilities and why organisations and individuals in the field see them as essential. It is important that disabled people and their interests are catered for and involved in

  1785
  mainstream programmes. They can form the basis of compelling documentaries and educational programmes—for instance, "Citizen 2000" on ITV. At the moment that happens very little. Therefore the specialist interest programmes play a crucial role.
  It is important that those programmes are shown not only on Channel 4 but also on Channel 3, like the "Link" programme which reaches a wide audience. As the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, Channel 3 for the foreseeable future is the mass audience channel. At present there are half-a-dozen good quality specialist disabled programmes scattered throughout the week; unfortunately most are at off-peak times. The section of the amendment which refers to scheduling is therefore important.
  There is also the question of what happens in ITV, and what will eventually happen in the BBC programmes. Programmes such as Thames "Help" and Granada's "This is Your Right" have done a great deal to help people with disabilities. For those specific reasons, as well as on the broader educational front, I strongly support the amendments.
  Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I should like to oppose the amendment. In the public service field we have a strong organisation in BBC 1, BBC 2 and to some extent Channel 4. They will continue to cater for certain kinds of programme. As the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) said, if there is a need, "World in Action" will continue to provide for it. That will not be interfered with in any way. Why therefore is it necessary to write these provisions on the face of the Bill.
  I find the situation strange because throughout its passage we tried to put more provisions on the face of the Bill than the Government wished to accept. They always said, "Trust the ITC". They had the support of many people on the Opposition Benches who opposed our adding more provisions. Now at this very late stage we suddenly decide to add three new conditions regarding documentaries, social action and educational programmes. We tried that once before and it was turned down, and we brought it back again in different words.
  Baroness David: My Lords, if the noble Lord does not mind my interrupting, these amendments were carried for Channel 3 and Channel 5 at Committee stage. They have not been turned down by this House at any time.
  Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I meant to say that we discussed them here; we passed the amendment by a 28 majority at 7.30 p.m. on 18th July. I read that debate. The amendment then went to the other place, which in its judgment reversed the decision. What I am saying is that all the way through my noble friends and I sought to include more provisions on the face of the Bill. I am right in saying that that was opposed by the Opposition, who said that we should not interfere and that we should trust the ITC.
  We believed that the ITC needed to be strengthened, if anything, because we felt that most of the people who serve on the IBA would be re-employed by the ITC. We thought it difficult to
  1786
  believe that, being poachers for a long time, they would make good policemen at the drop of a hat from 1st January. We therefore felt that the Bill would strengthen their hand and the hands of management in the programme companies. It was not to be, and the proposal was turned down.
  There is a good case. Surely in Channel 3, and eventually in Channel 5, the regional news is a "must carry"; children's programmes and religious programmes are a "must carry". The 25 per cent. of programmes from independent producers for minority and other programmes is also compulsory, having been written into the Bill. Therefore, I hope that we do not press this amendment. If we feel that the organisation is not likely to keep in touch with the demands of the people surely we should have written into the Bill—I do not think this was discussed at any time—a strong requirement for the ITC to carry out research into viewers' and listeners' views. The BBC has, I believe, 50 full-time and 30 casual workers dealing with the 200,000 letters and telephone calls received every year. The IBA, because it was not a programme producer, received only 2,000 letters a year. Therefore, the ITC needs to keep in touch by having a comparable arrangement to that of the BBC.
  Incidentally, although the IBA had only 2,000 letters they were broken down into types of complaint: that there were insufficient programmes of one sort or another; that the timing of programmes was wrong; that the schedules were wrong or there was a lack of impartiality. I am sure the BBC will consider whether there is some merit in breaking down into subjects the 200,000 complaints they receive. That is surely the way it should be done, leaving the ITC to monitor reaction and to keep in touch with the needs of the people. Therefore, for the reasons given in all parts of the House I sincerely hope that at this late stage in a long, complicated and wearying Bill we shall not demand that this further provision now be added to the Bill.
  3.30 p.m.
  Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he really suggesting that my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth, who for eight years was chairman of the IBA, is a poacher?
  Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I am sorry, I did not hear the noble Lord. If the sound on his microphone is turned up perhaps I shall be able to hear him.
  Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I shall repeat my question. Is the noble Lord suggesting that my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth, who for eight years was chairman of the IBA, was for all those years a poacher? That is what the noble Lord is suggesting.
  Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I do not intend to start an argument with the noble Lord. He is a friendly character. I am sure that if the noble Lord was starting his nine years' service again he would do even better.
  Lord Willis: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down for the second time, while I welcome what he said about the BBC being responsible for documentary programmes, and so on, may we therefore count on his support when there is an attack on the licensing fee?
  Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, gamekeeper or poacher, I do not wish to go over the ground that has been so ably covered by the noble Baroness, Lady David. It is difficult to say anything new on the substance of these important amendments.
  However, I shall take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, and echoed, I believe, by one or two other noble Lords. I refer to the proposals in terms of our relationship with the other place. The noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, gave a misleading impression of the excellent work done by this House in Committee and on Report. He is absolutely right that the Bill is a much improved Bill. However, he paints an unfair picture when speaking about 600 or 700 amendments having been made to the Bill during that process and chiding this side of the House for grumbling because half of 1 per cent. is being lost, as he put it.
  The proposal under discussion was one of the many proposals that your Lordships put to the Government and which were rejected by them during our proceedings. I do not know the exact number but there must have been scores of amendments moved from this side of the House which were not accepted by the Government. The present proposal was the only one that the House carried against the Government. That is what gives it such immense significance. When the matter was taken up in another place the Minister was very fair—as he has been throughout the Bill—and indicated that he was considerably reluctant to seek to disagree with the Lords' amendments in this area. Later he went on to concede that there was no rubicon of principle—to use his own phrase —on which the Government could stand in declining to accept the amendments because they have already accepted specified obligations in the fields of religious and children's programming. Therefore, we are on a very narrow point of difference between your Lordships' House and another place.
  The proposal from your Lordships' House was of a very special nature. It was not, strictly speaking, a party proposal but very much an all-party feeling in this House. It was the kind of proposal that is expected to come from this House and expected to be taken seriously by another place. As Government Ministers in another place were reluctant to oppose it and did not feel that there was any rubicon of principle that had to be crossed, we are absolutely entitled to press the Government today to agree that this House is within its rights, and indeed is wise in its judgment, in seeking to insist on this matter.
  There is no great constitutional crisis, as I understand the position. If your Lordships' House decides to vote today in the same sense as it voted some time ago the matter will then return to another place. Because of the strength of feeling expressed in all parts of this House in asserting our opinion for a second time on this important issue and the reluctance expressed by the Minister in another place to oppose our amendment, one would then hope that the balance would be tilted in our favour.
  Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I rise briefly to support this amendment. I do not want to go over the
  1788
  whole ground again but I remind the House of two basic facts. First, there is already in the clause a list of subjects which are to be covered, including religious programmes and programmes for children. Therefore, there can be no question of principle involved in a proposal to add to that existing list.
  The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that we should not go in for too much detail, but the detail is already there. We are not changing the format of the clause in any way. Come to think of it, I may have missed it but I do not recall the noble Lord addressing us with similar eloquence about the detail in the amendments on impartiality!
  Secondly, there is nothing in the new legislation corresponding to the present obligation on the IBA to see that programmes inform and educate as well as entertain. I noted during the Recess a report in the newspapers that the Minister had announced at some dinner or other that the amendment carried in this House by a large majority was to be overturned. I recognise that when the Lords amendments were considered in the other place last Thursday the Minister made a reasoned speech and advanced a whole cluster of arguments on why our views should not prevail. Perhaps he advanced too many arguments, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, suggested when opening this debate.
  The trouble is that these arguments, to my mind, do not come anywhere near justifying the reversal of a decision taken in this House, supported by all sides of the House, and on that occasion with not a single dissentient voice with the exception of that of the Minister. The wide range of arguments that have been advanced simply fail to conceal a fundamental inconsistency in the Government's case. On the one hand, it was urged that there will be illustrative guidelines and that no applicant for a franchise could safely assume that he would cross the quality threshold if he left out programmes of the type covered by this amendment. In other words, there is no need for concern as provisions elsewhere in the Bill and the requirement for diversity will ensure that everything will be all right on the night. That seems to be an argument which appeals to the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Orr-Ewing.
  On the other hand, it was urged that to tie commercial television down too much could mean that it would not be flexible enough to be competitive against the satellite and cable services. In other words, in the competitive world to come there would be a good chance that programmes of the type covered by this Motion would never appear. The Government simply cannot have it both ways. Given that there may well be a knock-on effect on the BBC, these amendments are of great importance to the future of British television and to the question whether we really want to go down the rather dismal road down which other countries have gone. There is very wide concern indeed. We have every right to ask the other place to consider whether it is quite sure where we want to go.
  There has been complaint that we are taking this step at the last minute of this Bill. That is the

  1789
  procedure. Criticisms to that effect come very ill from the side of the House which is responsible for a weightier amendment about impartiality which was introduced at the very last stage in the progress of this Bill through both Houses. I believe that it managed to contravene our standing orders about not introducing new business at Third Reading. This proposal is a modified version of the original amendment. There is no need for concern at all about the procedure.
  The suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, are quite misconceived. If this measure is passed there is no question of it putting the whole Bill at risk. Its construction is such as to avoid any such danger. The proposal simply amounts to an invitation to the other place to have another careful look at a matter which could profoundly affect the quality of British television in the years to come. I hope that the House will agree to it.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord has said, although four specific subjects are mentioned in the clause, I ask him to bear in mind that there is nothing in the clause which precludes other matters in broadcasting being dealt with.
  Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I shall certainly bear that in mind, although it seems to have nothing to do with the point I made; namely, that there is much detail in the Bill and this proposal merely adds a little more.
  Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I wish briefly to say a few words in support of these amendments, having spoken in their favour at Committee stage. I shall certainly not repeat any of the more specific arguments that were put forward at that time. I strongly support these amendments because it is vital that the media play a part in providing public education. It is for that reason that documentaries, education and social action programmes should be given some protection. The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, said that the public did not want social action programmes. He rather doubted that they would know what they meant. I assure him that there are small and very vulnerable groups of people who know exactly what they will receive from such programmes.
  They have been described in part this afternoon by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy. I mention the work of the voluntary agencies which use the media very much in order to explain their work on the screen. It is true that people prefer to watch work being done rather than to read about it in order to believe in its value. Television is also used in order to recruit more volunteers. The social action programmes are the most vulnerable of this grouping of three fields of activity. It is true that advertisers will be less interested in programmes that contain such information. They will be the programmes that will be immediately lost. However, these programmes are wanted by the public. They should be available on Channel 3 as well as on the BBC and Channel 4. A suitable proportion should be shown at peak viewing times. I strongly support these amendments.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Plowden: My Lords, not enough attention has been paid to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Willis. A limited amount of money is available from advertisers. We want to ensure that it is devoted to issues in which we believe. We accept that Channel 3 will be much less a public channel than it is now. The real point is how much less that will be and what will be endangered by the change. As the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, said, the ITV programmes, which the noble Lord suggested are unduly restrictive, have met a demand by thousands of people for more information on educational and social matters. It is quite possible to quote a great many instances, but I shall not do so.
  I return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Willis. If there is—and I believe it to be so—a limited amount of money available from advertising, unless something like the clause we have suggested is accepted, inevitably the people managing the channels will be forced by advertisers to go for programmes that attract the largest number of people. ITV provides similar programmes for a large number of people. That will not happen if this clause is not added to the laundry list. The question is whether we are to modify what happens now. No one has suggested that we want to lower the standard of ITV now. Therefore, we should accept the amendments.
  Baroness Birk: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for more than a couple of minutes because I know that we want to get on. Sometimes when we are asked to vote we are divided in our minds as to how to proceed on certain questions. I must point out to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that such a situation is not a constitutional matter. As the second Chamber we have an absolute right to send back an issue to the other place. We are not doing anything unconstitutional at all. We shall be exercising our right in an absolutely proper way.
  In the present case it seems that the proper way is to support the amendments. That is extremely important today because of what has happened to broadcasting and what has occurred during the passage of this Bill. I shall not go over what the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, and other noble Lords have said. They have all built up a very strong case in favour of the amendments. The House should consider the points made by those one or two noble Lords who spoke against the amendment. It should note also that there was an ill-balance between the two groups.
  My noble friends and I have pointed out throughout our proceedings that the Bill seeks to decimate the whole concept of public service broadcasting. To weaken it even further would do a great disservice to the broadcasters and to the viewing public, particularly in educational work and programme production. Whereas at one time many noble Lords may have considered this provision to be an unnecessary frill, we believe it is important and should be spelt out on the face of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said, it is not a matter of principle. The famous laundry list has been breached many

