Lords Sitting of 6 December 1994

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

Regent's Park: Maintenance and Development
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the work which has been carried out by the private companies responsible for the maintenance and development of Regent's Park.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Viscount Astor): My Lords, we are satisfied with the work that has been carried out by the private companies responsible for the maintenance of Regent's Park. The Royal Parks Agency was established in April 1993 to manage and police the Royal Parks. Its chief executive retains responsibility for the development of Regent's Park.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that under the new management Regent's Park has been transformed? Not only are the recreational and refreshment facilities greatly improved, not only have very fine new gardens been laid out near the rose gardens, but the magnificent Avenue Gardens which are being built at present will be a tourist attraction in their own right. Is it not time that we paid tribute to the success of this policy instead of continually carping and criticising?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am very grateful for my noble friend's support. Regent's Park is very successful. There are 9 million visitors to the park each year, and 47 million people visit all nine Royal Parks. As my noble friend said, there have been a number of improvements, including Avenue Gardens. There are also projected improvements for the future: finishing Avenue Gardens, improvements to St. John's Lodge Gardens and the water fowl care centre.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what reductions have been made in the staffing levels in the park since privatisation? Are the Government content with the levels of security which now prevail?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the level of staff provided by the contractors is, of course, a matter for the contractors. The important issue is that they do a good job, which they are doing. The Royal Parks Agency monitors the performance of the respective contractors. As regards policing, currently 172
824
policemen are responsible for the Royal Parks. Twenty-five constables, three sergeants and one inspector are responsible for Regent's Park.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is there any significance in the fact that in his first reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, the noble Viscount repeated verbatim the wording of the Question except that he eliminated the words "and development"? In other words, he implied that the Government were not satisfied with the development work. Was that an oversight, or was it deliberate?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I compliment the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for listening so acutely to the Answer that I gave. He picked up a fine point. I was not aware of that. I stick by both my answers.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the Minister gave some interesting figures about the number of people who use the parks. Can he tell the House how those people are counted?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is indeed a very interesting question from the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. I am not entirely sure how they are counted. The answer is that they are not counted individually, but there are estimates of how many people visit the parks. I shall look into the matter and write to the noble Baroness.

BR Sleeper Service: Scotland-London
2.40 p.m.
Lord Stodart of Leaston Lord Stodart of Leaston asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are giving any advice to the director of passenger rail franchising with regard to ensuring the continuance of the overnight sleeper service between Scotland and London.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the Secretary of State's objectives, instructions and guidance to the franchising director issued earlier this year made clear that for the initial letting of franchises the specifications for passenger service requirements should be based on the level of services being provided by BR immediately prior to franchising, taking into account the existence of and justification for seasonal variations in service schedules.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving me the hope that, after I have enjoyed sleepless—I beg your pardon, "sleepfull" nights on the train for the past 40 years, it looks as though the service will continue. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether the director has been made aware of the advice given by my noble friend Lord Younger of Prestwick (who is the chairman of Scottish Industry Development) on the very grave effects that any diminution of the sleeper services would have on industry and tourism in Scotland? I also congratulate my noble friend on his

825
Statement made about a week ago that the privatisation of the railways would lead to a better service for everyone.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend was not right the first time with his remark about "sleeplessness". I accept that many noble Lords and many people outside the House value the sleeper services. However, they are subsidised, loss-making services and the franchising director will have a responsibility to examine that in the light of the service which is provided.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, can the Minister give an indication of the average occupancy per night of the service?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that if one works out the figures, it comes to an average of about 64 passengers per train.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the immense burden which has been placed upon the staff of British Rail as a result of bringing forward the privatisation of Railtrack? Is he aware that 14,000 separate franchise agreements have to be negotiated before the privatisation is implemented? Further, is there not a danger that essential services like the one mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, will be overlooked in the immense burden of administration that is now being put on the shoulders of British Rail?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that the changes are necessary and that the new franchised railway will provide great benefits in terms of service and choice to its customers. I believe that the employees of British Rail will wish to participate in the reorganisation and to produce a better service.
Lord Parry: My Lords, does the Minister have any anxiety about the welfare of passengers on overnight trains who arrive at unattended stations, often outside towns or in areas of social difficulty?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an interesting point. I shall look into it to see whether public awareness has been brought to the problem which he suggests exists.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the value of the sleeper services to the local social fabric in Scotland—that is, apart from the areas of industry and tourism mentioned by my noble friend Lord Stodart when he put the Question—is much greater than a simple calculation of their cost might imply? Will he further agree that that is particularly true of the West Highland line?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, those are the very considerations which the franchising director will have to take into account when coming to his judgment.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, if the Minister continually refers under "franchising" to an
826
improvement in service, if the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, sleeps all night between London and Edinburgh, what improvement in service will he notice?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, he might have further opportunities to sleep during the day.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I understand that there are now only seven sleeper services in Britain: six to Scotland and one to Penzance. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, made an important point when he said that there was undoubtedly a fall-out to the community from the sleeper service. Will the Minister consider the possibility of "subsidiarity"—I believe that is the word—and allow ScotRail to make the decision and give it the responsibility for running the Scottish sleeper services? I think then the Minister would receive a most sympathetic hearing.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I can confirm to the noble Lord that the point he raised at the end of his question as regards where responsibility for the sleeper services should lie, whether it is with the West Coast main line or with ScotRail, is currently being considered by the franchising director. Of course, the franchising director will take into account the considerations of social benefits which come from services which are less than commercially used.

European Union: Environmental Legislation
2.47 p.m.
Lord Nathan Lord Nathan asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that implementation and enforcement of European Union environmental legislation will not be adversely affected by the proposed reorganisation of Directorate General XI (Environment) whereby the responsible unit will cease to report direct to the Director General.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the Government's concern is to ensure that European legislation is invariably implemented on time and in full in each and every member state and that where appropriate the Commission chases and takes action against any laggards.
How the European Commission chooses to organise itself is a matter for the Commission. Her Majesty's Government have no reason to believe that any change in Directorate General XI is likely to lead to a lessening of effort on enforcement of EC environmental legislation.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that full reply. Are the Government aware that over the past 10 years substantial and effective action has been taken to implement and enforce environmental law in the United Kingdom, as well as in other member states, when the responsible unit was under the distinguished leadership of Dr. Ludwig Krämer, reporting directly to the Directorate General? Are the Government as anxious now as they have been hitherto—and I take it from the

827
Minister's reply that they are—to see that the European Union environmental law is enforced, as it has been over past years?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, the proper enforcement of European law has always been one of the United Kingdom's priorities. That applies equally in the specific case of environmental law. The noble Lord referred to the changes in Directorate General XI which, as I have already mentioned, are internal matters for the European Commission. Our concern is to ensure that the Commission acts as it ought to and leaves its internal arrangements to itself.
We believe that while there are problems within the European Commission about political priorities in respect of environmental law, we do not believe that the particular matter to which the noble Lord referred is necessarily a cause of it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—no doubt he is—that the European Commission is so busy organising what goes on within member states that it has no time to organise itself?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I understand the thrust of the noble Lord's remarks, but I believe that if he compares his comments on this occasion with comments that he has made previously he will accept that the European Commission itself finds plenty of time to think up things which perhaps the noble Lord thinks are unnecessary in member states.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, my noble friend indicated that the power to do anything by way of implementation is in the hands of the commissioners. Is there any way that the British Government are able to convey to the British commissioners what is likely to be in the interests of this country, or do they act on their own individual responsibility as commissioners? Unless they have the sort of guidance that only a government can know it means that the point of view that ought to be of benefit to this country is not being used to the full.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as I am sure my noble friend knows, when the commissioners take office they take an oath of impartiality. Having said that, in the exercise of their impartial discretion it is of course the case that the British Government keep in touch with the members of the Commission who are British citizens to ensure that the British interest is not overlooked.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Lord consider that the proposed reorganisation mentioned in the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, will improve the Commission's fairly lamentable record in publication of reports on how members of the Union are meeting EC/EU rules? For instance, the Commission is under a duty to publish regular assessments of member states' compliance with five directives on dangerous substances in water, dealing with mercury, cadmium, lindane, DDT, carbon tetrachloride; and something called penachlorophenol. Is the noble Lord aware that not one report has yet been
828
published? What are Her Majesty's Government going to do to make sure that the Commission is less lax in its procedures?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not repeat in extenso the chemicals to which he referred. In the Commission's report to the Brussels summit in 1993 proposals were brought forward that the dangerous substances in water directive might be amended. We await events from the Commission in that regard.
As the noble Lord pointed out, and as I have already mentioned, there is a series of concerns about the political priority which the Commission has in respect of promoting and bringing forward environmental matters. That was identified in the report of the Institute for European Environmental Policy commissioned by this Government. I assure the noble Lord that at the forthcoming environment council this is one of the matters which the British Government will bring forward vigorously.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, will the Minister agree that we have one specific and particular interest in the efficient functioning of DGXI; namely, the supervision of the Mediterranean structural funds, which frequently are used to embark on large projects that do great environmental damage? Does the Minister further agree that in this respect we surely need a strong and effective DGXI? Will he please continue to work to ensure that the directorate is strong and forceful in this regard?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord knows and as, again, I mentioned earlier, it is one of the priorities of the Government that there is proper scrutiny of environmental legislation throughout the whole of the European Union and that it is not confined merely to the area that the noble Lord mentioned. He can rest assured that this is a matter that the Government take very seriously and on which they place priority.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that any implementation and enforcement of European Union environmental legislation is less likely to be affected by any reorganisation within the Commission than by the fact that many countries in the Communities give the responsibility for environmental legislation to the local level of government rather than to the national level of government? I place Germany, Spain and Holland in that category. Is my noble friend further aware that, for instance, in the execution of the two European water directives this country has so far spent more than £9,000 million—most of it, in my view, wasted—and we are unable to find out from the Commission what any other country in the Communities has spent or what they have done about them at all?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as my noble friend knows, the amount of money spent on the water directives is proof positive of the commitment that this Government have to the adherence to European Community law. So far as the matter of enforcement of European legislation in member states is concerned, as is the normal procedure in the matters of the European

829
Community it is for each member state to determine what is the best way in which these decisions are taken and the enforcement procedures can be implemented. The important matter is that European Community law is not something that is à la carte. We cannot in the Community have legal no-go areas. What is of paramount importance is that there are proper enforcement procedures and that they are implemented universally.