  1791
  times, and quite rightly so. I hope that noble Lords, regardless of their political allegiance, will support the amendment.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that there has been an ill-balance between the number of noble Lords speaking for and against the amendment. If that is so, I shall do my best to right the ill-balance and to redirect it.
  The noble Baroness, Lady David, agreed not to insist on the amendments which another place has rejected but she has suggested some other amendments in lieu. I should like to put the Government's case as to why we think the amendments should be rejected. Before I do so perhaps I may reply briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who needled me—I am quite certain intentionally, but nevertheless unfairly—by saying that the Government had contravened the procedures of your Lordships' House by introducing matters at Third Reading. Third Reading is the opportunity to clarify uncertainties which have appeared before and to clarify matters which have not been decided upon before by your Lordships. In the case to which the noble Lord was referring, the Government were wholly within the procedures of the House. Having said that, perhaps I may now turn my mind and the noble Lord's mind—because I see he is becoming agitated—to the amendments.
  Throughout the passage of the Bill we have made it clear that it would be unsatisfactory for Channel 3 licensees to be required by statute to show a long and detailed list of individual programme types which they propose to transmit. When the Bill was first introduced, it specified a very few programme types —news, current affairs, regional programmes and schools programmes—and it was agreed in Committee in another place that there was an overwhelming case for adding two further categories of programme—children's programmes and religious programmes. Those categories were added. When they were included in the Bill we said that we thought that it would undesirable if more and more programme types were to be added since that would simply defeat the object of the whole exercise, which is to let regional Channel 3 licensees themselves determine how best to meet the requirements which are set out in Clause 16(2) (f) to produce programmes calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests.
  In Committee your Lordships decided after a Division to accept an amendment which added further to the list of programme types which a prospective licensee must include in his range of programmes. Your Lordships did so despite the Government's advice to the contrary. But your Lordships were perfectly entitled, as your Lordships periodically do, to reject the Government's advice. That happens on certain occasions but not on every occasion; and I hope not on this occasion. The amendment added to the list of programme types education, social action
  1792
  and documentaries. Another place, however, also after a vote, decided to disagree with your Lordships' amendment.
  In moving her amendments today the noble Baroness has adjusted the effect of the original amendment which another place has rejected by excluding Channel 5 and restricting it only to regional Channel 3 licensees. Nevertheless, it retains in tow the very points to which another place took exception. My noble friend Lord Norrie suggested that there is a contradiction in the Government's position. I do not think there is any contradiction between saying that we believe that Channel 3 licence applicants will continue to offer documentaries and educational programmes and saying that there ought to be flexibility over the period of the licence as to what the programming mix should be. None of us knows what the effect of greatly increased competition will be in five or 10 years' time. It is only sensible for the Independent Television Commission to be enabled to adjust licence conditions where necessary in order to ensure that Channel 3 companies can remain viable. That is best achieved by not piling up statutory obligations.
  The case for not adding these additional programmes is not that they should not be included or should not be seen. The Bill has always included the requirement that programmes which are to be included in Channel 3 services should be calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests. It also includes a requirement for the Independent Television Commission to publish guidelines spelling out in detail the types of programmes which it would expect Channel 3 applicants to include in their services. The shadow ITC has already indicated that its guidelines would contain all the programme types which at present are shown on independent television. These would include in the future, as they do now, educational, documentary and social action programmes—all the programme types which the noble Baroness wishes to see on the face of the Bill. The guidelines will also include a number of categories which the noble Baroness has in her wisdom seen fit not to include in her amendment, such as sports, arts or drama.
  It would be a brave applicant who was so confident of his ability to pass the quality threshold test that he chose to offer something which was appreciably less than that which the ITC in its guidelines indicates. The chairman designate of the ITC, Mr. Russell, has made it clear that he shares that view. He believes that the power which is given to the Independent Television Commission to set out in an illustrative guide the programme types which the ITC would expect to see included in a programme service is much the best way of achieving the requirement for a diverse programme service.
  But commercial television must be commercial. We cannot so tie the hands of the licensee that he is incapable of competing effectively with other independent television services because he may be required to show programmes which, however valuable and good they may he, may nevertheless be

  1793
  commercially unattractive. Some people argue that it is precisely for this reason that we should put these programme types in the Bill; otherwise, they argue, they will disappear. My fear is that we might so overload the Channel 3 licensees with statutory constraints and obligations that they disappear.
  If the licensees are to be successful, they have to compete in a competitive market. They do so by putting on programmes which their viewers wish to see and which in turn thereby produce advertising revenue. I thought that the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, was an odd one. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, said that because advertising revenue will be difficult to obtain, we should by statute insist on the ITC companies putting on programmes which will attract even less advertising revenue. If that were to happen Channel 3 licensees would find it even more difficult to survive.
  It would be wrong and inadvisable to tie the hands of licensees by immutable statutory constraints which are far better produced by the more flexible and detailed procedure of ITC guidelines. It is also, I suggest, undesirable for the Bill to impose scheduling requirements on Channel 3 licensees, as Amendment No. 4F seeks to do. The 1990s will see Channel 3 exposed to greater competition from new satellite and terrestrial services. Licensees must be able to schedule their programmes so as best to meet this competition.
  The amendment, which was made by your Lordships and rejected by another place, would introduce a scheduling requirement into the Bill. Amendment No. 4F does the same thing. I believe that it is intended to give the ITC a role in determining the times at which particular programmes should be shown. I do not think that that sits happily with the new light-touch regulatory style of the Independent Television Commission.
  Further, I suggest that the amendment would achieve the opposite purpose to that intended. Presumably the intention is that programmes which might attract smaller audiences should, nevertheless, have the opportunity of securing a place in peak viewing time. However, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, that is precisely what her amendment does not do; instead, it suggests that programmes should be shown at appropriate times,
  "having regard to the potential viewers of programmes of that type".
  In other words, a high audience programme should be scheduled at peak time and a lower audience programme should be scheduled in off peak hours. I doubt that that is really what the noble Baroness intended.
  As my noble friend Lord Colnbrook said, your Lordships have made a magnificent contribution to the Bill. Indeed some 650 amendments were made in your Lordships' House all of which, except for four —as he pointed out—were accepted by another place. I know that many noble Lords feel strongly about these amendments which were passed by your Lordships but which were rejected by another place.
  1794
  The elected Chamber has had the opportunity to consider these amendments, and it has taken a contrary view to that expressed by your Lordships. The majority against including these amendments— namely, 252 to 92—was substantial and it is one which I am sure your Lordships would not wish to disregard.
  I hope that your Lordships will agree that we have made a decision and that we have made our views known. Those views were transferred to another place and the opportunity to discuss the matter again was given to another place; but it decided to reject those amendments. I believe that we should not insist on these amendments, which found no favour in another place.
  On the basis of the assurances which I have given, the fact that this is not a matter on which any issue of principle divides us, and having regard to the views of another place, I very much hope that the noble Baroness will not think it appropriate to press these amendments. However, if she does, I hope that your Lordships will see fit not to support her.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Annan: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I wonder whether he could assist some of us on these Benches—at any rate, myself—who do not have the text of Erskine May at the forefront of our minds. Can he say what would happen if the amendment were to be agreed? On the last occasion I voted with the noble Baroness, and I shall do so again if it is merely a question of telling another place how strongly we feel. However, if the noble Earl tells me that the schedule for legislation is such that it would mean the loss of the whole Bill, then I should think again. Can he help me in this matter?
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall do my best to help the noble Lord, Lord Annan. If your Lordships were to decide—in my view, misguidedly—to vote for the amendments, they would be returned to another place. It would have to decide whether to accept or reject your Lordships' advice. If it were a case of rejection, the issue would be returned to this Chamber and we would have to conduct the exercise which is rather inelegantly called "ping pong". One of two processes would take place: either both Houses would agree, in which case the Bill would go forward in its agreed form (whatever that form may be); or your Lordships and another place would disagree, in which case the whole Bill would be lost.
  Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to express my thanks to all those who have spoken in the debate; indeed many more have spoken in favour of my Motion than against it. We heard very much the same old arguments. I believe that I rebutted them in my original speech. The arguments put forward in the course of the debate were very well rebutted by the noble Lord, Lord Allen. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, made the very important point that the other place is not very firm in its dislike of these amendments. After all, our intention was just to add to a list which had already been started, and added to, by the Minister.

  1795
  We are totally within our constitutional rights in asking that the other place should think yet again in this respect. We are not putting the Bill at risk. Therefore, I ask that the House supports my Motion.
  4.5 p.m.
  The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the Question is that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reasons numbered 2A to 4A, but propose Amendments Nos. 4C to 4G in lieu thereof?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 135; Not-Contents, 148.

  Division No.

  CONTENTS

  Addington, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Adrian, L.

  Hunter of Newington, L.

  Allen of Abbeydale, L. [Teller.]

  Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Ilchester, E.

  Alport, .

  Irvine of Lairg, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Jeger, B.

  Annan, L.

  Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

  Ardwick, L.

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Aylestone, L.

  Kilmarnock, L.

  Birk, B.

  Kings Norton, L.

  Birkett, L.

  Kinloss, Ly.

  Blackstone, B.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Blease, L.

  Kissin, L.

  Bonham-Carter, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Boston of Faversham, L.

  Leatherland, L.

  Bottomley, L.

  Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

  Bridges, L.

  Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

  Briginshaw, L.

  Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

  Broadbridge, L.

  Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Bruce of Donington, L.

  Longford, E.

  Buckmaster, V.

  Lovell-Davis, L.

  Campbell of Eskan, L.

  McCarthy, L.

  Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

  McGregor of Durris, L.

  Carter, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  McNair, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Manchester, Bp.

  Crooks, L.

  Masham of Ilton, B.

  Cudlipp, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Darcy (de Knayth), B.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  David, B. [Teller.]

  Mulley, L.

  Dean of Beswick, L.

  Murray of Epping Forest, L.

  Donaldson, of Kingsbridge, L.

  Newall, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Norrie, L.

  Ewart-Biggs, B.

  Northfield, L.

  Ezra, L.

  Ogmore, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Oram, L.

  Feversham, L.

  Perry of Walton, L.

  Flowers, L.

  Peston, L.

  Foot, L.

  Phillips, B.

  Forbes, L.

  Plowden, L.

  Gallacher, L.

  Porritt, L.

  Galpern, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Gladwyn, L.

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Goodman, L.

  Sainsbury, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Seear, B.

  Grey, E.

  Seebohm, L.

  Haden-Guest, L.

  Serota, B.

  Hampton, L.

  Shackleton, L.

  Hanworth, V.

  Shepherd, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Soper, L.

  Hatch of Lusby, L.

  Stallard, L.

  Hayter, L.

  Stedman, B.

  Henderson of Brompton, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Hirshfield, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Houghton of Sowerby, L.

  Taylor of Gryfe, L.

  1796

  Tenby, V.

  Wharton, B.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Wilberforce, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Underhill, L.

  Willis, L.

  Varley, L.

  Wilson of Langside, L.

  Wallace of Coslany, L.

  Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

  Walston, L.

  Winstanley, L.

  Warnock, B.

  Zuckerman, L.

  Whaddon, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Aldington, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  Allerton, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Arran, E.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Astor, V.

  Kinnoull, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Knights, L.

  Beloff, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Belstead, L.

  Layton, L.

  Bessborough, E.

  Long, V.

  Blake, L.

  Lyell L.

  Blatch. B.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Blyth, L.

  Mackay of Clashfern, L.

  Borthwick, L.

  MacLehose of Beoch, L.

  Boyd-Carpenter, L.

  Macleod of Borve, B.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Mancroft L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Merrivale, L.

  Brigstocke, B.

  Mersey V.

  Brookeborough, V.

  Milverton, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Monk Bretton L.

  Butterworth, L.

  Monson, L.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Montgomery of Alamein, V.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Morris, L.

  Carnock, L.

  Mottistone, L.

  Carr of Hadley, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Cavendish of Furness, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton L.

  Cayzer, L.

  Munster, E.

  Clanwilliam, E.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Cochrane of Cults, L.

  Napier and Ettrick, L.

  Cockfield, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Coleraine, L.

  Norfolk, D.

  Colnbrook, L.

  Northbourne, L.

  Constantine of Stanmore, L.

  Nugent of Guildford, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Orkney, E.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Orr-Ewing, L.

  Cross, V.

  Oxfuird, V.

  Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Cumberlege, B.

  Pender, L.

  Daventry, V.

  Pym, L.

  Davidson, V. [Teller.]

  Radnor, E.

  Denham, L. [Teller.]

  Reay, L.

  Derwent, L.

  Renton, L.

  Digby, L.

  Renwick, L.

  Eccles, V.

  Rippon of Hexham, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Rodney, L.

  Elibank, L.

  St. Aldwyn, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  St. John of Bletso, L.

  Elliot of Harwood, B.

  Salisbury, M.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Sanderson of Bowden, L.

  Erroll of Hale, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Fairhaven, L.

  Shannon, E.

  Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

  Sharpies, B.

  Ferrers, E.

  Sherfield, L.

  Flather, B.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Foley, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

  Slim, V.

  Gainford, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Gisborough, L.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

  Gormanston, V.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Grimston of Westbury, L.

  Stockton, E.

  Haddington, E.

  Strange, B.

  Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

  Strathclyde L.

  Halsbury, E.

  Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

  Hankey, L.

  Strathspey, L.

  Hanson, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Havers, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Henley, L.

  Terrington, L.

  Hesketh, L.

  Teviot, L.

  Holderness, L.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  1797

  Thorneycroft, L.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Westbury, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Wigram, L

  Tryon, L.

  Wyatt of Weeford, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Yarborough, E.

  Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
  4.15 p.m.

  LORDS AMENDMENTS
  2 Clause 16, page 14, line 11, after ("programmes") insert ("and documentaries")
  The Commons disagreed to the above amendment for the following reason—
  2A because it is undesirable to confer a special status on documentaries.
  3 Clause 16, page 14, line 15, at end insert:
  ("(aa) that a sufficient amount of time is given in the programmes included in the service to programmes with an educational purpose;
  (ab) that a sufficient amount of time is given in the programmes included in the service to social action programmes.")
  The Commons disagreed to the above amendment for the following reason—
  3A because it is undesirable to confer a special status on programmes with an educational purpose and social action programmes.
  4 Clause 16, page 14, line 42, at end insert:
  ("(fa) that programmes of each type are shown at appropriate times of the day and week, having regard to the potential viewers of programmes of that type;")
  The Commons disagreed to the above amendment for the following reason—
  4A because it is undesirable for the Independent Television Commission to be concerned with the scheduling of programmes.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 to which the Commons have disagreed for reasons numbered 2A to 4A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 to which the Commons have disagreed for reasons numbered 2A to 4A.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  5 Clause 122, page 98, line 21, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
  ("(2) The programmes provided by a programme contractor under his contract for inclusion in any broadcasting service provided by the Commission or the Radio Authority in accordance with Part II or III of Schedule 9 shall not be transmitted by, or under arrangements made by, the Commission or the Radio Authority (as the case may be) but shall be transmitted —

  (a) by the nominated company in pursuance of a contract made between that company and the programme contractor in accordance with section (Variation of programme contracts to take account of new transmission arrangements), or

  (b) under arrangements made in accordance with subsection (3) (a) of that section in a case where any such contract made between a DBS programme contractor and that company is terminated by the contractor as mentioned in that provision.

  (3) The programmes broadcast on Channel 4 and S4C respectively during the interim period in accordance with Part II of Schedule 9 shall not be transmitted by, or under arrangements made by, the Commission but shall be transmitted by the nominated company—.
  1798

  (a) in the case of the programmes broadcast on Channel 4, in pursuance of such a contract made between that company and the Channel 4 company as is mentioned in subsection (4), and

  (b) in the case of the programmes broadcast on S4C, in pursuance of such a contract made between the nominated company and the Welsh Authority as is mentioned in subsection (6).

  (4) The contract referred to in subsection (3) (a) is a contract which makes provision for and in connection with the transmission by the nominated company during the interim period of the programmes to be broadcast on Channel 4 during that period, and in particular makes provision—

  (a) for specified standards relating to technical quality, coverage and reliability to be attained in connection with the transmission of those programmes by that company; and

  (b) for the transmission of those programmes to be suspended, if the Commission so direct in circumstances falling within subsection (5), for such period, or in the case of such programme or programmes, as they may specify.

  (5) The circumstances referred to in subsection (4) (b) are circumstances where the Commission consider it necessary to require the transmission of the programmes in question to be suspended in order for them to comply, or secure compliance, with the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1981 (as it has effect in accordance with Part II of Schedule 9 to this Act) or with any restriction or requirement imposed thereunder.
  (6) The contract referred to in subsection (3) (b) is a contract which makes provision for and in connection with the transmission by the nominated company during the interim period of the programmes to be broadcast on S4C during that period, and in particular makes provision for specified standards relating to technical quality, coverage and reliability to be attained in connection with the transmission of those programmes by that company.
  (7) In the following provisions, namely—

  (a) Parts II and III of Schedule 9 to this Act, and

  (b) any provision of the Broadcasting Act 1981 which is to be construed as referring to the Commission or to the Radio Authority by virtue of either of those Parts of that Schedule,

  any reference (however expressed) to the broadcasting of programmes, or to programmes broadcast, by the Commission or the Radio Authority shall, in consequence of subsections (2) and (3) above, be read as a reference to the broadcasting of programmes, or to programmes broadcast, by that body whether the transmission of the programmes is undertaken (according to the circumstances of the case)—

  (i) by, or under arrangements made by, that body, or

  (ii) by the nominated company in pursuance of any such contract as is referred to in either of those subsections or subsection (6), or

  (iii) under any such arrangements as are referred to in subsection (2) (b);

  and those Parts of that Schedule contain other modifications of provisions of that Act which are consequential on those subsections.
  (8) This section and section (Variation of programme contracts to take account of new transmission arrangements) shall have effect in relation to any teletext service provided by the Commission in accordance with Part II of Schedule 9 as if—

  (a) any reference to a programme or television programme were a reference to a teletext transmission; and

  (b) any reference to a programme contractor were a reference to a teletext contractor.

  (9) This section and section (Variation of programme contracts to take account of new transmission arrangements) shall, in so far as they apply to the transmission of the programmes provided by a DBS programme contractor under his contract for inclusion in any DBS service provided by the Commission in accordance with Part II of Schedule 9, be construed as applying only to the carrying on of such activities in connection with the transmission of those programmes as were being so carried on by the IBA immediately before the transfer date.
  (10) In this section—

  "the Channel 4 company" means the body corporate referred to in section 12(2) of the Broadcasting Act 1981, and "on Channel 4" means in the additional broadcasting service referred to in section 10(1) of that Act, but excluding so much of that service as consisted, immediately before the transfer date, in the broadcasting of programmes for reception wholly or mainly in Wales;

  "the interim period" means the period specified in subsection (1) (a) above;

  "on S4C" has the same meaning as in Part I of this Act.

  (11) The reference in subsection (4) or (6) to specified standards is a reference to such standards as the IBA shall specify for the purposes of that subsection before the transfer date.")
  The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment—
  5A Line 66, leave out "(or subsection (6))"
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5A to Lords Amendment No. 5.
  This is a minor technical amendment to correct a defect in the original drafting of the amendment.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5A to Lords Amendment No. 5.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  6 After Clause 167, insert the following new clause:

  Certain apparatus to be deemed to be apparatus for wireless telegraphy
  (".—(1) Any apparatus which—

  (a) is connected to the telecommunication system by means of which a relevant cable service is provided, and

  (b) is so connected for the purpose of enabling any person to receive any programmes included in that service by means of the reception and immediate re-transmission of programmes included in a television broadcasting service,

  shall be deemed for the purposes of the 1949 Act to be apparatus for wireless telegraphy.
  (2) Any such apparatus shall, in addition, be deemed for the purposes of—

  (a) section 1(7) of the 1949 Act (as amended by Part I of Schedule 16 to this Act), and

  (b) any regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of that provision under section 2 of that Act, to be television receiving apparatus.

  (3) In this section "relevant cable service" means a service provided by any person to the extent that it consists in the use of a telecommunication system (whether run by him or by any other person) for the purpose of the delivery, otherwise than by wireless telegraphy, of programmes included in one or more television broadcasting services, where such programmes are so delivered—

  (a) for simultaneous reception at two or more places in the United Kingdom, or

  (b) for reception at any place in the United Kingdom for the purpose of being presented there either to members of the public or to any group of persons.

  (4) In this section—

  "the 1949 Act" means the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949;

  1800

  "connected" has the same meaning as in the Telecommunications Act 1984;

  "television broadcasting service" means a television broadcasting service within the meaning of Part I of this Act, whether provided by the holder for a licence under that Part or by the BBC or the Welsh Authority.")

  The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment—
  6A Line 36, at end insert "(or in accordance with Part II of Schedule 9 to this Act.)".
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6A to Lords Amendment No. 6. This is a technical amendment to ensure that ITV services in the interim period come within the scope of the new clause.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6A to Lords Amendment No. 6.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  7 Schedule 9, page 179, line 39, at end insert:
  ("Provisions relating to DBS services
  4A.—(1) The following provisions of the 1981 Act, namely—

  (a) in section 2(2), paragraph (c) and in paragraph (b) the words "and a proper balance and wide range in their subject matter",

  (b) in section 4(1), paragraph (d) and so much of paragraph (b) as relates to the giving of a sufficient amount of time in the programmes to news and features,

  (c) section 20(2) (b) and (3),

  (d) section 22, and

  (e) section 24,

  shall not have effect by virtue of paragraph 1(3) or 2(2) above in connection with the provision of DBS services by the Commission or (as the case may be) in relation to DBS contractors or their contracts.
  (2) Every contract between the Commission and a DBS programme contractor shall contain all such provisions as the Commission think necessary or expedient to ensure that the financial and other arrangements for the provision of the satellite transponder are made by the contractor.
  (3) For the purpose of enabling a DBS programme or teletext contractor to make charges for the reception of programmes provided by him or transmissions containing material so provided, the Commission may, notwithstanding anything in the 1981 Act as it has effect in accordance with this Part of this Schedule, broadcast the programmes or transmissions in such a form (whether scrambled, encoded or otherwise) as will prevent persons from receiving them unless they obtain from the contractor the means of doing so.
  (4) Where under the power conferred by sub-paragraph (3) the Commission broadcast programmes or transmissions in such a form as is mentioned in that sub-paragraph, nothing in the 1981 Act (as it so has effect) shall be taken as requiring the Commission to permit advertisements to be included in the programmes or transmissions.
  (5) Where any service falling within section 41(1) of this Act is provided during the interim period on any of the spare capacity within the frequencies on which any DBS services are provided by the Commission in accordance with this Part of this Schedule, that service is licensable under section 42 of this Act as a licensable programme service, and not otherwise; and in this sub-paragraph "spare capacity" has the same meaning as in Part I of this Act.")
  The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment—
  7A Line 39, leave out from "(otherwise)" to end of line 40.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7A to Lords Amendment No. 7. This is a minor technical amendment necessary to correct the drafting of the original amendment.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7A to Lords Amendment No. 7.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  8 Schedule 9, page 182, line 14, at end insert:
  ("PART IIA

REPLACEMENT OF DBS CONTRACTS BY LICENCES UNDER PART I

  Replacement of DBS programme contract by domestic satellite licence
  1.—(1) Where any contract which, by virtue of paragraph 2(1) in Part II of this Schedule, has effect as a contract between the Commission and a DBS programme contractor is effective immediately before the relevant date—

  (a) the contract shall cease to have effect on that date; but

  (b) the contractor shall be granted by the Commission as from that date a licence under Part I of this Act to provide a domestic satellite service which, in accordance with section 39(1A) of this Act, authorises the provision of a multichannel service on the frequencies on which any DBS services consisting of programmes provided by him under the contract were being provided by the Commission down to that date.

  (2) In sub-paragraph (1) "multichannel service" means a service which to any extent consists in the simultaneous transmission of different programmes on different frequencies.
  (3) Any licence granted in pursuance of sub-paragraph (1) shall be so granted notwithstanding anything in sections 15 to 17 of this Act (as applied by section 39 of this Act); and nothing in section 19 of this Act (as so applied) shall apply to any such licence until such time (if any) as it is renewed in accordance with sub-paragraph (4).
  (4) Section 20 of this Act (as so applied) shall apply to any such licence as if—

  (a) in subsection (1), the first reference to a period of fifteen years were a reference to the period beginning with the relevant date and ending with the date on which the contact referred to in sub-paragraph (1) would have expired apart from that sub-paragraph;

  (b) in subsection (7) (b), the words from "a different" to "as" were omitted; and

  (c) in subsection (10) (a), the reference to any conditions included in the licence in pursuance of section 19 were a reference to any conditions so included in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) below.

  (5) Where any such licence is to be renewed in accordance with sub-paragraph (4), the Commission shall (notwith-standing section 3(4) of this Act) by notice served on the licence holder vary the licence, as from the date of its renewal, by including in it such conditions as appear to them to be necessary or expedient in consequence of sub-paragraph (3).
  (6) Section 3(3) shall, in its application in relation to any such licence, have effect—

  (a) with the omission of paragraph (a), and

  (b) as if the reference to Part I of this Act included a reference to this Part of this Schedule.

  (7) Section 36 shall have effect in relation to any such licence with the omission of subsection (2); and the maximum amount which the holder of any such licence may be required to pay by way of a financial penalty imposed in pursuance of subsection (1) (a) of that section shall instead be the sum for the time being specified in section 40(5)
  (8) Except as provided in the preceding provisions of this paragraph, Part I of this Act applies to a licence granted in pursuance of this paragraph as it applies to any other licence to provide a domestice satellite service.
  (9) In this Part of this Schedule—

  (a) "the relevant date" means the day immediately following the end of the interim period; and

  (b) "additional services licence", "domestic satellite licence" and "spare capacity" have the same meaning as in Part I of this Act.