Ocean Currents: Data
2.55 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are arranging to gather information about ocean currents and winds, which may assist shipping and fisheries, from the odyssey now being made by the fleet of floating toys accidentally spilled at sea in 1992.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, this odyssey may make for a good story, but I am afraid that it does not make for good science. I can assure my noble friend that we do not have to rely on plastic ducks for data. British oceanographers are among the best in the world, and there are already a number of proven ocean current computer models in this country. The World Ocean Circulation Experiment has its international headquarters here, and definitive data from that work will allow the models to be developed further.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. While plastic flotsam is not normally to be encouraged, is there not an opportunity to obtain useful information, already achieved by American scientists, as these durable coloured toys pass through the North Polar region and the Atlantic during the next five years? Does my noble friend agree that the traditional concern of the British public for the protection of birds is likely now to be extended to these yellow ducks as they perform this helpful service?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid that the release of various ducks—I assure my noble friend that it is not only a matter of yellow ducks but of red beavers, blue turtles and green frogs—is of very limited scientific value since, although we know the position of their release, the exact time of their arrival on the sparsely populated beaches in Alaska and the path they take is not known. Further, there are four different types of plastic bath toy—some 30,000 ducks, turtles, beavers and frogs. Since they are of different shapes and
830
therefore have different windage and stability characteristics, again, the data is of limited use. We can obtain such data by other means.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is it not the case that the Government are too much engaged in playing ducks and drakes in other fields?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not think that this is an occasion for the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, to try to score political points, but no doubt he cannot restrain himself.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that today in the conference hall there was a commemoration of the need for plain English speaking? Is he further aware that I have not been able to understand one word of the exchanges on this matter?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can only apologise to my noble friend. I thought that what I was saying was as plain as a pikestaff. I shall take my noble friend to one side afterwards and try to explain in simpler language. The rest of the House, who, I believe, are of equal intelligence to my noble friend, certainly seemed to understand what I was saying.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister not agree that we, as sitting ducks, might be very lucky to be struck by a flotilla of yellow ducks, beavers, frogs and so on?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid that my noble friend will have to wait a very, very long time before she sees the sitting ducks, yellow ducks, turtles, beavers or frogs on our own shores. I understand that it will take some five or 10 years for them to work their way through the polar ice. Even then, they might appear on the shores of Scotland or wherever somewhat squashed.

Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
2.59 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill is drawn from three reports by the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. The reports are all in the field of private international law; that is to say, the area of our law which enables our courts to deal with cases which contain a foreign element. I am sure that the implementation of the reports will be welcomed by the many noble Lords who support the valuable work that the commissions have done and are doing.
I hope that the Bill will follow the Jellicoe trail to the statute book, blazed during the last Session by the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. If your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading, I shall move that it be committed to a Special Public Bill Committee. The first use of this procedure for the Law of Property Bill was, I believe, a success. I consider the present Bill

831
to be equally suited to consideration by such a committee because of its uncontroversial and generally technical nature.
The Bill comprises 18 clauses and one schedule and is divided into four parts. Full explanation of the current law and the proposed reforms is to be found in the three reports from which the Bill derives. Notes on clauses are also available in the Printed Paper Office. Part I implements recommendations in the report on Foreign Money Liabilities (Law Commission paper No. 1124) and is based on the draft clause appended to that report. This part extends only to England and Wales. It changes the law regarding the rate of interest payable on judgment debts and arbitral awards in foreign currency. At present, interest on High Court and county court judgments and arbitral awards is prescribed at a fixed rate, currently 8 per cent. This statutory rate, which is altered from time to time, reflects generally the level of interest rates currently prevailing in the United Kingdom. It does not reflect the rate appropriate to any particular foreign currency. Indeed, the statutory rate will often be entirely inappropriate to the foreign currency in question.
Clause 1 makes provision for the High Court and county courts respectively to direct that a sum awarded by a judgment given by the court which is expressed in foreign currency should carry interest at such a rate as the court thinks fit instead of at the statutory rate. Clause 3 makes analogous provision in relation to sums directed to be paid as an award by an arbitrator. Clause 4 makes various consequential amendments to certain enactments which contain provisions dealing with interest on judgment debts.
Part II and the schedule implement recommendations in the joint Law Commission and Scottish Law Commission reports on Polygamous Marriages (Law Commission Report No. 146 and Scottish Law Commission Report No. 96) and derive from the commissions' draft Bill. This part, which extends to England and Wales and Scotland, concerns the validity under English and Scottish law of marriages contracted by those domiciled in England and Wales or Scotland which are in fact monogamous but which have been celebrated abroad under laws that permit polygamy.
Clauses 5 and 7(1) implement the law commissions' main recommendation in this part of the Bill that persons of either sex domiciled in England and Wales or in Scotland should have the legal capacity—provided, of course, there is no other impediment—to enter into a valid marriage outside the United Kingdom which, although celebrated in a form appropriate to polygamous marriages, is not actually polygamous. All marriages validly celebrated in the United Kingdom are necessarily monogamous in character, so there is no need for this proposition to apply to marriages in the United Kingdom. Subsection (2) of Clause 5 ensures that that clause only affects the internal law of England and Wales. This means that where, under the rules of English private international law, the relevant law of another country is applied for the purpose of determining the validity of a marriage, those rules will still apply.
832
Clause 6 applies only to England and Wales and ensures that the reforms in Clause 5 should in general apply retrospectively. Subsection (1) extends the rule laid down in Clause 5(1) to marriages celebrated before the date on which this part of the Bill comes into force and deems it always to have applied to such marriages. This has the effect that such marriages are to be regarded as always having been valid. This effect is qualified by various exceptions and savings with the result that the rule in subsection (1) does not apply where either party to a potentially polygamous marriage has remarried or obtained an annulment and does not affect certain property and related rights, such as succession to a dignity or title of honour, which have accrued before the commencement of this part.
Clause 7(2) clarifies the effect in Scots law of a valid potentially polygamous marriage abroad which is at present an area of doubt and uncertainty. Marriages entered into abroad in polygamous form where there is in fact only one husband and wife are to be regarded as effective marriages for all purposes of the law of Scotland so long as they remain in fact monogamous. This provision brings Scots law into line with the present position under English law.
Finally, in this part, Clause 8 provides that the reforms in Part II are not to affect any rule or custom in relation to the marriage of members of the Royal Family. This is in line with the previous enactments in this general area of the law.
Part III of the Bill implements reforms proposed by the two law commissions on Choice of Law in Tort and Delict (Law Commission paper No. 193 and Scottish Law Commission paper No. 129) and also derives from the commissions' draft Bill. These rules relate to any action brought in a part of the United Kingdom in respect of a tort or delict which has a foreign element.
Clause 9 deals with the purpose of the choice of law rules contained in this part. That purpose is to specify the system of law, according to which the rights and liabilities of the parties must be determined, in relation to issues which the courts in this country decide are issues relating to tort or delict, as opposed, for example, to contract or some other basis of liability. This system of law is referred to in this part as "the applicable law". These rules are to take the place of the present common law rules abolished by Clause 10. Other choice of law rules which apply in particular classes of cases, such as torts committed on the high seas (which are governed by the principles of maritime law), are not affected by the Bill.
Clause 11 establishes a new general rule that, when a dispute arises in one part of the United Kingdom out of a tort or delict committed in another part of the United Kingdom or in a foreign country, the country whose law will be used to decide the dispute is that in which the events constituting the tort or delict occur. This general rule should identify the most appropriate applicable law in the majority of cases. It is likely to correspond with the reasonable expectations of the parties involved in the tort or delict. Where significant elements of the events constituting the tort or delict have occurred in different countries, the tort or delict is to be taken to have occurred in the country either where the plaintiff was

833
injured, or where the property was damaged, or, in other cases such as an international conspiracy to commit a tort, where the most significant elements in the sequence of events occurred.
An exception to the general rule is laid down in Clause 12 so as to displace that rule in any case in which it appears to be substantially more appropriate for the applicable law to be the law of another country. Let me emphasise the word "substantially". The exception is not intended to operate every time another applicable law might be more appropriate but only where it would be substantially so.
This seems an appropriate moment in my description of Part III to mention an exception to the rules recommended by the law commissions which the Government have decided not to implement. The law commissions proposed that where conduct constituting a tort or delict takes place in the United Kingdom the law of the relevant part of the United Kingdom should apply, irrespective of what law would apply under the new general rules. They sought to justify this exception on the ground that a person who acts in the United Kingdom should not, by the application of a foreign law, be held liable in a United Kingdom court for consequential injury, loss or damage which occurs elsewhere and would not be recoverable under our law.
The Government consider this proposal to be objectionable in that it would reintroduce the nationalistic attitude which the law commissions are otherwise seeking to obviate. Further, it might not in fact protect defendants who act in the United Kingdom. In the context of the European Economic Area plaintiffs may, under the Brussels Convention of 1968 or the Lugano Convention of 1988 on jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, legitimately bring their proceedings in the country where they suffered the damage instead of in this country, and the courts of the other country might well apply their own law to the case. If the plaintiff is successful, the courts in this country would be obliged under those conventions to enforce the judgment against the defendant here, notwithstanding the terms of the law commissions' proposed exception.
Clause 13 ensures that the reforms in this part do not have retrospective effect. It also saves the effect of various procedural rules, the application of the principles of public policy and certain mandatory domestic rules, which are regarded as so important that, as a matter of construction or policy, they must apply to any action before our courts, even where the issues would otherwise in principle be governed by a foreign law selected by the new choice of law rules. These are important safeguards for defendants against liabilities and remedies under foreign law that for one reason or another it would not be tolerable to enforce here.
Clause 14 removes from the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 and the Foreign Limitation Periods (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 two references to the common law abolished by Clause 10.
834
Part IV of the Bill deals with commencement, extent and Short Title. It also, in Clause 16, modifies the Northern Ireland Act 1974 so as to facilitate the extension of the reforms in Part II to Northern Ireland.
The Bill represents a useful and uncontroversial measure of law reform which has attracted the support of the legal profession. I am grateful to the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission for the careful work they have put into the preparation of the reports on which the Bill is based. Accordingly, I invite noble Lords to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.10 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, we welcome all three aspects of the Bill. When the noble and learned Lord invited me to say whether or not I considered the Bill suitable for the Jellicoe procedure, I confirmed that I did. I even suggested that its then title, "Private International Law Bill", might give the wrong impression in foreign places. It might be thought that it was a comprehensive measure dealing with the whole of our private international law and therefore intended, for our country, to serve the purpose which Switzerland's Private International Law Act 1987 serves there—an Act running to a mere 200 articles and 154 pages. I suggested the title, the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. In the spirit of co-operativeness which will accompany the passage of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord was good enough to agree. From time to time I have persuaded him to accept amendments that I have moved but never before to alter the title of a Bill. This is plainly the summit of my legislative achievements thus far.
As the noble and learned Lord said, Part I will give the courts welcome flexibility in the case of foreign currency judgments to order, at their discretion, a rate of interest other than the one prescribed under the 1838 Judgments Act. As I understand it, that rate can be fixed or variable in the court's discretion and I agree with the noble and learned Lord that present rates may not reflect commercially appropriate rates in the relevant currency.
Part II ensures the validity of marriages, in fact monogamous though contracted under a law permitting polygamy. Part III abolishes the double actionability rule which provided that where a civil wrong was allegedly committed in a foreign country, it could be sued on here only if it was a civil wrong under our law and also a civil wrong under the law of the country where it was done. The new general rule that the applicable law should be the law of the country where the wrong is committed—subject to sensible qualifications where significant elements of the events constituting the wrong occur in different countries —is welcome. The Bill will bring our law into line with the laws of most other countries.
The Bill is a tribute to the work of the law commissions—of "both" commissions, as the noble and learned Lord said. At the end of September the sad fact was that of 27 Bills published by the law commissions since March 1989 only three had by then reached the statute book. I do not underestimate the difficulties in

835
finding parliamentary time. For far too long non-controversial reports by the law commissions have been gathering dust in Whitehall. I cannot do better than quote my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell who, in your Lordships' House on 2nd November, said:
"Between 1967 (when the Law Commission was established) and 1981, 40 Law Commission reports have been wholly or partly implemented—about half on the initiative of the government of the day and about half on the initiative of private Members in one or other of the Houses. Since 1981 only 33 have been wholly or partly implemented. Moreover, since 1989 there has been what Sir Henry Brooke"—
the present chairman of the English Law Commission—
"has described as a grade one disaster area: only one Bill has been implemented on government initiative since that time. In 1981, 13 reports were awaiting implementation. That figure had doubled to 26 by 1985. The figure now stands at 36 reports and represents the hard work of some of our most talented people—hard work which has borne no fruit of any kind".—[Official Report, 2/11/94; col. 874.]
I desire to take the opportunity of this Second Reading debate to state as clearly as I can the position of my party on law reform. It was the Labour Government of 1964, under its distinguished Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner, which set up the two law commissions. It is only possible to keep increasingly complicated and far-reaching law efficient, fair and up to date by making full and effective use of the law commissions. As Sir Henry Brooke recently observed,
"a nation which neglects the ordinary care of its laws is neglecting something which is very important to its national well-being".
The commissions have an impressive record in achieving clarification and reform of the law, but in recent years both have expressed increasing concern at government failure to implement their recommendations. Many much-needed reforms that have been fully reviewed and considered by the commissions remain unimplemented. In many cases the Government have not even troubled to give a public indication of whether they accept or reject the commissions' proposals.
The importance and momentum of law reform must be restored by enhancing the status of the commissions and putting in place arrangements for the implementation of their proposals. What is required is not merely talk about law reform, but the action that has been lacking in recent years. No government, of course, can be bound by the proposals of the commissions or undertake always to implement them. But where government disagree with those independent bodies, democracy demands that the reasons for that disagreement be stated openly and be subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny. To put law reform back with a high place on the political agenda, basic changes, as a matter of urgency, are essential.
The reports of the two commissions are usually impressive documents with proposals formulated after full consultation with all interested and informed parties. A Labour Government would regard the commissions' reports as the agenda for government response and action and not as an excuse for delay through the government themselves undertaking more consultation. The important public status of the commissions should
836
be reinforced by government accepting an obligation to respond publicly within six months of publication of any commission report, giving full reasons for non-implementation or delay in the implementation of the commissions' proposals.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is not the action being called for by the noble Lord still capable of being applied through the normal parliamentary procedures? There is nothing to stop the noble Lord, for example, under the many opportunities that our procedures give, from commenting that something is being neglected or not answered.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, as the noble Lord says, that is an opportunity which can be, and frequently is, availed of. The important point is that government should not leave the reports to gather dust unnoticed in Whitehall, without any statement as to whether they have simply failed to read them or to consider them or whether, on considered grounds, they are opposed to them for whatever reason. I am proposing a more rational approach with an obligation upon government to respond in the interests of democracy. Of course, I support, in the current state of our procedures, the suitability of the Jellicoe procedures for carrying out much needed law reform. The noble and learned Lord is well aware that that is so.
A new obligation of government to respond publicly to Law Commission reports would be important. It could be reinforced by the creation of a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament, perhaps along the lines of the Ecclesiastical Committee, with a remit to oversee government action on law reform. The committee would draw on the combined legal expertise in the other place and in this House. The Government's response to law reform reports would be monitored by the committee, and Ministers would give evidence to the committee about that response. That would be an important obligation of government.
Many law reform proposals will be controversial and will need full parliamentary debate. Many others, however, should not require that time-consuming and delaying process. One of the tasks of such a joint committee would be to indicate which recommendations, and which parts of them, are in effect technical, and which raise issues of policy and substance. Active steps should be taken to expedite the implementation of proposals that the joint committee regards as non-controversial and, fortified by the opinion of that committee, all parties in Parliament would be expected to co-operate in the rapid enactment of such proposals. That would leave more time for the full debate of law reform proposals involving issues of greater sensitivity.
There is one further consideration. Although the law commissions would be the main engine of law reform, it is not practicable, or suitable, for the law commissions to undertake all of the work themselves. In recent years too much use has been made of ad hoc committees, or of interdepartmental studies, without reference to the expertise of the law commissions. The position originally envisaged by Lord Gardiner should be restored: the law commissions should once again advise

837
government of the most suitable body to undertake any particular piece of law reform; and where law reform is contemplated by other government agencies the law commissions should give advice on procedures and approach. That should avoid duplication. It should lead to a coherent programme throughout government and ensure that all law reform work, wherever performed, is conducted to a high standard.
I have taken the opportunity to emphasise the major importance my party attaches to law reform and its conviction that it must be pushed significantly higher on the political agenda and that both law commissions must be supported and encouraged by putting the fruits of their labours, so far as possible, on the statute book. Meanwhile, we support the expeditious passage of the Bill.
3.23 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission are excellent institutions, created, as the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, has just reminded us, almost 30 years ago by Lord Chancellor Gardiner as his great innovation, supported, as I recall, by Home Secretary Jenkins. The law commissions have rightly expressed anxiety recently about the way their work has been consistently neglected by Parliament, an anxiety shared by many other people concerned with the quality of our laws. I endorse what has been said about that just now by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. It is therefore most welcome that the Government have introduced this Bill to give effect to three of the law commissions' reports in the field of conflict of laws. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, however, I must say that Part III of the Bill is highly controversial, as were some of the law commissions' own recommendations on choice of law in tort and delict. Since most noble Lords are not lawyers, I shall try to explain why in words which even I understand.
Part I of the Bill will allow an English court to order that interest on a judgment given in foreign currency is set at the rate appropriate to that currency. Until now the interest rate has been the same, no matter what currency the judgment was given in. It may come as a surprise to some noble Lords that our courts do not have this power at the moment; but they do not, and it is high time that they did. Part I of the Bill is therefore wholly sensible and entirely uncontroversial.
Part II of the Bill deals with overseas marriages in which one of the parties is domiciled in a country where polygamy is permitted. It makes a limited, sensible proposal. Just because the husband happens to be domiciled in a country where polygamy is permitted, the marriage should not be automatically invalid if the wife is domiciled in England. The present law has developed in a rather unsatisfactory way. If a man from this country wishes to marry a woman from, let us suppose, Pakistan, and goes to Pakistan for the marriage ceremony, the marriage will not be treated as polygamous, and will not be void. But if the roles are reversed, and a British woman goes to Pakistan to marry a man domiciled there, the marriage will be treated as
838
potentially polygamous and will therefore be automatically void. It is an accident that the law has evolved in this way, but the law now discriminates between men and women in a way which is wrong in principle. Of course, if the marriage is actually polygamous, it will not be affected by the Bill. But the limited and principled measure proposed in Part II of the Bill is entirely welcome.
I regret that the same cannot be said in respect of Part III. It proposes to abolish in their entirety the carefully developed common law rules about choice of law in tort and delict cases. One of the most controversial proposals is the removal of the present rule that a plaintiff may succeed in the courts of the United Kingdom only if the conduct complained of would have amounted to a tort under our own law. The version of the Bill drafted by the law commissions did not go as far in this direction as does the present Bill and the law commissions' version provided a better balance of conflicting policy considerations. It is unfortunate that the Government have departed from the law commissions' more balanced proposals.
Some examples may help to illustrate my real concern about Part III. First, let us suppose that a complaint is made against a United Kingdom power generator that its emissions have damaged forests in Norway or that a nuclear power station has injured the livelihood of fishermen in Ireland. Let us suppose that both generators have carried out their operations in scrupulous compliance with UK common law and statute law. Under the law as it stands today, a plaintiff could not recover damages in England because the conduct would not be tortious in England or Scotland. But Clauses 10 and 11 would probably permit them to do so. At present, if proceedings are brought in Norway or Ireland, the judgment may be enforced in the United Kingdom. That is, in my opinion, a more appropriate way of dealing with the problem than to require a court in the United Kingdom simply to apply foreign law to a question like this and to displace our own statutory scheme under which the power generators have lawfully operated.
Next, let us suppose that a British newspaper or broadcaster has published truthful but damaging material about an elected politician or public officer and the publication occurs abroad as well as in this country. At present, if the plaintiff were to attempt to sue in England for libel he would fail, because it is a defence in English libel law for the publisher to prove that what he published was true. But under this Bill the plaintiff will be able to obtain damages or even an injunction in the United Kingdom if in the foreign country where the publication also took place truth would be no defence.
The same applies to the defence of qualified privilege for libel about the way in which someone has discharged, or failed to discharge, his or her public functions. That defence of qualified privilege may well be recognised as part of English common law, as it is in the United States or Australia or India, but it may not be recognised in the plaintiff's country—say, Canada, Malaysia or Singapore. The newspaper or broadcaster will not be able, under Part III of the Bill, to rely on