  Power to require licence holder to make additional payments under 1981 Act
  2.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide for such of the provisions of sections 32 to 35 of, and Schedule 4 to, the 1981 Act as are specified in the order to have effect (subject to such modifications as are so specified)—

  (a) in relation to the holder of any licence granted in pursuance of paragraph 1 above, or

  (b) in relation to any such licence,

  with a view to making provision for and in connection with the making by the holder of any such licence to the Commission of payments determined in accordance with section 32 of that Act in respect of profits or advertising revenue (or both) within the meaning or that section.
  (2) Any such order shall be so framed as to secure that, subject to such modifications as the Secretary of State considers appropriate and to sub-paragraph (4), the provisions of the 1981 Act applied by the order as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) (a) and (b) so apply in a similar way to that in which they applied immediately before the relevant date in relation to a DBS programme contractor or (as the case may be) in relation to the contract of any such contractor.
  (3) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (2), any such order shall provide for any excess of a DBS programme contractor's relevant expenditure over his relevant income to be carried forward and treated as relevant expenditure for the purpose of computing his profits as the holder of a licence granted in pursuance of paragraph 1 above.
  Expressions used in this sub-paragraph which are also used in Schedule 4 to the 1981 Act have the same meaning as in that Schedule.
  (5) Where an order under sub-paragraph (1) comes into force at any time after the relevant date, the Commission shall (notwithstanding section 3(4) of this Act) by notice served on the licence holder vary any licence granted in pursuance of paragraph 1 above by including in it such conditions as appear to them to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the order.
  (6) Nothing in any such order shall impose on the holder of any such licence any liability to make any payment in respect of any time when any conditions included in the licence in accordance with paragraph 1(5) above are in force.
  (7) An order shall not be made by the Secretary of State under subparagraph (1) unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
  Replacement of DBS teletext contract by additional services licence
  3.—(1) Where any contract which, by virtue of paragraph 2(1) in Part II of this Schedule, has effect as a contract between the Commission and a DBS teletext contractor is effective immediately before the relevant date—

  (a) the contract shall cease to have effect on that date; but

  (b) the contractor shall be granted by the Commission as from that date an additional services licence under Part I of this Act which allocates for use under the licence all of the spare capacity within the frequencies on which any DBS services consisting of programmes provided by him as a DBS programme contractor were provided by the Commission down to that date.

  (2) Any such licence shall be so granted notwithstanding anything in sections 45 and 46 of this Act; and nothing in section 47 of this Act shall apply to any such licence until such time (if any) as it is renewed in accordance with sub-paragraph (3).
  (3) Section 48 of this Act shall apply to any such licence as if—

  (a) in subsection (1) (a), the reference to a period of ten years were a reference to the period beginning with the relevant date and ending with the date on which any contract to which paragraph 1(1) above applies and to which the DBS teletext contractor was a party immediately before the relevant date would have expired apart from that provision;

  (b) subsection (3) were omitted;

  (c) in subsection (6), paragraph (a) were omitted;

  (d) in subsection (7) (b), the words from "a different" to "as" were omitted; and

  (e) in subsection (10), the reference to any conditions included in the licence in pursuance of section 47 were a reference to any conditions so included in accordance with sub-paragraph (4) below.

  (4) Where any such licence is to be renewed in accordance with sub-paragraph (3), the Commission shall (notwith-standing section 3(4) of this Act) by notice served on the licence holder vary the licence, as from the date of its renewal, by including in it such conditions as appear to them to be necessary or expedient in consequence of sub-paragraph (2).
  (5) Section 3(3) shall, in its application in relation to any such licence, have effect—

  (a) with the omission of paragraph (a), and

  (b) as if the reference to Part I of this Act included a reference to this Part of this Schedule.

  (6) Section 50 shall have effect in relation to any such licence with the omission of subsection (2); and the maximum amount which the holder of any such licence may be required to pay by way of a financial penalty imposed in pursuance of subsection (1) of that section shall instead be the sum for the time being specified in section 40(5).
  (7) Except as provided in the preceding provisions of this paragraph, Part I of this Act applies to a licence granted in pursuance of this paragraph as it applies to any other additional services licence.")
  The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendments—
  8A Line 63, leave out "(, "domestic satellite licence" and "spare capacity"' and insert 'and "domestic satellite licence".)".
  8B Line 163, at end insert:
  "((6A) In sub-paragraph (1) (b) above the reference to spare capacity within the frequencies referred to in that provision includes a reference to spare capacity within those frequencies which (not being spare capacity within the signals carrying a television broadcasting service) is not spare capacity within the meaning of Part I of this Act; and references in that Part of this Act (however expressed) to the spare capacity authorised to be used under an additional services licence shall, in relation to any such licence as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) (b), accordingly be construed as including a reference to spare capacity within those frequencies which is not spare capacity within the meaning of that Part of this Act.")".
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8A and 8B to Lords Amendment No. 8. These are minor technical amendments necessary to correct the drafting of the original amendment.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8A and 8B to Lords Amendment No. 8.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  European Council, Rome, 27th–28th October
  4.17 p.m.
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the European Council in Rome on 27th and 28th October. The Statement is as follows:
  "With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the European Council held in Rome on 27th and 28th October, which I attended with my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. The conclusions of the Council have been placed in the Library of the House.
  "The Council had to deal in the first place with some urgent items of current business: the Community's failure to agree a negotiating position on agriculture for the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations; the situation in the Gulf, and the position of the foreign nationals held hostage in Iraq and Kuwait; and the problems which have arisen in Hungary.
  "Looking further ahead, the Council also dealt with the preparations for the two intergovernmental conferences, on economic and monetary union and also on institutional reform, which are due to begin in December.
  "I shall report on the Council's business in that order. The Uruguay Round of trade negotiations is due to be completed before the end of this year. The outcome will decide whether world trade becomes steadily more open, or we repeat the mistakes of the past and relapse into protectionism.
  "The most difficult item is agriculture. All the major participants in the Uruguay Round committed themselves to table negotiating offers by 15th October. All except the European Community have done so.
  "The Community has been discussing this problem since the round began in the autumn of 1986. It gave an unequivocal commitment in April last year to make substantial and progressive reductions in agricultural support. That commitment was repeated at the Houston economic summit in July this year.
  "The Commission has put forward a proposal for 30 per cent. reductions, back-dated to 1986. So what has already been done by way of reduction of support since then will be set against that 30 per cent.
  "There have been six sessions of European Community ministers to discuss the proposal. The most recent. lasting some 16 hours, was on Friday last week, but no agreement has been reached. The main opposition has come from France and Germany.
  "The Community's failure has harmed its reputation. Negotiations between the leading groups of countries cannot start until the

  1805
  Community's proposals have been tabled. The European Council requested ministers to meet again and put the Commission in a position to table a negotiating offer. The Netherlands Prime Minister suggested that the basis for this should be the position reached when agriculture ministers suspended their work early on 27th October. But President Mitterrand made clear that France would continue to vote against those proposals.
  "It remains for agriculture and trade ministers to try yet again to reach a conclusion. If we fail, it will give a signal to the world that the Community is protectionist.
  "Next, the Gulf and the position of the hostages. The European Council agreed a firm statement calling for Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait and confirming Europe's absolute commitment to full implementation of the United Nations Security Council resolutions. It makes clear that we shall consider further steps if Iraq does not comply. The message is that Saddam Hussein must not gain anything from his aggression.
  "The Council strongly condemned Iraq for holding foreign nationals as hostages and for using them in an unscrupulous way. This is totally unacceptable. Moreover Iraq is negotiating over the hostages with the purpose of trying to divide the international community. After considerable discussion, the Council affirmed our determination not to send representatives of our governments in any capacity to negotiate with Iraq for the release of hostages and to discourage others from doing so. I believe that the unity of the Twelve, and our determination not to allow Saddam Hussein to divide us on the question of hostages, will send a very powerful signal to Iraq.
  "Thirdly, assistance to Hungary. In the course of the Council, member states received appeals from the Government of Hungary for help in dealing with the serious problems which have arisen as a result of the reduction in the supply of oil from the Soviet Union. The consequent price rises have given rise to unrest. The Council issued a strong statement of support for Hungary in pursuing its path towards democratic and economic reforms and the rule of law.
  "The Council also agreed, at the United Kingdom's suggestion, to bring forward and disburse rapidly the second instalment of the 1 billion dollars Community loan for Hungary which we agreed last year. This will be of direct, practical assistance.
  "Those were the urgent matters on which the Council had to act. Looking further to the future, we also discussed the preparations for the two intergovernmental conferences—the IGCs—which will start their work on 14th December.
  "For the conference on political union, the Council had before it a report by foreign ministers listing a wide range of possible institutional changes which the intergovernmental conference might
  1806
  consider. Heads of government called for further work to be done on these proposals between now and December.
  "My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and I argued that it would be wrong to prejudge the conclusions of the intergovernmental conference. We were on strong ground since the Community's original decision to call the conference specified that it should set its own agenda. Nevertheless others wished to give specific directions to the IGC. We therefore reserved the United Kingdom's position on, for example, extension of the Community's powers into new areas; greater powers for the European Parliament in the legislative sphere; defining European citizenship; and a common foreign and security policy. All these are issues for discussion at the intergovernmental conference itself rather than to be settled in advance.
  "On economic and monetary union, I stressed that we would be ready to move beyond the present position to the creation of a European monetary fund and a common Community currency which we have called a hard ecu. But we would not be prepared to agree to set a date for starting the next stage of economic and monetary union before there is any agreement on what that stage should comprise. I again emphasised that we would not be prepared to have a single currency imposed upon us, nor to surrender the use of the pound sterling as our currency.
  "The hard ecu would be a parallel currency not a single currency. If as time went by people and governments chose to use it widely, it could evolve towards a single currency. But our national currency would remain unless a decision to abolish it were freely taken by future generations of Parliament and people. But a single currency is not the policy of this Government.
  "I would like to offer four comments in conclusion. First, the Community finds it more difficult to take the urgent detailed decisions than to discuss longer term concepts. Moreover, no one should underestimate the extent to which national interests prevail among those who most proclaim their Community credentials.
  "Secondly, Britain intends to be part of the further political, economic and monetary development of the European Community. That is what the great majority of member states want too. When we come to negotiate on particular points, rather than concepts or generalities, I believe that solutions will be found which will enable the Community to go forward as Twelve. That will be our objective.
  "Thirdly, we are fighting in Europe for British farmers, for British consumers, for a new world trade agreement, for help to the newly democratic countries of Eastern Europe and for the interests and concerns of our people.
  "Fourthly, while we fully accept our commitments under the treaties and wish to co-operate

  1807
  more closely with other countries in the European Community, we are determined to retain our fundamental ability to govern ourselves through Parliament. I believe that is the wish of this House and we on this side will do our best to see that it is fulfilled.
  That concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
  4.27 p.m.
  Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating that wide-ranging Statement. It leads us to certain conclusions, one of which is that at this moment Community affairs are, to say the least, unsatisfactory, certainly from a British viewpoint. The Rome Summit has left us isolated once again. That must be a cause for acute concern.
  On the question of who is to blame, there are strong arguments on both sides and the Statement naturally defends the Government's case. I believe that the Prime Minister's reactions were aggressive; that is not always helpful. I do not, however, propose to denounce all the Government's reactions for the simple reason that there are some developments in the Community itself which must cause concern. We need to think carefully before we come to final judgments.
  All parties in this House are committed to Britain playing a more central role in the new Europe. We do not wish to be marginalised in future developments there. The Statement refers to agriculture as the most difficult item. The breakdown of talks on farm prices in Brussels was serious and not the Government's fault. The failure to reach agreement was due to political factors in France and Germany and the two governments' inability to stand up to farm lobbies, especially in France.
  I believe that the Statement confirms that the Government still believe that a settlement of the agricultural problem is essential before the next GATT round in Uruguay. The GATT talks provide an opportunity to reform the CAP which again is essential, not only in the interests of taxpayers but in the long-term interests of farmers as well.
  My first question to the noble Lord the Leader of the House is this. Did the Government request that this issue should be placed on the agenda in Rome? It provided an opportunity to find a settlement which had not proved successful in Brussels. If so, can the noble Lord tell us why the request was turned down? Further, may we assume that the Commission's compromise package which France and Germany rejected in Brussels still stands and that the Government can support it?
  Secondly, is it not the case that economic union was to be the first subject for discussion at the Rome Summit in December? As the House will recall, political union was added to the agenda later. Why was economic union made the central subject of last weekend's agenda and when was Her Majesty's Government informed of that? Is it the case that it was tabled at short notice and rushed through without
  1808
  adequate preparation? Given its central importance, that would certainly not be the right way to conduct business, not as we understand it in this country and in this Parliament.
  Can the noble Lord say whether economic union will still be on the agenda for the December Summit? If so, will the Government make an effort to find a solution to the many obstacles which exist? In view of the Prime Minister's general attitude, can he say whether subsidiarity is under consideration by the Government? The Statement refers to the importance of Parliament. That is something we can all support, but subsidiarity is related to that and it will be interesting to know whether it is under consideration by the Prime Minister and her Government at this time. It is clear that serious differences of opinion and emphasis exist within the Government at this time. Can the noble Lord give us an assurance that efforts are being made to resolve that apparent disunity? I do not propose to append names to the speeches that we have heard or to the articles that we have read in newspapers and periodicals, but they show that there is a sharp and acute difference of opinion within the Cabinet at present which is not helpful.
  We note carefully what the Prime Minister said about the Gulf and specifically about hostages. We agree entirely with what she said. We shall have the opportunity to deal fully with that subject and with the crisis generally when we have our debate on foreign affairs following the Gracious Speech in a fortnight's time.
  Finally, is the noble Lord aware that a Committee of this House, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, has been considering the problems of economic and political union over the last few weeks? Does he agree that it would be helpful if we had a debate on that report before the December Summit?
  Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, in thanking the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. I can at least agree on the importance of the Uruguay Round and the duty of the Community quickly to table a satisfactory negotiating offer, which it has not yet done. Perhaps I may observe in passing that the difficulties associated with the CAP are a 33 year-old monument to the disadvantages for this country of not fully participating in the formative stages of European enterprises.
  However, having said that, the Prime Minister's obsessive xenophobia is becoming not only an embarrassing joke but a national liability. It will be within the recollection of the House that within the last couple of years she has been appalled by the impracticality of the Germans and the illogicality of the French, disgusted by the judicial wetness of the Belgians and the Irish, let down by the inconstancy of the Spaniards, the Danes and the Dutch and now claims to have been cheated on the agenda by the Italians. But might there not be room here for examination of the beam in our own eye?