839
the English defence. A foreign government or a foreign politician will be able to use a more draconian foreign libel law as a sword against the British media.
The law commissions carefully considered this problem and concluded that, where the UK is the country of origin of the defamatory statement, UK law should apply regardless of where the alleged wrong was subsequently published. The law commissions did not support this new exposure of the British media to foreign libel claims in this country which will arise if Part III of the Bill is enacted in its present form.
I believe that there is an important point of principle here. Freedom of expression and freedom of the press are vital civil rights and liberties which, as the Law Lords have also made clear in the Spycatcher and Derbyshire cases, are restricted under English law only where necessary in a democratic society in accordance with the common law and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Surely, in this age of global communications, it would be quite wrong for the freedom of the press in this country and elsewhere to be chilled or restricted by applying in English courts the laws of foreign countries which are far more repressive of freedom of expression. I hope that your Lordships will think that there is nothing narrowly nationalistic about my saying so.
There is a third example. Suppose that an auditor acts without proper care and as a result an investor in the company suffers loss. As a matter of English law recently and clearly established by the Law Lords in the Caparo case, there is no liability to such a stranger for what is purely economic loss. By what if the investor lives in and loses money in a country under whose law the auditor would be liable to him? Is it right that such an investor should have a claim which would be denied to an English or a Scottish investor in exactly the same boat?
Fourthly and lastly, there are some foreign torts which sound very strange indeed to English ears, such as "insult" or "infringement of self-esteem". It would be very dangerous to require an English court to give effect to such laws which may differ very greatly from the fundamental values of English and Scots law.
I realise that some may say: if a UK court is prepared to enforce a contract governed by foreign law, why should it be reluctant to give damages for a tort under foreign law? One answer is that all contracts are agreements, and all agreements are much alike. Torts are very different, much more variable, and enshrining disparate national views as to freedoms, duties and the extent of compensation. They need more careful scrutiny than foreign contracts usually do.
Others may point out that Clause 13(3) (a) (i) allows a foreign law to be displaced if it is found to conflict with public policy. But surely it is invidious for a judge to have to find, and to say that he has found, the law of another country to be so objectionable that it offends English or Scottish public policy. Yet there is a danger that this will be more and more often what is required of our judges if the Bill is enacted in this form, and in a manner which protects our civil rights and liberties. I suggest that that is a recipe for a divisive jurisprudence —the very opposite of the aims of a fair
840
and reasonable system for resolving conflicts of law—in which our judges are compelled to find, say, the libel law of Canada, Malaysia or Singapore to conflict with English or Scottish principles of public policy.
I should add that I do not regard Clause 12 as solving the problems to which I have referred. It is too vague to secure reference to English or Scots law in the situations to which I have referred.
I hope I shall be forgiven for having taken so long. I would like to conclude by saying this. Liability in tort raises important issues which go right to the root of civil liberty and civic responsibility. Part III of this Bill proposes making the freedoms and standards of English and Scots law largely irrelevant when the tort occurred wholly or mainly overseas. Even though this matter was examined at some length by the law commissions, it cannot be regarded as uncontroversial, and ought to be given very careful and detailed scrutiny if the new law is not to be much less satisfactory than it is today.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, like both noble Lords who have just spoken, I greatly welcome the fact that this Bill takes up the reports of the Law Commission and implements its recommendations. It is therefore with considerable regret, and indeed embarrassment, that I cannot welcome Part III of the Bill. On that I go along with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, rather than with the noble Lord, Lord Irvine.
I do not see how it can possibly be said that this is a an uncontroversial part of the Bill. As the noble Lord made clear, it is intensely controversial. The Law Commission itself said in its report, quoting from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, at one point, that the choice of law questions raises,
"one of the most vexed questions in the conflict of laws".
The Law Commission took a great number of opinions on it. It sent out a consultative document. It also heard a great number of witnesses, a list of whom appears in its report. It received a number of very differing views, all of which appear very fairly reflected in the Law Commission's report. These will certainly surface again. So one cannot say that this is an uncontroversial Bill within the terminology which has been used until now. Therefore, I must ask the indulgence of the House to give me the opportunity in a few moments to explain why I am opposed to this part of the Bill. The explanations slightly overlap those of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, but on rather more general grounds.
First, I take the general point that the subject 'of conflict of laws is essentially one which ought to be left to the judges. It has been developed by the judges over the years and, on the whole, the judges have done a very good job. There are very few cases where injustice has been seen to be done. One does not want this part of the law to be frozen into the lapidary phrases of the Parliamentary draftsmen, however well drafted they may appear to be. It is better to leave it to the judges.
Secondly, perhaps I may take this point. I suggest to your Lordships that statutory intervention in this area, or any area, is only justified if one has certain conditions fulfilled. For example, the first is where the common

841
law has given rise to injustice which it is feared may continue to exist; secondly, where the law is seen to be too complex or uncertain in its application; or, thirdly, where the reform of the law is thought to be necessary for some international reason to bring us into line with an international convention with other countries. But none of those conditions is fulfilled in the present case.
Since 1870 when this rule was enunciated in the case of Phillips v. Eyre 124 years ago, there has been only one case which has resulted in injustice. That was a Scottish case with very particular circumstances which would certainly not be applied in England or in Wales and very doubtfully followed in Scotland. Therefore, the case of injustice simply does not exist.
The law is not either uncertain or complex any more than follows from the infinite variety of cases which may have to be considered. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, gave some instances of the very great variety of cases which may happen. When one considers that there are 175 countries in the world with different nationalities, and the numbers are multiplied, one can see the number of varied cases against the hundreds of thousands of cases which may occur. You cannot cater for them all in a few phrases.
Thirdly—this is rather an interesting point—the origin of the Law Commission's report, and why it was called upon to report, was that it was hoped at that time (in the early 1980s) that there would be an international convention dealing with all sorts of obligations generally. That convention came into existence in relation to contracts. As your Lordships know, a convention was concluded and brought before this House not so many years ago. Legislation was duly and properly enacted to give effect to that international convention, but there is no such convention in relation to torts. The project for a convention has been abandoned, so there is no case whatever for saying that we need this Bill to bring us into line with some international convention.
So, in my respectful submission, the three classic reasons for legislation do not exist here. That brings me to the substance of this Bill, to Part III. Let us remember that we are talking about double actionability. You must have actionability under the law of the place in which you are suing and under the law, if you can identify it, where the wrong took place. I now make the proposition that, as the law has been perfectly well adjusted by the judges, it is not in need of any further reform.
I shall have to explain that, I am afraid, in relation to two reported cases, but I shall do it as simply as I can. It could have been said before 1969 that the rule about double actionability was too rigid. It was stated in a very rigid form in Dicey's Conflict of Laws with no exceptions and no modifications. Then in 1969 we had the case of Boys v. Chaplin. That case involved two British servicemen who were serving in Malta where they had a road accident. An action to recover damages was brought in this country. The question was: could you award the damages in accordance with English law, taking account of pain and suffering, or were you limited to Maltese law, which gave only about £50?
842
That case came to this House and was decided by the appellate committee, which decided that it was a case where one should not be limited by the rule and that a flexible approach should be applied. It was decided that British law could be applied to the issue of damages. Certainly there were a number of rather ambiguous speeches which were long and difficult to comprehend, but in the end it was decided, almost by process of Darwinian selection. One of the speeches came to be accepted generally by the textbooks and judges and can be said to be a fair description of the law so far as it went.
The Law Commission knew of the decision at the time. It referred to it in its report, stating that it was very good so far as it went but that it did not go far enough, leaving a number of points undecided. I would respect that view entirely if the situation had been left there, but it was not.
Let us see what happened in July 1994—only five months ago. The case of the Red Sea Insurance Company Limited v. Bouygues SA—I hope that I have pronounced that correctly —and 33 others was decided by the Privy Council. The case was brought in Hong Kong and related entirely to matters arising in Saudi Arabia to do with the University of Riyadh. Everything arose in Saudi Arabia, except the fact that the action was brought in Hong Kong. Action could not be brought in Hong Kong but could be brought under the law of Saudi Arabia. But the judicial committee of the Privy Council decided that it was a case in which the full and unequivocal terms of the rule could not be applied and although it was not actionable in Hong Kong, it could nevertheless be dealt with in Hong Kong under the law of Saudi Arabia.
A magnificent judgment was given by my noble and learned friend Lord Slynn—I am sorry that he is not in his place —and by four other Law Lords sitting with him—not retired Law Lords, I may say, but full-blown Law Lords. That judgment has swept away the whole of the law of the first part of Phillips v. Eyre. The common law rule has gone. The Law Lords said that there is complete liberty, where there is a proper case, to decide according to the law of the place where the tort took place. They did so in that case.
So, Clause 10 which sweeps away the common law rule, has nothing to do with the rule that is being swept away. There is a perfect opportunity for judges to decide these cases in accordance with the law of the place where the tort occurred or any other relevant place. They can decide the whole of the case in accordance with that law, not just one particular issue.
It is worth adding that the judgment referred fully to the Law Commission's report and quoted from it. It said that it was quite right to require further flexibility. It decided to give effect to that flexibility by judicial decision. In effect, therefore, the important aspects of the Law Commission's report have been carried out. It may be said that the decision is uncertain, that it does not cover every case, and that how far it does and does not go still remains to be decided. Of course, it does not cover every case. No judicial decision ever covers every case—nor is it desirable that it should—but nor does the Bill. The Bill contains all sorts of general expressions

843
about "substantial connection" and "relevant circumstances". Obviously, such questions have to be left open. However, the decision completely frees the court from the shackles of the old rule, to sweep away which was the main purpose of the Bill.
Finally, it is worth adding quite unofficially but, I believe, firmly, that the editors of Dicey's Conflict of Laws are satisfied with the decision and think that the new rule can be perfectly well stated so as to give effect to it. On that point, I respectfully suggest to the Government and to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that they should consider whether it is wise to proceed with Part III of this controversial Bill, which will give rise to any number of disputes, whether it reaches a Special Public Bill Committee or is dealt with on the Floor of the House. Is it wise to freeze in statutory language a result which the courts have already achieved? We do not need it for an international convention. We do not need the law further to be clarified. Admittedly, this is flexible and leaves many doors open, but the Bill rightly does that also. It leaves open many doors and refers to "significant elements" and all the "circumstances". So, why not leave these matters to the judges?
I have two short points to make in conclusion. First, it is correct that Part III deals with matters other than the direct question of double actionability. That is quite true, but on the other hand it is the double actionability point that is central, as the Law Commission said, to the whole of that suggestion. On most of the other points, the Law Commission has either left the position open or has said, "Let's leave it to the judges". Once you have dealt with the double actionability point, as I suggest the judges have, there is no real case for law reform in this area.
Secondly, assuming that there is a case for statutory intervention, the question that we must ask is: Has the Bill got it right? I do not want to argue that point now—certainly not when there are more fascinating subjects to follow—but suffice it to say that there are a number of considerably difficult points in the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, this is not an easy subject. It is not uncontroversial. It is going to take a very great deal of time if we are going to sort it out. As the Law Commission said, quoting the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, choice of law questions raises,
"one of the most vexed questions in the conflict of laws".
Although I welcome Parts I and II of the Bill, I most earnestly suggest to the Government that it might be wiser to leave the matter where it has now been brought with the 1994 decision and to leave this to the judges rather than take up a very great deal of Committee time, as would be the case if we were to go through the Bill to try to bring it into statutory form.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I should like to make two preliminary points about the treatment of Bills which emanate from the law commissions. The first, which has already been touched upon, is the delay in turning them into legislation. This Bill is the product of three reports from the English Law Commission and two reports from the Scottish Law Commission. Those reports were
844
published in 1983, 1985 and 1990. Each report was itself the result of a lengthy consultation process. The English Law Commission has justifiably commented upon the problem of delay in implementation in at least its last two annual reports.
It is characteristic of Law Commission proposals that they are researched and argued thoroughly and that they are generally uncontroversial. The reports typically come complete with draft Bills annexed to them, and when eventually introduced such Bills usually take up little parliamentary time. Thus, Law Commission Bills may not need any particular fast track or special track through Parliament but rather a faster track to the parliamentary starting gate.
The consequences of delay are various. Two consequences have struck me. First, the reports and draft Bills themselves are overtaken by other developments in the law, sometimes, but not always, small and unforeseen developments. Secondly, there is created a degree of uncertainty in the minds of the public and the legal profession who read the law commissions' proposals and assume—and indeed are entitled to assume—that change will follow within a reasonable time, and are entitled to organise themselves accordingly. Likewise, after a lengthy delay they are perhaps entitled to assume that, after all, the proposed changes will not take place. I hope that the Bill's introduction marks the beginning of an endeavour to clear up some of the backlog.
The second point is more technical. For some time of course it has been possible for the courts to look at Law Commission reports and draft Bills as an aid to statutory interpretation. It is now also possible for the courts to be referred to parliamentary debates in certain circumstances for the same purposes. With that development, the courts can focus on the reality of what Parliament intended if there is an ambiguity or obscurity apparent on the face of the Act.
However, more often than not, the lawyer who trawls through the Hansard reports finds that in the debates there was little or no reference or guidance to the intention behind the use of the word or phrase which concerns him or her. In the case of legislation being debated which uses the same wording as a Law Commission Bill, the absence of parliamentary comment is generally not surprising. What can be perplexing—I am speaking with experience of a case which is presently sub judice—is the absence of an explanation to Parliament when there are significant, or possibly significant, differences between the Law Commission's draft Bill and the Bill as introduced to Parliament.
If there are such differences, it would add to the effectiveness of the parliamentary process, as well as helping the courts in their interpretation of the enactment at a later date, if the existence of, and general nature and reason for, such differences could at some stage be mentioned, if only in the explanatory memorandum which we have as part of the printed Bills introduced into this House.
What may or may not be an example of what I am referring to is in Part I of the Bill. Paragraph 4.12 of the relevant Law Commission report and the draft Bill

845
annexed to it proposed a power to order a variable rate of interest. In the Bill today there is no such express power, and the word "rate" appears in the singular. I suspect the reason is that the Acts of 1838 and 1970 allow for a single rate only and there is no reason to treat judgment debts which are not in sterling any differently.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, indicated his understanding that a variable rate could be ordered. It may therefore be that there is some other simple explanation for the difference which I am too stupid to have grasped, but it may also be that in such a situation in years to come the courts will have to speculate as to why the draftsman of the Bill, and Parliament in enacting it, departed from the words in the Law Commission Bill.
Likewise, in respect of Part II of the Bill, there are certain differences of wording. I think that I understand the reasoning behind those changes, but I may seek to probe further in Committee. In any event, the law commissions are to be congratulated on tackling the law concerning the validity of potentially polygamous marriages in the way that they have, following the difficulties thrown up by the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Hussain. Even for those who have to consider that area of law frequently, it is sometimes complex and confusing. Accordingly, the sensible proposal in the Bill to treat potentially polygamous marriages as monogamous is welcome. It is to be hoped that it will remove any disadvantages in terms of matrimonial relief, the right to remarry, rights of succession and the right to social security.
I believe that Clause 6 deals with the various particular consequences of the proposed change. I do not believe that Clause 8(1) can be read as suggesting that polygamy is an option available to the Royal Family, merely that whatever other problems the Royal Family may have to trouble them, potential polygamy is not one of them.
So far as concerns Part III of the Bill, I had thought that the proposals were uncontroversial, removing the double hurdle placed in the way of intending plaintiffs by case law both in England and Scotland. Successive works on the conflict of laws by the late Dr. Morris have cited the condemnation of the first branch of the rule in Phillips v. Eyre by Professor Lorenzen who wrote over 60 years ago:
"English law manifests an illiberal attitude which does not obtain elsewhere except in China and Japan".
Having recently read the trenchant criticism of the Law Commission's proposals in the Law Quarterly Review of 1991, which has been echoed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and having heard my noble friend Lord Lester on Part III of the Bill in so far as it departs from the Law Commission's Bill, I know that I am now in waters too deep for me to make any useful contribution on that aspect of the Bill beyond asking for certainty for those of us who may have to dip our toes in only occasionally.
3.57 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think that I can safely be grateful for the extent of the welcome the Bill
846
has been given, notwithstanding the reservations expressed in respect of part of it. I am anxious to bring to the statute book, as soon as I can, those recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission which appear to be generally accepted.
Before I speak about one or two matters of detail, I have to remind your Lordships that, as the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said, the only ultimate way of giving effect to Law Commission work is by statutory provision. It is true that the analysis of existing law which the Law Commission provides in its working papers and its final reports can of itself be useful: I have found those analyses useful from time to time while sitting judicially. But the ultimate proposal of the Law Commission is for a Bill, and therefore it is by statutory intervention only that the proposal can be given effect to.
It is a consequence of what my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce said, that, so far as concerns private international law at least, it would be difficult for the Law Commission to operate because it is bound to innovate ultimately—if it is to innovate effectively—by statutory means. I hope that we shall be able to have a number of these Bills. As your Lordships know, the gracious Speech indicated the promotion of law reform measures. I hope that that will occur.
One of the difficulties of law reform is that it is sometimes hard to obtain the necessary measure of agreement. In that connection, I refer to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. In a sense law reform embraces all changes in law. Those are proposed by the Government on the basis that they are reforms. However, here we are dealing with law reform which flows primarily from the law commissions, although from time to time other bodies may produce proposals which fall properly within that category.
I wish to comment on some of the special issues that have been mentioned, but perhaps full discussion is best left to the Committee stage. The Law Commission formulated its proposals, which are incorporated substantially in Part III of the Bill, against the background of the rule in Phillips v. Eyre and Boys v. Chaplin, as referred to by my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce. The latter case contains a distinguished account of the law as it then stood. The law was developed in the Privy Council in the Red Sea Insurance case. I believe that, technically speaking, the decisions of the Privy Council, while a persuasive authority here, are not part of the law of this country. I have come across at least one case in which the House of Lords in this jurisdiction did not follow closely a parallel case in the Privy Council in relation to the effect of duress in the criminal law.
It is fair to say that in the Red Sea Insurance case the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council expressed difficulty in knowing to what extent exceptions were to be permitted to the law of double actionability. Therefore, I believe that the Law Commission's proposal that that rule should be abolished is wise. I say that with all due respect to the great learning and

847
experience in this area of my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce. Obviously, the matter must be discussed further and I shall reflect on all that he said.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, claimed a larger effect for the proposal of the Law Commission than it had. I understand the proposal to be that where the conduct constituting tort or delict took place in the United Kingdom the law pertaining to that part of the United Kingdom should apply. I do not believe that that proposal will in all cases have the effect that the noble Lord suggests. However, the difficulty is that if that is a good rule for England, Wales and Scotland, it is hard to see why it is not a good rule for everyone else. If that is right the whole system is undermined. The criticisms levelled at the Law Commission's proposal—that it is nationalistic in character and undermines the commission's own proposals—has a good deal of substance. As has been pointed out, there are public policy provisions and, as I indicated in my opening speech, the possibility of enforcement by reference to the convention laws of this country.
My submission to your Lordships is that these matters are technical. They involve controversy which is not party political but technical, and a good deal can be said on both sides. However, I hope that whatever is said will not be at such length as to destroy the possibility of this route for this type of reform. Those of your Lordships who are interested in having the Law Commission's reports brought forward and implemented—I know that that is true of your Lordships as a whole—will agree that the proposals of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, which we are now using, are most important. Consistent with the proper consideration of these matters, I should not like anything to happen that would undermine the utility of that proposal for dealing with questions of this kind. I suggest that these are questions of a technical kind which are appropriate for the special committee, as I mentioned earlier. If your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading I propose to move that it be committed to a Special Public Bill Committee. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be committed to a Special Public Bill Committee.
Moved, That the Bill be committed to a Special Public Bill Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, given the nature of the debate to which we have all listened with great interest; given the noble and learned Lord's reminders that the Jellicoe Report referred to uncontentious Law Commission Bills being suited to the new procedure; and given that the most recent view of the committee of your Lordships' House was that such a step should be taken only in relation to a few Bills of a technical nature and largely devoid of party political controversy—and I accept that the controversy that has arisen is not party political—does the noble and learned Lord believe that in the light of the major matters that have been debated
848
on Second Reading today if we take the step proposed by him we shall be stretching the previous decisions of your Lordships' House?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think not. The nature of the controversy is of a party political kind which goes beyond the type of consideration raised here. I accept that these questions are important but they are of a technical kind and I suspect that not all Members of your Lordships' House will feel inclined fully to participate in a debate on them. I may be wrong—there may be a tremendous desire to participate in the debates—but I think not. I believe that in order to make progress this is the only way open.
I suggest that my Motion that the Bill be committed to a Special Public Bill Committee is wise. The matters can then be discussed and perhaps when the Bill returns to your Lordships' House they will have been settled. I must then consider carefully what to do in the light of my general anxiety, as far as is possible and practicable, to get reformed law on the statute book. I move the Motion in the belief that it is wise and suitable if we are to be able satisfactorily to implement proposals of this kind.
On Question, Bill committed to a Special Public Bill Committee.