  1809
  Furthermore, do the Government not recognise that each instalment of Cloud-cuckoo-land is developing a remarkable habit of arriving while we are still denouncing it as totally impractical Utopianism? By the endless repetition of the sad charade of never joining anything until it is too late to influence its shape and then creeping in through the back door, the Prime Minister has not only reduced our influence in Europe to a minimum but has produced an almost unprecedented shambles in the Government. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether the Government's view of sovereignty is that of Sir Geoffrey Howe or of Mrs. Thatcher? Does he accept Sir Leon Brittan's view that Mr. Major's scheme touches sovereignty just as much as the Delors policy? Will he tell us what form of monetary union the Prime Minister agreed to in Madrid, although it must apparently have as little as possible to do with either union or money?
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, both noble Lords have asked me whether I will give the Government's view so far as it is represented by the Cabinet. I shall start by doing just that. In a sense, my reply will cover all the points which have just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. Before I go any further, perhaps I may thank both noble Lords for their response but say that on some issues the Government clearly do not agree with what the noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said.
  The attitude of the Government and of the Cabinet to the proposals for economic and monetary union is very clear. The hard ecu proposals would allow early progress in creating a common currency for Europe. There would then be a separate decision as to whether to move to a single currency. All members of the Government agree that that is not something to which we would agree now; nor, indeed, I guess would another place accept it.
  Perhaps I may go on from there by saying something which I believe is accurate but which is perhaps a little more ameliorating. In slightly different ways both noble Lords criticised the position of my right honourable friend at the summit. This was a special council which did not take final decisions but mapped out two alternative ways forward. The Council conclusions have been placed in the Library of your Lordships' House and can be referred to.
  The two alternative 'ways forward are whether to move to Stage Two on 1st January 1994, which the large majority of the member states represented at Rome felt was what they wanted to do, or whether to follow the evolutionary approach mapped out by the British Government through the hard ecu, involving incidentally—this shows that the British Government are perfectly serious in putting this forward—the setting up of a new institution—a European monetary fund—and a treaty change. If your Lordships will be good enough to look at page 8 of the Council's conclusions, you will see that they are clear; namely, that two alternative ways forward will be further discussed—here I reply to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn—in the next European Council starting on 14th December. Those matters are very much on the table and there is therefore all to play for.
  1810
  I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will not mind me saying that I conclude that it is not correct to talk about isolation. There is still a great deal of negotiating to be done.
  Perhaps I may now more quickly run through one or two answers which I shall try to give to both noble Lords. They put their fingers on the problem and have great experience of these matters, such as the problems that face us on the GATT round because of the hang-up on agriculture.
  The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked whether we requested that that subject should be on the agenda in Rome. He went on to make further remarks which, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said, showed that the Leader of the Opposition was worried that some of those matters had appeared on the agenda rather suddenly. The special Council at Rome had been intended to deal with the CSCE, the forthcoming summit and what we can do to try to use the CSCE procedures to improve co-operation and security in Europe. A great many other subjects appeared on the agenda, but they did not include the enormously important subject of where we stand as a Community as regards GATT and what on earth we are to do about the hang-up on agriculture. As your Lordships know, the Statement says that agriculture ministers will now meet again immediately. Let us hope that at long last we can find our way through.
  To answer the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, economic union will be on the agenda for December. The two approaches will then be discussed.
  On the issue of subsidiarity, the Government agree very strongly with what the noble Lord said. It is an enormously important issue. We feel very strongly that it should be reflected in the treaty. It is a criterion which is additional to competence and should not be mixed up with Community competence. That underlines the importance of the concept of subsidiarity.
  Finally, to reply to the noble Lord opposite, yes, I am aware than an important report is to be published soon by an ad hoc committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Aldington. Negotiations are in hand for a debate before the next council meeting.
  4.40 p.m.
  Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, contrary to the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, many people in this country are profoundly thankful that we have a Prime Minister who is prepared to stand up firmly and with determination for the preservation of the sovereignty of this country and the rights and powers of Parliament? Is he also aware that for a thousand years control and management of currency has been a mark of sovereignty and that serious people will hesitate a great deal before deciding to surrender that basic right of a sovereign power?
  Is my noble friend further aware that they will hesitate particularly before surrendering it to a body which is apparently incapable of finding a solution to its own agricultural problem? It is perfectly clear that it is French and German ministers' fear of their

  1811
  farmers which is perpetuating the scandalous waste of money and the scandalous damage to international trade and the interests of the third world. Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that most people would think that unless and until the Community shows itself capable of dealing with those matters we should look at proposals for surrendering sovereignty to it with considerable caution?
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for his words of support for the negotiations undertaken by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. It is a little difficult to talk about the issue in this House, but I must make the point that monetary sovereignty is one of the most fundamental powers of another place. Speaking both for myself and the Government, it has not been my impression from reading the debates in another place that another place would lightly throw that away in the future.
  Lord Barnett: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House said that the summit did not take final decisions. Does he think that it was helpful to the national interest for the Prime Minister to take the attitude that she did, given that she says in the Statement which he has repeated that the national interest will also prevail among other countries and that the only two areas where she expressed disagreement concerned the date and the single currency disagreement and even that was qualified? Does he still believe that the attitude adopted by the Prime Minister was really in the national interest in view of the negotiations that are to take place in the future?
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, suggests that a Prime Minister of this country should have agreed, for instance, to extend qualified majority voting within the Council and to delegate implementing powers to the Commission as well as agree a common security policy and other matters of that kind, all without saying that they should be subject to negotiation.
  Lord Barnett: My Lords, I did not say that.
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord did not refer to those matters; he referred to other matters to which I simply added. All of the points that the noble Lord mentioned and that I have mentioned have one thing in common. My right honourable friend, perfectly reasonably, together with my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, said, "Yes, we will discuss those, but we will not tie ourselves down ahead of an intergovernmental conference for which, when the IGC was being planned in Dublin a year ago, it was quite clearly agreed the agenda would be mapped out at the IGC itself."
  Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that as a country we are committed by treaty to the eventual achievement of economic and monetary union and that the real debate is about how we get there? Does he agree that there are two ways of getting there—by the route which 11 of the 12 members of the Community wish to take or by the evolutionary route
  1812
  proposed by the United Kingdom? Will the noble Lord assure us that the United Kingdom will go into the debates in Brussels in December with a totally open mind on the subject and that we shall put forward our case as strongly as possible, but that if the case for another route is adopted by the majority we shall look at it seriously? If we were to stand out against the majority view after full debate on this very important issue, what would we then do? Have the Government thought about our longer term strategy? Would we leave the rest of Western Europe to go ahead on the basis of a single currency and a central bank while we stood outside? Is that the long-term strategy of the Government in that eventuality?
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, the position of the Government is perfectly clear. We believe that the cart is being put before the horse and we would not accept the imposition of a single currency. The very first answer that I gave this afternoon made it quite clear that we are being constructive in putting forward what are called the hard ecu proposals, which would need a change in the treaty and the setting up of a new institution in what would be called the European monetary fund. That would be a parallel or common currency and could move in time to a single currency. However, we find it difficult, indeed impossible, to accept moving straight into what is called Stage Two leading to the imposition of a single currency. We believe that that is impossible and that the cart is being put before the horse because, in talking about the date of 1st January 1994, no one seems to have thought what is to happen under Stage Two.
  Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there would be more goodwill, and possibly more real agreed progress, if there were fewer of these summit meetings? Is it not most regrettable that time after time heads of government, who can never agree anything en principe or ad referendum, box themselves quite unnecessarily into hopeless corners?
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I must say that I think that there is a lot in what my noble friend has said.
  Lord Walston: My Lords, the Statement—we are most grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating it—quite rightly states that the most difficult item is agriculture. Therefore, I should like to ask the noble Lord two questions on that most important subject. The first is a relatively simple one. The Statement says that what has already been done by way of reduction of support since 1986 will be set against the 30 per cent. reduction. How much has been achieved since 1986 in the reduction of support and therefore how much remains to be argued about?
  The second question is somewhat more complex. Does the noble Lord not agree that however valuable the common agricultural policy was in the earliest days of the Community—particularly of the Six—it has now proved to be entirely incapable of solving the problems not only of agriculture within the Community but above all the problems of international trade and the third world? Have the Government given serious consideration to an entirely new form of support for agriculture with emphasis on the environmental aspects which are now becoming so

  1813
  important and with a return towards a free market in agricultural produce but still with support, through environmental means, for farmers in this country and throughout the Community?
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord. I do not have with me the exact figure for how much has already been achieved so far as concerns the 30 per cent. cut. I make the point that we are talking about a 30 per cent. cut over a period of 10 years. If one considers the effect that stabilisers have had in cutting prices since 1986, one is year by year starting to talk about a fairly modest amount of cutting. It is impossible to get agreement even to that in the agricultural council. Like a very small amount of a reduction, that compares with what has been proposed by the United States. However, I shall try to find the exact figure. I shall send it to the noble Lord and put the reply in the Library.
  With regard to the much wider question of reform of the common agricultural policy, if one speaks of full-blown reform one is considering treaty change. However, the noble Lord may have in mind what I think is called extensification, certainly grants for environmental farming, and therefore the reduction of production in that way. That is a road which we have been trying to go down in this country for the past two or three years. We have that very much in mind.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating such an admirable Statement, which I had the great pleasure to hear live on my car radio on my way to your Lordships' House—and how splendidly delivered it was.
  Will he accept that a great many people, by no means all of them members of the Government's party, greatly resent the accusation made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, that the Prime Minister is motivated by excessive xenophobia, merely because, like the vast majority of people in this country, she wishes to prevent this country being absorbed into a European super-state? He might just as well accuse the Canadians or the Mexicans of being excessively xenophobic because they have no wish to be absorbed by the United States of America. To accuse people who wish to retain our traditional right of self-determination of being xenophobic is not worthy of the Liberal Party.
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks. I take the opportunity of his question to repeat that it is very important to notice that three paragraphs before the end the Statement goes out of its way to mention that this country:
  "intends to be part of the further political, economic and monetary development of the European Community".
  My right honourable friend believes,
  "that solutions will be found which will enable the Community to go forward as Twelve. That will be our objective".
  That is a perfectly reasonable and natural objective in the light of the fact that at the special council a way was mapped out which gives alternative ways forward. Those are set out in the council's conclusions which
  1814
  can be found in the Library of your Lordships' House. There will also be further negotiations in the December council.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for the Statement which he repeated. Does he on behalf of the Government agree with the Canadians when they say that if the Uruguay Round collapses it will result in a trade war and slump? If that happens will it not be as a result of the isolationism of France and Germany and their narrow Fortress Europe attitude?
  Does the noble Lord believe that this country and indeed all the other countries were bounced by the Italians into making decisions which should not have been made at this point and for which no preparation had been made? If so, is that a good augury for further integration? Is that the way in which decisions will be taken on vital matters? I sincerely hope not. I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will be able to assure us that Her Majesty's Government will not stand for such treatment either for us or for any other member of the European Community.
  European trains have been mentioned by various people. It is no good getting on a train unless one knows exactly where one is being taken and can he assured that it will not be derailed along the route or crash into buffers at the other end. Therefore when discussing these matters it is most important that we should not be bounced by the presidency or anybody else into taking rash decisions on a very short timescale.
  Finally, I heard the Prime Minister in the House of Commons defend her position. It was not xenophobic to say that she wanted this country to retain its sovereignty, which means that decisions would be taken democratically through our properly elected Parliament rather than by administrative edict through an oligarchy sitting in a foreign capital. That is not xenophobic. It is an expression of what this country has built up over 1,000 years. We should be stupid to throw it away.
  Perhaps I could have the assurance that the Prime Minister, unlike the position she took on the Single European Act, will follow those brave and patriotic words by action in future meetings through IGCs? Will she ensure that the rhetoric is transformed into action even if that means vetoing decisions or proposals that would be inimical to the best interests of this country and its continuation as a fully independent state?
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I respect the views held by the noble Lord. He asked me whether there is not a very real danger so far as concerns the GATT Round. My reply is that continued delay in tabling a Community offer poses a genuine threat to the round. I believe that there are others—possibly the United States and Canada, which were mentioned by the noble Lord, and possibly the Cairns group—who may simply walk away if there cannot be some satisfactory meeting of minds and negotiation with regard to agriculture.