BBC: White Paper
4.10 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor rose to move, That this House takes note of the White Paper on the future of the BBC (Cm 2621).
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, on 6th July the Government published their White Paper on the future of the BBC. In drawing up the proposals in that White Paper we have taken account of the results of a consultation exercise, following the publication of a Green Paper in November 1992. We have also had the benefit of a report on this subject by the National Heritage Select Committee in another place.
The main proposal in the White Paper is that the BBC should continue as this country's main public service broadcaster. That should remain its primary role, and it should be spelled out in its new Royal Charter.
The White Paper identifies a number of objectives for the BBC's public services. Those include providing programmes of information, education and entertainment; giving priority to the interests of the public, and being open and responsive to their views; providing diversity and choice in its services; and enriching the cultural heritage of this country through support for the arts. We have proposed that those obligations on the BBC's public services should be stated more clearly and explicitly in the BBC's new Royal Charter and Agreement.
The White Paper also proposed that the BBC should take steps to exploit the commercial opportunities represented by its experience and reputation around the world, in partnership with the private sector, and that it should develop into an international multi-media enterprise.
I believe that it is fair to say that the White Paper received a good measure of support on all sides of this House, in another place, and in the country at large. The Government invited views on the White Paper by 31st October. By the end of November, some 109 members of the public and 93 organisations had sent in their comments. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has today placed a list in the Libraries of both Houses of organisations responding to the White Paper. The vast majority of responses that we have received have welcomed the continuation of the BBC as a public service broadcaster. There has also been broad support for our proposals for the BBC's commercial activities.
There have, of course, been concerns raised about certain aspects of the White Paper. The Government welcome all the comments received and we will take those into account very carefully before reaching final decisions.
I would in particular like to thank the multi-party broadcasting group of this House, which is chaired by my noble friend Lord Caldecote, for its considered response to the White Paper, and would like to spend a little time addressing its main anxieties. Your Lordships were mainly concerned to ensure the accountability of the BBC to Parliament and to the public. The Government share those concerns, and the White Paper makes a number of proposals to achieve that.
We have proposed that there should be clearer objectives for the BBC's programmes and services and that the basic obligations on programme standards, including the obligation of due impartiality, should be stated clearly in the new Agreement between the Government and the BBC.
The BBC should publish a statement of promises to its audiences, which should include undertakings on programme standards. The BBC should also consult audiences on its services, and publish information about its performance against its objectives and promises.
I know that the multi-party group is concerned about who will ensure that the BBC meets all its obligations. The White Paper makes it clear that this is the primary responsibility of the BBC's board of governors. The board's role is not to manage the BBC, but to represent the interests of the BBC's audiences and the general public. The Government do not favour interposing a separate, outside regulatory body between the BBC and its audiences. That would undermine the close, direct links with audiences which we see as essential if the BBC is to fulfil its duties as a public service broadcaster.
The BBC's position is significantly different from other broadcasters in this country. The BBC is a public body, established solely to serve the public. It has no other object. By contrast, the commercial broadcasters are primarily motivated by the requirement to make a return for their shareholders, subject of course to their licence conditions.
The BBC's governors are appointed by Her Majesty the Queen, on the advice of the Prime Minister. They carry out the regulatory functions which in the
850
independent sector are borne by the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority. If they do not fulfil their duties, they can be removed.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, has raised an important point, in his amendment to the Motion before the House, concerning the obligation of impartiality. I can say straight away that the Government accept without reservation the noble Lord's point that the concept of impartiality is too important to be left to a reference in the annex to the BBC's current Licence and Agreement. The White Paper itself acknowledges that in agreeing with the purpose of the recommendation to that effect in the report by the Select Committee in another place.
The Government propose that the BBC should be subject to a specific obligation to observe due impartiality in dealing with controversial issues. That obligation will be expressed in the same terms as that which applies to independent broadcasters. We have considered very carefully how that should be framed, and where we should include it in order to ensure that it is effective and enforceable.
It may help the House if I briefly outline the purpose of each of the main documents which will replace the current Charter, Licence and Agreement. First, there will be a new Royal Charter. That will establish the BBC as a public corporation and will set out its constitution and give it its powers. It is, broadly speaking, an instrument of enablement.
Secondly, there will be the Agreement. As I said, that will be a binding legal contract between the Secretary of State and the BBC. It will set out the BBC's obligations and undertakings for the programmes and services which it broadcasts, and for its other activities. Those will include all the current undertakings which are currently found in the annex to the present Licence and Agreement. The annex itself will disappear. The new Agreement will therefore be, broadly, an instrument of control.
The third document which will be required will be a Licence for the BBC to transmit its television and radio signals. That is a licence dealing with technical matters only, under the Wireless Telegraphy Act and the Telecommunications Act. It will be issued on behalf of the President of the Board of Trade, as for other broadcasters. The new Licence will replace the technical parts of the current Licence and Agreement. That will allow the new Agreement to concentrate on programme obligations, rather than technical matters.
Returning to the question of impartiality, we have considered very carefully which of the governing instruments would be the right place for an obligation of this sort in order to ensure that it is effective and enforceable. We have concluded that the reference should be placed in the Agreement. That provides the most effective guarantees. It will mean that the obligation extends explicitly to every programme in each of the BBC's services.
After the recent Question in your Lordships' House, I considered very carefully the alternative approach suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, of placing the reference in the Royal Charter. However, that would not provide such an effective safeguard. The Charter

851
does not cover specific programme requirements or set controls. It is, as I said, an instrument of enablement, not of control, as is the Agreement.
We could not therefore easily frame a requirement to go into the Charter in the firm and explicit terms that we envisage putting in the Agreement. The Charter and the Agreement have equal weight in law, but do different things. In the case of the obligation on impartiality, the Agreement is the right document for such a reference.
As I said, I accept without reservation the aim of the noble Lord, Lord Annan. The Government will place a specific obligation on the BBC to observe due impartiality, and that will be included in the body of the new Agreement, which replaces the current Licence and Agreement.
On the same question, my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing has previously raised the position regarding the role that this House will play in considering the new documents which will regulate the BBC's activities for a further 10 years. I shall try to explain the position clearly to your Lordships. The Royal Charter is issued under the Royal Prerogative. It is not, therefore, subject to the approval of either House. However, we intend that it should be debated in both Houses.
The Agreement will be a contract between the Secretary of State and the BBC. Because it deals in part with communications overseas—and only for that specific reason —it will be subject to the approval of the House of Commons, under Standing Order 55. Your Lordships' House has no equivalent standing order.
The technical Licence, setting the rules for the transmission of the BBC's radio and television signals, will be issued on behalf of the President of the Board of Trade. In common with the technical licences for all other broadcasters, there is no parliamentary process.
As I said, the Government intend, with the agreement of the usual channels, to provide your Lordships with an opportunity to debate both the Royal Charter and the Agreement before either document comes into force.
We have welcomed the responses which we have received to the White Paper and will take them carefully into account. I also look forward to hearing the views that will be expressed in your Lordships' House today. I can assure noble Lords that we shall also take those views into account. By my explanation of the Charter and the Agreement and their nature, I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that we have indeed taken the right course. I also hope that we have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, who has also tabled an amendment to the Motion—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, my noble friend has made it perfectly clear that the power resides in the Agreement and the Charter together. If it is felt that the Agreement has been ignored, or not dealt with correctly, but that it is in keeping with the general purpose of the Charter, which of them would have pre-eminence in any decisions that arise from that difference of view?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not believe that any have pre-eminence in the way suggested by my noble friend. I do not believe that there is any conflict of
852
interest in that way. If we had one rule of impartiality in the Charter and a separate one in the Agreement, then we could possibly find a difference between the two. But, as I said, the Charter is an enabling document which continues the establishment of the BBC as an entity; the Agreement actually applies to the specific obligations of the BBC. It is an agreement between the Secretary of State and the BBC. If the BBC does not keep to that Agreement, it is accountable to the Secretary of State.
As I said, I shall obviously listen very carefully to what your Lordships have to say. At the end of the debate I shall have the opportunity to answer any points raised. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the White Paper on the future of the BBC (Cm 2621).—(Viscount Astor.)
4.23 p.m.
Lord Annan Lord Annan rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert ("but regrets that it does not meet the recommendation in paragraph 59 of the 2nd Report of the National Heritage Committee of the House of Commons, Session 1993–94 (HC 77) that 'the principle of impartiality is too important to be confined to an Annex'; and requests Her Majesty's Government to give an assurance that this principle will be included in the Licence and Agreement of the BBC").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I tabled the amendment because the National Heritage Select Committee in another place made the cogent criticism that impartiality was really too important a matter to be left in an annex to the Charter. I should like to say immediately that I am very satisfied by what the noble Viscount said. I cordially accept that, of course, the Agreement is the place in which impartiality should be imposed upon the BBC.
However, the amendment was designed to go a little further. It was designed to probe the ministerial mind. Ministers are very busy men and women and they cannot spend their leisure hours watching television or listening to radio. In a sense they are rather worse placed than many members of the public to judge what the broadcasters are saying. But I am sure that the noble Viscount accepts, as I hope we all do in this House, that impartiality does not mean that every programme has to be balanced and express an anodyne view. We must accept that some programmes will express a bias or at least an individual outlook.
In defending that principle the BBC says that its staff are instructed to keep a balance between conflicting views. Unfortunately, some producers interpret that principle in a somewhat cynical manner. A sizzling programme designed to cast doubts on conventional values in the most provocative way is broadcast in January. They then argue that that is balanced by transmitting the Trooping of the Colour in June.
Timing in the balance of programmes is all important. The chieftains of television and radio really must accept that if they transmit a controversial programme they must in the interests of impartiality transmit a programme, not necessarily on exactly the same topic but something as pungent, that represents the views of

853
those who found the first programme offensive. Similarly in news both sides must get a hearing on a critical news item.
The BBC should recognise that where opinions are concerned viewers and listeners are rather like Jekyll and Hyde. The noble Viscount knows me as a mild, ineffectual old fellow. But put me in front of a television screen and I am transformed into a fighting cock. If that brilliant master of words, Mr. Christopher Hichens, addresses me—he is, perhaps I should explain, the Derek Hatton among Left-wing journalists—my hackles rise. But they rise even higher when I listen to Mr. Paul Johnson, who was once an angry young man of the Left and is now an angry old man of the Right. Long may those two live to enrage me and make the adrenalin flow through my veins. But I do ask that their views should be counterbalanced within a few weeks.
There is only one exception to impartiality. When the state —I do not mean the Government—is under threat in a battle against armed terrorists or against the armed forces of another state, the BBC has a duty to remember that it is the British Broadcasting Corporation and cannot be impartial between the two sides.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Annan: It must of course be truthful. The BBC won an international reputation during the Second World War for trying to be so. But when our soldiers, sailors and airmen are risking their lives, broadcasters should never treat the military authorities as potential liars and on an equality with our enemies. We do not want broadcasts of the kind, "I counted them all out and I counted them all back", which suggest that our commanding officers will lie if given a chance.
Understandably enough people ask: what happens if the BBC disobeys the terms of the Agreement? Indeed, the noble Viscount tried to address himself to that. What happens if the BBC is not impartial, and disobeys them not once but continually? In commercial broadcasting the ITA and the Radio Authority have sanctions to hand. They can fine companies or, indeed, withdraw their licence. But there is no corresponding sanction within the BBC. The governors represent the public interest but, if they fined the corporation, they would simply be penalising the public who pay the licence fee. It is absurd to imagine that any government would even dare to sack the governors en masse because the governors, not the Government, are responsible for seeing that the BBC obeys the law.
The governors are often attacked by the public for not insisting on impartiality or for sanctioning extravagance and so on. And they are attacked just as ferociously by the broadcasters for interfering with their freedom.
I want to defend the governors this evening. In the 1980s the BBC got into deep political trouble over Ireland, over the Falklands and over a considerable number of other matters. The governors showed they had a sanction; they sacked the director-general. They also cleared out the top echelon of BBC policy-makers. Since then they have left Mr. Birt to improve the standard of news and current affairs output. No doubt some will say that there is still room for improvement.
854
There always is—perhaps the director-general would like to have a look at the "Today" programme. But in my judgment there is a substantial difference between now and 10 years ago.
Some will urge that the governors ought to be strengthened and should regard themselves as the equivalent of the board of directors of a plc. I do not myself agree with that because I think that the BBC must remain a public corporation, and the governors have to represent Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Probably also someone from the Foreign Office is needed among their number. They cannot be like the board of a private limited company. But I do think that the board of management of the BBC might well invite some men and women of experience in business to join them as non-executive directors. It is there, I think, that outside advice would be particularly useful.
On impartiality, the governors and the director-general can do only so much. Impartiality depends on the heads of television and radio and the producers beneath them. Anyone who puts on controversial programmes is like a man driving along an unmarked frontier that he knows he must not cross. At some point or other he is bound to make a mistake and cross that frontier. Those who control programmes ought to work on the studio floor in rehearsal and in run through to see that that frontier is crossed as rarely as possible. Similarly, the creators of programmes must not be grindingly hostile to the controllers. They must consult right up the line to the director-general himself if necessary. And that goes for independent producers as well as for the BBC staffers.
In the 1950s when the BBC was in hot competition with ITV the creators were pushing back the frontier in the BBC. But in those days they did not regard themselves as avant-garde rebels cocking a snook at the top BBC brass. There was merry co-operation and a readiness to admit that some of the most audacious ideas went way beyond the frontier and had to be scrapped. Above all, it is important that there must never be an in-house interpretation of political events within the corporation.
I sometimes wonder whether broadcasters have read the admirable advice that the BBC gives in Producers Guide, chapter 3, section 5. Of course the director-general and the governors are right to back up their staff when they consider that a particular criticism is unjust. But it would impress the BBC's critics more if the BBC acknowledged that when a mistake had been made, it had been made; and if it is a gargantuan error, to state what action has been taken in regard to the offender.
More years ago than I care to remember, I wrote a sentence in the report of the Committee on the Future of Broadcasting which ran as follows:
"He who drops the clanger should carry the can".
It is because I would like occasionally to see a producer with a gloomy countenance carrying a can, that I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert ("but regrets that it does not meet the recommendation in paragraph 59 of the 2nd Report of

855
the National Heritage Committee of the House of Commons, Session 1993–94 (HC 77) that 'the principle of impartiality is too important to be confined to an Annex'; and requests Her Majesty's Government to give an assurance that this principle will be included in the Licence and Agreement of the BBC")—(Lord Annan.).
4.35 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I must begin by thanking the Minister for the opportunity to have this important debate and for his characteristically positive and accommodating style in opening it and especially in accepting the first amendment on impartiality. My amendment from this Bench includes that aspect and therefore we are happy, although my amendment does go much wider.
We welcome the White Paper which is commendable in a number of respects. It has been received with great relief both inside and outside Parliament. There is relief that the fanatics of privatisation have been kept at bay and that the licence fee is preserved as a source of finance, at least until 2001. It should have been for longer but we shall come to that. There is relief that the White Paper does not introduce advertising, sponsorship of programmes or a wide dependence on subscription, although a big door is opened for that with the onset of digital development. There is relief too at the continued support for the BBC World Service, surely almost the brightest jewel in the BBC's crown.
Some of the changes proposed in the White Paper such as merging the Broadcasting Standards Council with the complaints commission presumably will require primary legislation at some time—although I stand to be corrected on that—before the new Charter comes into effect. Perhaps the Minister will tell us if there are any plans for that and the Government's timetable for publishing the draft Charter and Agreement. We welcome the promise to give us an opportunity to debate that.
It is well known that the Opposition preferred an Act of Parliament to replace the Royal Charter to give greater public accountability. That was rejected by both the Select Committee report in another place and by the White Paper on the grounds of alleged greater flexibility and political independence. Personally—I speak personally here—I am content to accept the Charter approach on the grounds that it has worked reasonably well for 70 years and also based on the assumption that the needs of accountability, which we were looking for in a statute, can be met specifically in the new Agreement.
Having expressed relief that the White Paper is not as bad as had been feared in the heyday of what historians might term "late loony Thatcherism" I must, however, raise several questions about its detailed content and what it does not contain. First and most important is the White Paper's central assertion that the BBC should evolve into an international, multi-media commercial enterprise, as described by the Minister. Presumably that is based on the assumption that if that is very successful it could lead to the abolition of the licence fee. Of course, we all accept that the BBC must change and must adjust to the new
856
technologies that are emerging. The convergence of media technologies means that the old boundaries between broadcasting, telecommunications, the printed page and other media are being eroded. The BBC must adjust to that and survive in what is now an intensely competitive industry. We welcome the efficiency savings and the commercial successes it has already achieved although one feels there are probably still too many layers of bureaucracy sitting on top of the programme makers at the sharp end.
We accept also that the BBC could do much more to exploit its great broadcasting assets, both the historic treasures in its archives and its unequalled programme making skills. But I do not accept, as the White Paper may imply, that such commercial enterprise could at some point become the BBC's main priority. What the Minister said on that was, I thought, reassuring, but it still can be interpreted as a strategic view.
I question whether the BBC can ever hope to be a major world media producer. Its best programmes seem to me to have a particularly British flavour and currently sell only to specialist markets abroad. If it tried to produce what one might call mid-Atlantic pap it could fall between two stools and compromise its domestic appeal.
I hope that I shall not be misunderstood. I am in favour of maximum commercial expansion compatible with the BBC's public service broadcasting priorities. However, we must be realistic. The present commercial revenues are still, I believe, less than £100 million. They might be doubled, trebled or quadrupled, but that would still be only a fraction of the £1.5 billion produced by the licence fee.
There is a more fundamental underlying issue about which the White Paper, like the Minister today, is encouraging. The BBC is above all a public service broadcaster. It invented public service broadcasting 70 years ago. It is still the best exponent of public service broadcasting in the world, as the Select Committee report on the BBC asserts. Maintaining that role and supremacy must be its first priority, over and above any drive to achieve commercial advantage. It must avoid the terrible traps offered by the global media market.
Therefore, striving to remain Britain's, and the world's, best public service broadcaster is a large, worthy and perfectly satisfactory corporate objective. That glittering niche offers a sound basis for the BBC's future; it is certainly better than following the siren calls of total commercialisation. The BBC has been, and can only be, built as a public service broadcaster on the foundation stone of financial stability, derived from the licence fee secured for many years ahead.
In return the BBC must deliver the public service broadcasting goods. It must be informative and educational as well as entertaining, to use the old phrase, and must satisfy the highest quality standards and standards of decency and good taste as well as impersonal performance indicators. It must produce a wide range of diverse programmes meeting the needs of minority as well as of majority groups. It must be editorially independent of all financial pressures, and should have a high percentage of programmes made in

857
the United Kingdom. For me, that is a definition of public service broadcasting; it is what the BBC must continue to do. It is not something that all of its commercial rivals seek to, or do, achieve.
Only the financial stability of the licence fee enables the BBC to perform that role in full. That is why I question in my amendment why the licence fee is only for five years. The Charter and the Agreement are extended for 10 years. In my view, so should the licence fee be. Hence the first part of my amendment and my suggestion that the commitment to public service broadcasting should be—and I sense that it may well be—explicit in the Agreement.
Given that supreme commitment to public service broadcasting and given the financial stability to support it, the BBC does not need—unlike the rest of the commercial media facing, as they do, intense competitive pressures—to descend into the sewers of contemporary tabloid journalism. The BBC has no need to experiment with so-called tabloid television, which is a cover phrase for descent into trash. It can and must avoid the trend to downmarket scheduling so apparent—and sadly increasing—elsewhere, especially in satellite but also in terrestrial television.
While the preservation of the fundamental principle of public service broadcasting is my main argument today, there are several other issues of importance which I wish to raise briefly with the Minister. While commendably attempting to confront the dramatic technological changes facing the BBC, the White Paper fails to exploit some of the opportunities which the new technological revolution offers. The first is in the area of education, and the BBC's great potential as a provider of educational services. Broadcasting is a unique educational instrument, an extra teacher in every classroom. The new interactive technology now emerging makes it much more potent, providing scope for active participation by the pupils. The opportunity must not be missed. That applies internationally. I believe that World Service Television should be encouraged to link up with the Open University and the British Council to provide British educational services to the outside world, especially to the developing third world. I believe that the commitment to expand the BBC's educational services should be explicit in the Agreement.
The related questions of the BBC's accountability, regulation and user representation also greatly concern this side of the House. The appointment and the role of the governors require further examination. Section 5 of the Charter provides that opportunity. Clearly, self-regulation has not been wholly successful. In the regulatory field we support the White Paper proposal to merge the Broadcasting Standards Council with the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. However, we wonder whether that should not go further to include the integration of the Independent Television Commission, with the remit clearly specified to provide a powerful unitary body regulating the BBC, ITV, satellite and cable television. That would be a body strong and
858
comprehensive enough to cope with the cross-media ownership of the converging multi-media services we now see.
There is also urgent need to clarify the mushrooming structure of some 60 advisory bodies and to specify their representative, consultative and monitoring functions. Again, we probably need a single, strong institution to look after the consumer's interest.
In the arts, the BBC is the greatest single patron in Britain, spending more on the arts than the arts councils. It provides vital training for practitioners in the arts. It is unique in its scale of commissioning, especially of new drama and of new and live music. None of those would survive in a primarily commercial enterprise. We welcome the fact that that vital cultural role is highlighted in the White Paper and deduce—perhaps the Minister will confirm this—that it will be written explicitly into the Agreement as a continuing cultural obligation.
On the privatisation of the transmission service, which is contemplated although thankfully not promised in the White Paper, the Government should be aware that the Labour Party in government will oppose any privatisation of the BBC, whether as a whole, which, in my view, would be ideological vandalism, or in part, such as the transmission service or BBC Enterprises. I believe that the BBC's conclusion is that it needs its own transmission service. That was announced by the deputy director, Bob Phillis, last night.
Turning to the question of impartiality, what I have to say derives from all my previous arguments. Impartiality is intrinsic to public service broadcasting. It must be highlighted in the Charter and the Agreement. I am pleased by what the Minister said so positively and constructively on the question. However, I should like to go further and propose the inclusion of other explicit requirements, some of which I have mentioned.
Hitherto, a narrow range of obligations on quality, taste and impartiality has appeared in the annex to the Agreement as a resolution by the governors. I wish to suggest—and this may well be in line with the thinking of the Minister and the Government—that henceforward the new Agreement should contain both the comprehensive range of services which the BBC is required to provide and an extended list of the explicit conditions which the Government require from the BBC in return for granting the Licence. The Agreement should also contain the governors' resolutions to meet those conditions and obligations. So it is quite simple and logical: the Government set out requirements in the Agreement; the governors resolve that they will meet them. It is not clear to me whether the Minister, when describing the new organisation, was proposing to include in the Agreement the substance of the old annex with its valuable commitment by the governors to obey certain conditions and requirements.
I conclude by summarising our extended list of explicit conditions for inclusion in the Agreement: first, due impartiality; secondly, commitment to public service broadcasting as the BBC's supreme priority; thirdly, a commitment to universal access to BBC services, free at the point of delivery; fourthly, commitments to the highest standards of quality, taste