  1815
  Secondly, the noble Lord raised a point which was also put by the noble Lord the Leader of his party about the preparation of the agenda. At the end of this exchange this afternoon I should simply like to say that my right honourable friend was not prepared to pre-empt decisions which are to be taken at the two inter-governmental conferences in December. I believe that that was right. I believe that that is in the interests of the Community and those of this country. That does not in any way prejudice what has firmly been said in the Statement, to the effect that we are in there negotiating, and there is a great deal of negotiating still to do.
  Finally, the noble Lord asked me for an assurance. That is ground over which I have already been this afternoon. We have put forward our proposals for the hard ecu and the European monetary fund which would mean what is sometimes called a common currency or a parallel currency. That is faithfully recorded at length in the conclusions of the council, which can be found in the document in the Library. That could lead to a single currency. However, I repeat that we will not accept the imposition of a single currency. We believe that it would be a travesty of sentiment in another place to do so.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in various ways the Prime Minister has shown herself to be a better European than some of her opposite numbers on the Council of Ministers? To give several examples, I mention her initiative with regard to the CAP, her attitude on the Uruguay Round and her insistence earlier that restrictions on capital movements should be abandoned before 1992. Bearing in mind the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is my noble friend aware that this country is not bound by treaty to have a European currency which excludes the use of sterling? Will he tell us the length of notice that the Prime Minister was given before these proposals for the future of monetary union were considered and decisions—only preliminary decisions of course—were reached upon them the other day?
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his intervention. He says that my right honourable friend and her Government have sought to bring the common agricultural policy under some better regulation. My goodness me, how true that is —and indeed with some success. We have now seen a reduction in the enormous surpluses, which have not been good for anyone, including the producers.
  My right honourable friend was in a pivotal position with regard to the success of the Houston meeting of the G7 countries. It is clear from the exchanges in the House this afternoon that the GATT round is in the mind of all, across all parties. My noble friend was right to refer to what we tried to do to push forward the prospects for a single market. On all those issues and in many other ways, yes, my right honourable friend has endeavoured to be a good European.
  We are not bound by treaty to exclude sterling. I must apologise to my noble friend. I simply do not have the statistic on when the proposal of economic
  1816
  and monetary union being considered on the agenda was made known to member states. However, I repeat a point that I made earlier. The purpose of the Council was to discuss the CSCE process. A great many other things were added: economic and monetary union was one of them.
  Lord Annan: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, are not absolutely representative of all opinion on the Cross-Benches? Does he agree that perhaps the most disastrous decision made in foreign policy since the war was to sneer and jeer at the Six at the time that they went into conference at Messina, which was the conference that led to the Treaty of Rome? It is precisely because from the Benches opposite we hear from some of those who were perhaps Ministers at the time the same scepticism and hostility to the idea of the European Community that there is cause for alarm.
  The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, was somewhat robust in his comments on the Prime Minister's style of diplomacy. However, the fact that this country time and time again finds itself in a minority of one gives great cause for concern in Europe. I hope that the noble Lord will not take it amiss if it is emphasised that it is sad that that happens so often.
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, of course I take seriously what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has said. However, we need to look forwards and not backwards. With regard to the obviously difficult, although brief, discussions on the GATT round, it seems that the Community from time to time finds it more difficult to take the urgent detailed decisions which have to be taken than to discuss longer term concepts. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the past, we all have to try to look forward.
  Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is it not a pity that from the Cross-Benches, in particular from one who is held in such high esteem as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, noble Lords should by their emphasis display personal prejudice? He referred to sneers and jeers of people who had doubts about the Treaty of Rome in the early days; but he also referred to what was a clear sneer and jeer as merely a robust reaction. That difference of emphasis conveys a message to me.
  Ought we not to bear in mind that 38 of us in the Tory Party voted contrary to the Whip because we thought we recognised in the Treaty of Rome dangers that would develop—and such as are now developing —for the independence and separateness of this country? There was nothing sneering and jeering about it. It was because we felt those dangers were clear in the text of the Bill. I believe that ought to be recognised.
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, having said that I respect the views of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, of course I respect the views of my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls.
  Perhaps I may repeat at the end of this exchange what I have said several times. Do not let any of us go away with the idea that in some way at the Rome

  1817
  Special Council irrevocable decisions were taken which will quite definitely lead the way for the future. Two alternative ways forward were mapped out. They are contained in the detailed conclusions which have been placed in the Library of your Lordships' House. They are either to go to what is called Stage Two, of economic and monetary union without, I have to say to your Lordships if one reads those conclusions, any indications as to what Stage Two actually means; or to take the evolutionary approach of the hard ecu in setting up what would be a new institution, a European monetary fund, which has been put on the table by the British Government. Those are matters which together with institutional reforms will be returned to in the December Council.

  Caldey Island Bill
  5.6 p.m.
  Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. Mae'n ddrwg iawn gen i dwi ddim yn siarad Cymraeg.
  This hybrid Bill, brought to us from another place, seeks to restore the democratic rights to vote and stand for election to the small island community of Caldey in South West Wales. It is a non-controversial Bill which only began its parliamentary passage after consultation between the Welsh Office and the islanders. So far as I am aware, it is acceptable to the islanders, who have not exercised their right to petition against its provisions.
  If I may, I shall begin by providing a brief background to Caldey and its exceptional history. It is in the island's history that the need for the Bill currently before us is rooted. Caldey is situated one and a half miles south west of Tenby in South Pembrokeshire and is owned by the Cistercian Order. Its residents consist of a monastic community of 15 monks and a small lay community of approximately 20 adults and 15 children. Caldey is within the county of Dyfed but it is outside the district of South Pembrokeshire and has never been part of any second tier of local government. Its unique status has come about in the following way.
  In the 12th century the island was granted by King Henry I to one Robert Fitz-Martin and since then it has been in the continuous ownership of religious communities or private landowners. As a consequence Caldey did not become an ecclesiastical parish in the Middle Ages, nor did it become part of the civil parish system which evolved later. The parish system was the foundation for the evolution of the local government system that we know today. It formed the basis of rural sanitation boards formed under the Public Health Act 1875 and their successors, rural district councils, under the Local Government Act 1896.
  With the consolidation of local government under the Local Government Act 1972, the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales undertook a special community review. The purpose of the review was to establish a system of communities in Wales (the equivalent of the parish system in England) to replace the previous pattern of boroughs,
  1818
  urban districts and parishes. The islanders of Caldey made it clear that they did not wish Caldey to become a community within the district of South Pembrokeshire. In 1982 the Secretary of State for Wales decided, in deference to the islanders wishes to retain their traditional independence, that the island should remain outside South Pembrokeshire. This also means that Caldey is not a community in the local government sense. Under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 a community can exist only as a constituent part of a local government district. This also accords with the islanders' wishes.
  The Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order 1983 defined the constituency of Pembroke (previously the old county of Pembrokeshire which included Caldey) as the district of South Pembrokeshire and some wards of the neighbouring district of Preseli. Caldey was therefore outside the new constituency and the European parliamentary constituency of Mid and West Wales which is an aggregation of a number of parliamentary constituencies, including that of Pembroke. Also, as Caldey is outside South Pembrokeshire, it falls outside the jurisdiction of the district's electoral registration officer. Theoretically, therefore, the islanders are not entitled to be included on an electoral register.
  I should stress at this point that the residents of Caldey have never been deprived of the ability to vote. The electoral intricacies of the situation did not come to light until late 1988 and the islanders were included on the electoral registers for South Pembrokeshire until the expiry of the 1989–90 register on 15th February 1990. Once a person's name is on the register the law provides that that is proof enough of an entitlement to vote and the Caldey Islanders have done so quite legally since 1983. The next South Pembrokeshire District Council elections are not until May 1991 and the next Dyfed County Council elections are not until 1993.
  Without this Bill, however, the islanders would not be entitled to be included on the current register for 1990–91 or any future register. Their disfranchisement was unintentional, is certainly unacceptable and is probably in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights.
  I now turn to the main provisions of the Bill, of which there are four. Clause 1 deems Caldey Island and its neighbour, St. Margaret's, to be in South Pembrokeshire for the purposes of voting in local, parliamentary and European parliamentary elections. It also enables the islanders to be included on the district's electoral registers for 1990–91 and 1991–92 retrospectively. The 1990–91 register does not expire until 15th February 1991 and the qualifying date of 10th October 1990 for inclusion on the register for 1991–92 has now passed. St Margaret's is uninhabited but census returns show that as late as 1841 three families still lived on the island. Although highly unlikely, it is not inconceivable that it will be inhabited again at some future date. It is for this reason that St. Margaret's has been included within the scope of the Bill.

  1819
  Clause 2 deems Caldey to be in the district of South Pembrokeshire for the purposes of paying the community charge, including county precepts and non-domestic rating. Members of the religious order will of course be exempt from the personal community charge, although the commercial activities of the abbey undertaken by the Caldey Island Estate Company will be liable to non-domestic rating. The community earns revenue from visitor-related activities mainly during the summer months and facilities on the island comprise a tearoom, a gift shop and a perfumery. As a registered charity the company may be entitled to mandatory relief of 80 per cent. on non-domestic rates.
  This will be the first time that the islanders have been subject to local taxation. I have already mentioned that Caldey is in the County of Dyfed, which provides the islanders with services, primarily education for the island's children. Dyfed Education Authority maintains a small school unit with a full-time teacher on the island which provides the children with infant and primary education. For secondary education the children travel to the mainland and are boarded out by the education authority for the school week. The fire authority maintains a permanent tender on the island which the authority regularly maintains. In addition to these specific services the islanders benefit from more general amenity services provided by the county such as library facilities.
  Because Caldey lies outside the charging authority of South Pembrokeshire, Dyfed County Council has been unable to precept on the district for the proportionately expensive services it provides to the islanders, the cost of which falls upon other Dyfed charge payers. The islanders do not receive services from South Pembrokeshire and will not do so if this Bill becomes law. This is a logical consequence of their desire to stay outside the district. In practice they are in a similar position to inhabitants of other offshore islands and isolated rural areas on the mainland which are fully integrated within the local government system. The community charge is not intended to reflect the levels of service used by individuals or particular groups of individuals.
  I should mention at this point that there is a gentleman's agreement between the islanders and South Pembrokeshire Environmental Health Department under which the latter inspects the islands visitor and refuse disposal facilities on a regular basis and provides the islanders with advice on other environmental health matters. The arrangement is harmonious and constructive and has worked well for a number of years.
  The provisions of the Bill, should it become law, will come into effect upon receipt of Royal Assent. The islanders' initial liability to payment of community charge will, however, be deferred until 1st April 1991. The islanders will also benefit from a specially devised community charge transitional relief scheme which will ensure that the reductions in their charge over the first four years of liability will be
  1820
  comparable to those enjoyed by other charge payers in South Pembrokeshire. Both these initiatives will be implemented under order-making powers which are available under Clause 4(3) of the Bill.
  Clause 3 rectifies other anomalous aspects of Caldey and St. Margaret's position. It includes the islands within the jurisdiction of the Pembrokeshire Coroner and the Pembrokeshire Health Authority. The existing jurisdiction of both these bodies is confined to the districts of South Pembrokeshire and Preseli and, therefore, inadvertently excludes Caldey. As far as I am aware, Caldey's exclusion from their jurisdiction has been of no practical consequence.
  Clause 4 of the Bill makes it clear that the position of Caldey established by the Bill is without prejudice to any future decisions on its position that may be required in the light of a change of ownership, local government area or electoral changes and health authority or coroners areas of jurisdiction.
  I have already mentioned that the provisions of the Bill have been the subject of consultation with the islanders. It became clear that their paramount concern was that any corrective measures should preserve their cherished tradition of independence from second-tier local government. In presenting the Caldey Island Bill the Government have sought as far as possible to accommodate the islanders' wishes. Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill incorporate Caldey within South Pembrokeshire only for the purposes of voting and local taxation. In all other respects Caldey will remain outside the district's jurisdiction. Should the Bill become law Caldey will retain its unique status of not being completely integrated within the local government system. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Baroness Trumpington.)
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the manner in which she has introduced the Bill. She has given the House a brief outline of the history of the island of Caldey. For that I say, Diolch yn fawr.
  This evening the Minister also referred to the wishes of the islanders to retain their tradition of semi-independence from local government. The words have splendid overtones of ancient customs, rights and privileges. I note that one of the most important effects of the Bill, if not the most important, is that it will impose upon the people of Caldey Island the community charge and the non-domestic rates, even though their ancestors have never paid local taxation. In fact, the Minister referred to that more than once in her speech. That aspect of the Bill particularly fascinated me when I read its provisions for the first time. Why had the islanders been exempt from local taxation although, as the Minister explained, they are in receipt of some local government services? I was tempted to ask whether the exemption was derived from ancient custom or whether it had a moral or legal basis in age-old rights or privileges which may, for example, have been granted on the dissolution of the Monastery of St. Dogmaels and Calde.

  1821
  With the help of Dr. Peter Davies in your Lordships' Library and also with the help of the Welsh Office I discovered that in 1537 or 1543, in exchange for the sum of £62.10s.6d., Henry VIII had by his own hand granted a conveyance of the territory of the monastery of St. Dogmaels, which included Caldey, to one John Bradshawe and his heirs and successors, reserving nevertheless to the King tithes, portions and other emoluments.
  That is a significant document and being unfamiliar with the legal terminology and phraseology of the 16th century, the document bristles with some difficulties. However, I understand that the Privy Council has confirmed that Clause 2 of this Bill in particular—that is the clause which imposes local taxation—is not in conflict with the grant of 1537. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that advice when she replies.
  Nevertheless, I believe that the grant of 1537, selling off as it does the assets of the monastery, is an instructive document and a precedent. Does that not represent the earliest precedent in the privatisation game and a precedent which regrettably was shaped by a Welshman—Henry VIII?
  I have two fairly straightforward questions for the Minister. I have read the discussions of the provisions of the Bill in Standing Committee B in another place but I am still not clear at what rate the 15 monks who are on the island will pay the community charge. Will they pay any charge at all or will they receive 80 per cent. relief?
  Secondly, as I understand it, initially no one pays a community charge more than £150 above what he would have paid in domestic rates. Will the community charge for the people of the island of Caldey for the first year be fixed no higher than £150?
  The islanders could have petitioned Parliament right up to today but the Minister has confirmed that no petition has been received. Therefore, we go along with this Bill even though it is shedding an important piece of tradition and will mean less diversity in this corner of the realm.
  5.25 p.m.
  Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I intervene very briefly really for old times' sake and partly because the Minister referred to me in her speech. She referred to the decision taken in 1982 to retain the traditional independence outside South Pembrokeshire. I well remember the issue coming before me. Of course, I was the local Member of Parliament and I have reason to think that some of the inhabitants of Caldey from time to time cast their votes for me, although I must confess also that it was not the usual practice of candidates in an election campaign to make the crossing in order to win their votes. It may be that my energetic successor has set new precedents in that respect.
  Therefore, I listened to what has been said with a certain amount of interest and, I must say, some regret. The Minister spoke of that traditional independence and we have heard the history back to Henry VIII and the dissolution of the monasteries. While I am glad that at least that traditional
  1822
  independence from a particular tier of local government is being maintained, it is a little sad that for the first time the islands will be subject to taxation.
  When I took that decision back in 1982, I took the view that anomalies of this kind were worth preserving and the fact that some services were being provided might be overlooked. These islands, and Caldey particularly, have not only long been the home of monks but also of notable artists who have gone there and painted the scenery of the beautiful Pembroke coast: people like David Jones, who was also a notable poet, and Ray Howard Jones. I hope that artists will continue to be attracted to the island and will not be put off by the new taxes. I was relieved to hear that the monks will obtain some relief and that there will be transitional arrangements. I too should be glad to hear the details of what exactly will be the liabilities.
  It must be said that despite the Minster's description of the services provided, they are not extensive. However, I understand perfectly well that Caldey finds itself in the same position as other offshore islands, and as no petitions have been received, I too have no reason to object to the Bill. Of course I am delighted that the mistake which was made in omitting the inhabitants from the electoral roll has now been corrected.
  We are now considering the loss of a piece of history which is perhaps a pity but I believe that this is one occasion when we must go along with it.
  5.29 p.m.
  Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I listened with interest to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. I share his feelings of regret. It is always sad when local custom changes but that is that. There has been no petition and change there must be.
  I find the first question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, fascinating because I like delving back into history. What he did not say was that following his request to see a copy of King Henry VIII's grant to John Bradshawe, a copy has been sent to your Lordships' Library so that everyone can read that fascinating document.
  Our advice is that there is no inconsistency between the grant and the Bill. There appears to be nothing in the former which prevents the partial inclusion of Caldey within South Pembrokeshire. I have already explained at some length that the provisions of the Bill still leave Caldey in a unique position. The grant by King Henry VIII did not specifically relate to Caldey Island. It granted to John Bradshawe all the lands in South Wales within the ownership of St. Dogmaels Abbey prior to dissolution of which Caldey was a part. That abbey is situated a mile west of the town of Cardigan in the district Ceredigion.
  The village of St. Dogmaels is in the present-day community of Cardigan. Land the subject of the grant has already been fully integrated into the local government system. The grant appears to give certain exemptions under Royal prerogative from payments which could have been charged in respect of ownership of the land for the benefit of the Crown, but not, alas, general exemption from taxation. The

  1823
  community charge is a tax levied on individuals for local government purposes and not for the benefit of the Crown. Non-domestic rating is a tax on the occupation rather than the ownership of land.
  The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised another point, in which my noble friend said he too was interested. Under the provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 the monks will be exempt from the community charge.
  The answer to the third point is rather complicated, and I hope the noble Lord understands it. If he does, he is "a better man than I am, Gunga Din."
  The islanders will not begin to pay community charge until 1st April 1991. From then on they will be subject to the provisions relating to the Welsh community charge transitional relief system which, unlike the English system, is community-based. Under the English system of transitional relief charge payers are assessed individually. Those whose notional community charge exceeds their domestic rate liability for 1989–90 by £156 or more will be eligible for relief. In Wales, if the assumed community charge for 1990–91 for a local government community exceeds the average domestic rate bill per adult for 1989–90 by more than £18, 100 per cent. relief is automatically given on the excess to the charge payers for that community.
  The islanders will not begin to pay community charge until 1st April 1991. The Welsh community charge for standard spending—CCSS—for 1991–92, upon which the Welsh revenue support grant settlement will be based, is £228 per adult. For 1991–92 the residents of Caldey, other than the monks, will pay 80 per cent.—£182—of that sum. In effect therefore relief will be £46 per head.
  If the charge actually set by South Pembrokeshire is lower than the CCSS, then the islanders will each pay 80 per cent. of that lower charge. If South Pembrokeshire and Dyfed spend such that the charge set exceeds £228, each islander will pay 80 per cent. of the CCSS plus the amount by which the charge exceeds the CCSS, and the 80 per cent. will increase over the four-year period so that the islanders will, in common with other charge payers in Wales, move to a regime of full charges in 1995–96.
  I said at the beginning that the answer was complicated. I must say that I hope I shall have the opportunity to visit the island in the future. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Baroness Trumpington.)
  On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived. Then Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with, Bill read a third time, and passed.

  British Nationality (Hong Kong) (Selection Scheme) Order 1990
  5.35 p.m.
  Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th October be approved. [26th Report from the Joint Committee].
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, the order sets out the scheme which the Governor of Hong Kong proposes to use in order to select up to 50,000 key people whom he will recommend to the Secretary of State for registration as British citizens under the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990. The order was approved without division by another place on 23rd October. Subject to approval by your Lordships, the order will come into force on 1st December.
  When Parliament debated the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill, which has now been enacted, earlier this Session, it accepted that the confidence of the Hong Kong people needed to be restored, and that the granting of British citizenship to 50,000 of its best qualified key people, together with their spouses and minor children, was a means of achieving that aim.
  When outline proposals for the Governor's scheme were placed before Parliament during the passage of the Bill, they were considered with great care. The Government made it clear that they would listen with an open mind to all views on the scheme and to suggestions for ways in which it might be improved. We have since reflected carefully with the Governor on the various points which were made.
  I have written to those noble Lords who took an active part in the debates to explain how the scheme, which is now proposed by the Governor, differs from the one which was envisaged in the explanatory notes which we issued. For the benefit of those to whom I did not write, I should like to say something about the structure of the scheme and about the principal changes which have been made.
  The broad structure remains as set out in the explanatory notes. Subject to your Lordships' approval there will be four classes, each of which will be given a share of the 50,000 places. There will be 36,200 places for the general occupational class to be allocated between the 20 occupational groups listed in Annex 1. Seven thousand places will go to the disciplined services class, for the nine services set out in Article 18 of the order; and 6,300 places will go to the sensitive service class—those who are in the public or private sectors and who are serving the interests of the Crown or who are involved in other activities of a sensitive nature. Five hundred places are reserved for the entrepreneurs class where the Governor will recommend those whom he considers to have made a special contribution to the economy of Hong Kong. The criteria which the Governor will take into account when considering whom to recommend in this class are set out in Article 24.
  For the general occupational, disciplined and sensitive service classes, the available places will be distributed in tranches, the size of which will be set out

  1825
  in directions by the Home Secretary. All 500 places for the entrepreneurs class, where the intention is to give early assurance to widely known individuals whose departure would be particularly damaging to confidence, will be distributed in the first tranche. Applications for the first tranche will be invited from 1st December 1990 with a closing date of 28th February 1991. They will take some two years to process. We intend to make around 87 per cent. of the places available during this period. The rest—some 13 per cent.—will be awarded nearer to 1997.
  A points system will be used to select applicants under the general occupational and disciplined services classes. The broad criteria for the award of points, and the maximum number of points which will be available for each criterion, remain as envisaged in the explanatory notes. But further details about their allocation have been added and, in some places, changes have been made.
  One of the areas which caused concern in another place was the 150 points which will be available for "special circumstances," in particular the degree of discretion which will be exercised by the Governor in awarding up to 50 points for individual merit. We sought to meet that concern. The award of these 50 points has now been tied objectively to occupation-related merit or achievement—for example, those people who have received local or international awards, recognising outstanding achievement in their work; to unpaid service with specified voluntary agencies or institutions in the social, medical or educational fields; and to officially recognised and rewarded acts of bravery or gallantry.
  The number of special circumstances points, which are available for recognising particularly high rates of emigration within occupational groups, has been increased from 50 to 75 in order to give the governor the greater flexibility which he considers is needed in this area. The 50 special circumstances points which are intended to modify the operation of the age, qualifications or experience points—in order to reflect the needs of particular occupations or groups— remain unchanged. The total number of points which can be awarded to any individual under the special circumstances heading will remain at 150. Rather a different framework will apply to the award of the 150 special circumstances points in the disciplined services class in order to reflect the varying needs of each service.
  It has been suggested that the criteria for the award of age points should be adjusted to give more points to those aged over 40. I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Mischon—understandably not in his place this evening—expressed a little modest anxiety about this during the passage of the Bill. He suggested that reducing the age points after the age of 40, when an applicant's points under the experience heading were likely to increase, was a question, as he put it somewhat graphically, of swings and roundabouts going round rather giddily.
  We considered this question very carefully with the governor—having regained our equilibrium, which I might say was never really lost—and your Lordships
  1826
  will notice from Article 11 that age points will now be awarded pro rata on a monthly basis but we have concluded that the scale itself should not be changed. Maximum points are justified for those who are aged between 30 and 40 because people in that group are emigrating at a particularly high rate and because they are expected to be in key positions in the run-up to 1997 and immediately thereafter.
  In regard to the related question of experience points, many people in their thirties will have had 15 years' experience, the maximum for which points can be earned. Those in their forties and fifties will also have valuable experience but the chances of them emigrating are not so high. If Hong Kong is to derive maximum benefit from the scheme we must ensure that the assurances go to those who are otherwise most likely to leave.
  I should like to refer to the number of points which can be awarded under Article 16 to those employed by British firms. There has been concern about this criterion in a number of quarters. It was argued in another place last week that since this citizenship scheme is being established in the interests of Hong Kong as a whole we should give no advantage at all to those who are working for British firms. We take the view, however, that if applicants are otherwise equally well qualified it is right to take account of the links which those who are working for British companies already have with the United Kingdom. The question is, how many points should be given for those links? Some, particularly the British business community in Hong Kong, have urged us to increase them.
  We examined this issue with particular care and concluded that the maximum of 35 points, which should be available under this heading, required no adjustment. We want to give employees of British firms a measure of advantage over equally qualified counterparts working elsewhere; but it would, in our view, be quite wrong to weight the system in such a way that employees of British firms worn places at the expense of others who were significantly better qualified and, therefore, arguably more vital to Hong Kong as a whole.
  Competition for places in the general occupational class will be fierce. There are bound to be groups of applicants who will be bunched around the qualifying mark. In these circumstances the points which will be available for those who are serving British firms will make a real difference to their chances of success. One change which we have agreed with the Governor is that these points will be awarded to current employees of British firms for any previous periods of service with a British firm or firms or with other British institutions. It had previously been envisaged that only unbroken service would qualify.
  A number of your Lordships were concerned about how a "British firm" should be defined for the purpose of awarding these points. We recognised the force of the argument that a narrow definition—restricted, for example, to firms with headquarters which are registered in the United Kingdom—would have rendered ineligible some of the major arms in Hong

  1827
  Kong which are generally regarded as British and which have extensive trading links with this country going back over many years.
  With the wider interests of Hong Kong in mind, we have therefore used the term "British undertaking" in the order and we have defined it, in Article 7 on page 4, as a company or a firm which the Governor is satisfied has a close connection with the UK. In reaching his decisions on what company constitutes a British undertaking the Governor will be helped by a special committee, in which our Senior British Trade Commissioner in Hong Kong is expected to play a significant role.
  I think that the scheme which is before your Lordships for approval today will enable the governor to select 50,000 candidates for citizenship in the fairest and the most objective way possible. It is not, as some had earlier feared, an elitist scheme. It is based on merit and achievement. Any scope for bias or corruption has as far as is humanly possible, I hope, been eliminated.
  In order to achieve the objective of rebuilding confidence as quickly as we can it is important that registration should be conducted promptly. This will be done on the Home Secretary's behalf by a team of officials who will be based in Hong Kong. Those who are selected under the scheme and other British citizens whose passports need renewing will be able to take advantage of arrangements which are being made to issue British citizen passports in Hong Kong. These will be new machine readable British passports in the European Community common format. I commend the order to the House.
  Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th October be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
  5.45 p.m.
  Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very clear explanation of this order. At the same time, I apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lord Mishcon, who, as the Minister knows, is fulfilling the joyous task of carrying out his duties as father of the bride. He is sorry to be absent.
  We understand that the order now before us sets out the scheme that the Governor of Hong Kong proposes to use to select up to 50,000 key people whom he will then recommend to the Secretary of State for registration as British citizens. This will be done under the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990. Equally, we understand that the Government's principal aim behind the scheme is to rebuild confidence in Hong Kong. Of course, we wholeheartedly support that objective.
  We are happy to learn from the Minister that the Government had discussions on the outline proposals set out in the Act and that they listened with an open mind to suggestions on the way in which the scheme might be improved. The results of those deliberations are contained in the order now before us. We realise that the order cannot be amended. Therefore, there is
  1828
  a limit to the value of the discussions and any criticisms in which we might wish to indulge. Nevertheless, I make one or two points.
  First, I reiterate what we said from these Benches during the passage of the Bill. We find it extremely difficult to accept the points system as a formula that is fair and just. It has little to do with fairness but a great deal to do with expediency. We believe that it is a particular solution which was decided upon to meet a current problem. As such, we accept it. However, we recognise the need for a scheme to be put in place with the minimum of delay in order to retain in Hong Kong many of the key people. Therefore, at the time the Bill was going through the House we did not oppose it but instead endeavoured to make certain changes so that the scheme would be more just and equitable.
  We said at the time—I should like to repeat the assurance now—that a Labour government would honour all passports issued under the Act. In the same way as the present Government have said they will, we shall also review the way in which the scheme has been operating. Therefore, there need be no anxiety on that score.
  I ask the Minister for clarification of one or two points. I have a particular aversion to the provision in the scheme which provides that pay levels shall be taken into account when awarding points. The Minister mentioned that. I believe that that underlines the least attractive aspect of the scheme whereby it appears that there is one law for the better off and another for the less well off. Moreover, it counters the Minister's claim that the scheme recognises merit and achievement. There are many in Hong Kong who have much merit and who have achieved a great deal, but they will never qualify under this scheme because they are not at the top of the wage structure and have not achieved some other pre-eminence. I wonder whether the Minister can say a few more words about the justification for bringing in the awarding of points from the point of view of pay levels.
  The Minister will recall that during the passage of the Bill my noble friend Lord Mishcon was very concerned that the Government had decided to exclude judicial review from the scheme. The system still contains a high degree of discretion. I still find it very difficult to understand how the Governor will be able to choose between similarly qualified applicants and a similar number of points. Even at this late stage I wonder whether the Minister is still convinced that the Government have the right to exclude judicial review from the selection process.
  My honourable friend in another place, Mr. Alastair Darling, stressed that Her Majesty's Government could be doing more to promote the involvement of British firms in Hong Kong as a means of demonstrating Britain's commitment to the colony. The Minister has mentioned that matter this evening. However, my honourable friend felt very strongly that this would enable these companies to use Hong Kong as a base and thereby take advantage of the tremendous commercial opportunities existing in China and in the Pacific Basin. He believed that it was something which the Foreign Office and the

  1829
  Department of Trade and Industry should be doing more to investigate. As I say, I accept what the Minister has said. Nevertheless, the concern shown by my honourable friend was well founded.
  Even at this eleventh hour we still wonder whether the Government have further thoughts on how to help the minority in Hong Kong who have no effective nationality and also the wives of British citizens who have no automatic right to live in Britain. During the passage of the Bill noble Lords on all sides of the House asked for protection for this group. Concern still remained at the end.
  I shall be grateful if the Minister can give the House an estimate of the total number of expected applicants and some indication of how long it will take to process each application. I shall also be grateful if the Minister can tell the House how this scheme has been perceived so far in Hong Kong. I understand that the governor, Sir David Wilson, had predicted that emigration this year will rise to the very alarming figure of 62,000. It seems so far, and rather worryingly, that the Government's objective of calming fears and stabilising the population has not been entirely successful. That can only lead one to believe (a point that I made at Third Reading) that the Act and this order have perhaps come rather late to establish the necessary confidence. That is why the emigration figures are looking so worryingly high this year.
  Perhaps the Minister will be able to say how he sees this scheme contributing to the future of Hong Kong on the basis of the experience gained so far. Though, as I said at the start, we cannot admire a scheme which depends on such a very arbitrary and basically unjust points system, we nevertheless sincerely hope that it will provide the confidence to retain key people in Hong Kong and thereby assist the colony during a difficult and critical period in the next few years.
  As has been said during the passage of the Bill, what is really going to influence the future of Hong Kong is not the Act or this order, but the honouring in spirit and in letter of the Joint Declaration by both China and Britain. We sincerely hope that that will happen. We of course wish for continued prosperity and stability for the people of Hong Kong. It is in that spirit that we hope that the scheme contained in this order will assist in that process.
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness in congratulating the noble Earl upon the clarity with which he introduced this order. Like the noble Baroness, I understand that it is not amendable and therefore my observations and, in one or two cases, my questions, will be brief. The Act, of which this order is the necessary consequence, was designed to reassure, stabilise and anchor valuable key residents in Hong Kong.
  As the House will recall, from these Benches we argued that the Bill, and therefore this statutory instrument which supports it, was the second best way of achieving these aims. It is inferior to anchoring everyone by giving everyone a safety net. However, even in its own more modest terms, the Act does not yet seem psychologically to be having the desired
  1830
  effect. It will be known to Members of this House that there is a serious law and order problem in Hong Kong and that emigration, as the noble Baroness has said, is continuing to rise. It will be interesting to know from the Minister whether the estimate given by the Governor of Hong Kong of 62,000 emigrants this year is correct and whether the current rate is continuing to increase. Inflation is rising in Hong Kong and it has nearly reached 10 per cent. That is regrettably close to the level of inflation that we have in the United Kingdom.
  I have one or two specific questions for the Minister. Is he satisfied that the points deduction of minus—200 for people who have citizenship of another country is large enough to stop any applicant with another passport also getting a United Kingdom passport; namely, double banking? The noble Earl referred to the fact that 35 points are being given to employees of British firms or undertakings. The Minister was eloquent on this point, but I did not find what he said wholly convincing. We have a particular responsibility towards British firms in Hong Kong. It must be questionable whether the points given are enough to encourage British firms and their key employees in Hong Kong.
  Is the Minister really satisfied that in trying to anchor the 30 to 40 year-olds, who are in the prime of life, in Hong Kong, that we are being fair to older people who in some cases have a long record of service to the colony and Britain? No doubt statutory instruments are technical documents, but this one must be unusual in featuring in its pages an algebraic formula with an ingenuity for which the Home Office can only be congratulated. Page 10, Article 21, shows a formula of A over B times C. I looked at that formula as a non-mathematician and I puzzled over it. I am not sure that I can work out what it means. I believe it is half an equation which lacks an equals sign. Let us say that A over B times C equals D. In that case, the D might mean discrimination though I am sure that the noble Earl will assure us that the points system is not intended to be discriminatory. It is difficult to imagine that putting a quart into a pint pot can be achieved without some measure of discrimination. What I am sure D would mean is disappointment. I should like to echo the question asked by the noble Baroness. Can the noble Earl give any sense of what in Hong Kong we are expecting in terms of numbers of applicants for the 50,000 vacancies? There is a great human element to this which in the complicated formulas of the Home Office we are likely to forget. From these Benches we shall support the order as it is pointless to will the ends of the Act without willing the means of the order. But that should not blind us to the human consequences of what we have undertaken.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I had not intended to speak, but having heard what has been said I shall do so briefly. I was involved until just over a year ago with much of what is now contained in the order and with the ideas that led to it. In view of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that this was

  1831
  done more for expediency than for other reasons and in view of her drawing attention to what she believed to be the arbitrary nature of the points system, I have to say that in the time that has been available the Governor of Hong Kong and those who have been devising the scheme are to be congratulated on working out something that has been extremely complex and has had to take account of a very great number of variables.
  It is almost impossible to prepare a scheme which will meet every conceivable criticism. It is one which has to be workable in the round and furthermore has to be workable in a fairly short space of time. Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Holme, referred to the large exodus, which has grown and is growing, of those whose talents we need to retain in Hong Kong. To have allowed argument to continue and to have buried ourselves in books and tried to work out even fairer ways of conducting the exercise would have been more or less impossible.
  I congratulate the Government on bringing it forward and I congratulate those in Hong Kong who have worked on it. Now that the Act is on the statute book and the order is shortly to be passed, I sincerely hope that the necessary practical mechanisms of setting about the selection process can be achieved smoothly and swiftly so that the real abilities of the people in Hong Kong can be used to full effect to restore any confidence that has been lost and to build on that confidence which still remains.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate on the order. I am especially grateful to my noble friend Lord Glenarthur for giving his blessing to the order. He played a substantial part in this matter when he was a member of the Government and attached to the Foreign Office. It came under his responsibility, and to think that it has his blessing is encouraging.
  I am always sorry not to see the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in his place but I have never been more happy than today, not because he would be speaking on the order for the Opposition but simply because of the reason which the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, gave. I did not realise that it was the happy occasion of his daughter's marriage. I am quite certain that he is far better being there than discussing matters of Hong Kong, which he would have done admirably had he been here but which has been done admirably by the noble Baroness in his stead.
  The noble Baroness found it difficult to accept the points system as being fair and she said that it was only a method of expediency. That was slightly harsh. It is terribly difficult when limiting the number of people to whom we can give British citizenship to have a system which is fair. We knew that a lot of people would come forward, and unless one used some empirical formula which itself was unfair we thought the best way to do it was to devise these various categories of people and to devise the points scheme.
  In so far as no scheme is ever perfect, in a difficult and complicated area such as this the points scheme
  1832
  ought to produce as fair a result as possible. It helps to put into categories those who are the most likely to be of value to Hong Kong. The noble Baroness said that she felt that there was one law for the rich and one law for the poor because earnings will be taken into account. Earnings will be taken into account in only one of the 20 occupational groups—managers and businessmen. There are many businessmen in Hong Kong. We have to select the key ones who contribute most. We have agreed with the Hong Kong Government that earnings are the most straightforward way of measuring success in these groups. In other occupations, earnings will play no part at all.
  The noble Baroness referred to the fact that there is no judicial review. In this matter the granting of British nationality is not a right. It is a gift. Therefore, one could not have judicial review over something that is not a right. It will not be possible to have judicial review over the number of points a person has, because that is how the scheme operates, but judicial review will be obtainable over whether the Act has itself been properly used. If a person feels that the implementation of the Act is wrong, judicial review will apply.
  The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Holme, referred to the number of people who are expected to apply. The Hong Kong Government expect around 300,000 applicants for the first tranche. There may be more or less than that. It is expected that the first tranche will take about two years to process, which is a long time, but the questionnaire will be fairly substantial and all these individual applications will have to be processed. The noble Baroness asked how the scheme will contribute to Hong Kong. By assuring those who are in the most prominent positions that they will be able to have British nationality, that in itself will enable them to stay in Hong Kong and not to seek nationality elsewhere by leaving. We very much hope that that will occur.
  Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl. I understand the contribution the scheme will make but I want to know how it is perceived in Hong Kong as contributing to the future. I should be most grateful if he could give me an idea about that.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the reaction of the Hong Kong people to the passage of the Act has been positive. Representatives of the Hong Kong Government, business and other leading members of society have warmly welcomed the Act. They have confirmed that it should make a significant contribution to the restoration of confidence. I hope that that will be so.
  The noble Baroness asked how the governor would choose between equally qualified persons. In the event of people being equally qualified, the governor will use his discretion to decide which of those who have scored an equal number of points should be given priority. That will be done by deciding who is likely to be of more value to Hong Kong's future prosperity and stability.

  1833
  The noble Lord, Lord Holme, referred to the points system as regards those working for British firms. The number of points to be awarded to such employees has been considered very carefully. The Hong Kong Government and this Government are satisfied that a maximum of 35 points will do the job.
  As regards emigration rates, the noble Lord asked about the figure of 62,000. I have no reason to doubt the governor's estimate of 62,000 people leaving Hong Kong. The citizenship scheme is not yet up and running and therefore it is too soon to look for an effect. We want the scheme to start quickly so that its effect and impact on confidence can be felt as soon as possible.
  The noble Lord also referred to the points deductions. The deduction of 200 points is considered sufficient to ensure that those with a right of abode in other countries will not qualify for places under this scheme. He was concerned that such people might be double banking. We hope that that will not be the case.
  The noble Lord also cast a quizzical eye over the algebraic formula as contained in the order. He was concerned that there appeared to be only one side to the equation. I was also fascinated by the formula. All
  1834
  I can tell him is that I was speaking only yesterday to a professor of engineering who was trying to explain a point to me. The algebraic formula he used to do so was by far and away more complicated than that in the order and included such things as omega. I am bound to say that I was lost at that point. However, if the noble Lord looks with care at Article 10(5) he will see that it states:
  "Within the quota determined under paragraph 4 in relation to the occupational group…the number of managers and administrators in service with the Government of Hong Kong to be recommended shall be determined by the following formula"—
  in other words, equals. That is the other side to the algebraic formula which so puzzled the noble Lord.
  I am most grateful to your Lordships for having taken part in the debate and for being prepared—it is to be hoped—to give this order a fair wind. We very much hope that this will be a major move in the endeavour to keep confidence in Hong. Kong. It is a unique place, with a unique history, and one which has a great future; and part of that future depends upon confidence in Hong Kong being maintained.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at thirteen minutes past six o'clock.