859
and decency; fifthly, the expansion of educational broadcasting; sixthly, the continued patronage of the arts, including and specifying new arts; seventhly, freedom of expression; and, eighthly, the continuing coverage of parliamentary proceedings. In my view, those should be the public broadcasting service requirements of the BBC which it should give in return for the guarantee, I suggest, of a 10-year licence fee.
The challenge facing the BBC in this technological future is very daunting. It must compete with so many changing technologies. If it seriously loses market share in that competition, then it will obviously grow more difficult to justify a universal licence fee imposed on everyone. However, if it maintains its share through going downmarket it compromises its unique public service broadcasting status so making the licence fee again hard to justify.
We on this side of the House will give the BBC every support in the difficult task of reconciling those pressures, on the assumption, of course, that it will meet the standards and requirements I have set out. But we accept that it can only do so if the Government provide it with the financial stability that it deserves.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, in thanking the Minister for the way in which he introduced the White Paper. I ought to begin with a declaration of interest, as a former chairman of the former Independent Broadcasting Authority. One of the advantages of a decade at the IBA is that it inoculated me against over-excitement at the prospect of white-hot technological revolutions. When I was invited to join the IBA in 1979 I was confronted by Ted Turner of CNN. He prophesied that a tidal wave of satellite and cable broadcasting across frontiers would wash away European terrestrial public service broadcasting and put it in the dustbin of history. We are now in 1994 and it has not happened that way, despite the growth of cable and satellite channels—a few of them good, adding to our total choice and enjoyment, but many of them full of the cheap end of American imports.
Of course, the new channels will continue to grow, but I venture a prophecy: if Parliament and governments in this country keep their nerve, if the broadcasters keep their nerve, then I believe that they will remain the heartland of British broadcasting, with the loyalty of perhaps two-thirds of the audience, well into the next century.
It is in that spirit that I give a welcome to the Government's White Paper on the BBC, albeit not an uncritical welcome. It is an infinitely wiser White Paper than the one which produced the Broadcasting Act 1990. That Act has destabilised the commercially funded half of British broadcasting and damaged the quality and character of the service it provides for its viewers. I notice that Mr. Andy Allen, the chief executive of Carlton Television, recently attacked daytime viewing for its banality. He said:
"Those who are housebound should qualify for a special allowance for watching it".
He should know.
860
Nor should the BBC be smug and complacent in this situation. It is not immune to the present pressures to lower standards. When I watched the launching of the National Lottery, such was the vulgarity of the programme that I wondered whether the editorial control had been handed by the BBC to Camelot, the lottery company. Gresham's law that the bad drives out the good applies to broadcasting as well as to economics. I was therefore glad to see the Government agreeing in paragraph 2.5 of the White Paper that,
"the BBC should continue to be the main public service broadcaster in the United Kingdom, and that this should remain its primary role".
I was also glad to see that the White Paper recorded the first objective in the Government's view as,
"giving priority to the interests of audiences. The BBC's services should be provided for the benefit of viewers and listeners".
That may seem almost a platitude, but it is a very important platitude.
While the commitment to keep the licence fee is welcome—at least until 2001—I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that it is a great pity that, in extending the Charter for 10 years, the Government did not decide to extend the commitment of the licence fee for the same period. For all its defects, and after all the argument and investigation of the licence fee, it remains the least bad method of funding the BBC. Currently at around 23p a day, it is a lot better value than all the competing offers from the new breed of cable and satellite broadcasters.
The licence fee also deals with the problem of maintaining BBC radio in a television age. If the licence fee were to go for television, it is hard to see how it might be maintained for radio. Since, sadly, commercial radio appears to have abandoned much of its public service role, the maintenance of BBC radio remains very important.
However, with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, I regret that the Government have failed in that field to respond immediately to the many proposals that were made for a single body to deal with complaints from viewers and listeners and to influence standards. Those proposals came in different forms from the Select Committee itself, from the Voice of the Listener and Viewer—of which I am a patron—from the Consumers' Association and a number of other organisations. Contrary to what the White Paper argues, I believe that such a body would strengthen rather than undermine the broadcasters and the regulators. The merger of the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission is a small step in the right direction, but I hope that the Government may have some second thoughts about the larger vision of a broadcasting consumers' council.
The two amendments on the Order Paper deal with the question of impartiality. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, goes a good deal wider than that and I find myself in great agreement with its general spirit. I am glad that the Government have responded, as they have done, to the way in which impartiality should be dealt with under the new Charter and Agreement. It is right in principle that there should not be a dual standard in the legal sense between the

861
impartiality requirements for the independent television companies and for the BBC. As I understand it, the government proposal deals with that aspect.
I entirely agree on the general issue raised by the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Annan. Given the special degree of influence that broadcasters have on the climate of opinion in this country, if we are to have a well-informed electorate it is vital that controversial issues should be presented fairly. I recognise that for some journalists—I had plenty of experience of this in the past—"due impartiality" is regarded as dull impartiality; crusading is much more exciting. On the other side, however, one should not let the whole issue get out of perspective. The presentation of politics in broadcasting is generally fairer than the presentation of politics in print. It is now only on television and radio—and indeed mainly on the BBC—that there is any real reporting of the proceedings in either of the two Houses of Parliament. The so-called quality press has virtually abandoned its former practice of reporting parliamentary debates.
The BBC is currently required to provide daily reports of proceedings in Parliament. There is no mention of this in the White Paper. I should be grateful for an assurance from the Minister at the end of this debate that that requirement will be included in the new agreement.
I turn now to the importance that the Government attach to what they describe as the BBC evolving into a multi-media enterprise. I share almost exactly the views of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, on the importance of the BBC operating as successfully as possible abroad and selling as many of its programmes abroad as it can, and also in the cautionary words that the noble Lord felt obliged to offer.
Clearly, the BBC's world radio service is one of the great achievements of Britain and is widely recognised as such round the world. For my part, I do not see why the development of a world television service from the BBC should not enjoy the same degree of public funding support from the Government as the radio service enjoys. It is important and adds value to Britain's reputation abroad.
Turning to the programme selling aspect, one has to watch this side of things rather carefully. The prime role of the BBC is to inform, educate and entertain the British public. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that if the BBC becomes over-obsessed with providing material for world markets rather than attending to its domestic duties there is a risk of ending up with too much rather bland cosmopolitan programming. In any case, I believe that the market-place for British programming is sometimes greatly exaggerated. I sometimes think that the President of the Board of Trade in another place lets the excitement of that go to his head a little. Any broadcaster will tell you about the difficulties of getting a British programme, however good, from the BBC or from ITV, into prime time in the United States.
In regard to the proportions, one has to bear in mind that at present BBC sales yield under £100 million as against the licence fee running at more than £1½ billion.
862
Against those proportions, programme sales abroad will not make a dramatic change to the British balance of payments.
There is the very real practical problem of insulating those operations in terms of sales abroad from the BBC licence revenue. Anybody with any experience of these matters in purely commercial undertakings knows how difficult cross-pricing can become. In the BBC's case, I do not believe that it has yet fully faced up to an adequate solution to the problem. It is not sufficient to rely on an internal audit in the BBC, even inviting distinguished people of the right experience to sit on the Board of Governors to chair the audit committee. That is a matter with which only the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee can deal effectively.
In the old IBA—and, I understand, in the present ITC—the chief executive is the accounting officer and is responsible to the National Audit Office and the PAC. I would be interested in the Minister's comments. I can see no reason why the Director-General of the BBC should not face the same discipline and be exposed to the same openness and transparency in terms of dealing with this problem.
Finally, the future of the BBC must be seen as only part of the future of British broadcasting—important part though it is. I beg the Government, when they bring the new BBC Charter before Parliament, to bring along with it a new broadcasting Bill. I understand from the White Paper that a Bill will in any case be necessary to implement some of the proposals that are in the White Paper. It would be wise for the Government to use that opportunity and to see the future of broadcasting in this country as a comprehensive whole.
There is, for example, a need for new provisions for cross-media ownership. The Government have been grappling with this issue for some time. The rules relating to media monopoly within Britain need modernising. I do not believe that there are simple solutions, but modernisation is necessary. It is also clearly unfair that continental media within the European Union can bid to take over British television companies whereas it is impossible for a British company to take over a European one.
It is now time to insist that BSkyB conforms to the rules which the terrestrial broadcasters have to follow. BSkyB has enjoyed several years of a privileged situation to enable it to get itself established. As the present flotation on the Stock Exchange shows, that has been successful. In terms, therefore, both of ownership and responsibility for making its share of original programming, BSkyB should now be ready to compete on the same playing field as the traditional British broadcasters.
There is also a need to change the provisions in the Broadcasting Act that relate to Channel 4. These provisions were designed in 1990 to provide an ITV safety net to ensure that Channel 4 was able to continue its remit for special programming even though it was now competing in the advertising market. It was never really intended that Channel 4 should begin to produce

863
a substantial annual subsidy to the shareholders—I believe to the shareholders rather than the programme makers—of ITV.
The year of the new BBC Charter, 1996, is an opportunity to put the whole of British broadcasting on a new footing and to face the challenges of the 21st century. Despite digital technology and fibre optics, and the potentiality for hundreds of channels, I suspect that most people will finally settle for eight or 10 buttons to press in the evening; but perhaps I am getting old! As I said at the start, there is no reason why the public services of the BBC should not continue to be at the very heart of British broadcasting and still be regarded in the 21st century as the best broadcasting in the world, as they have been up to now.
5.8 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I, too, am grateful for the opportunity which this debate provides to express appreciation not only of the Government's White Paper but also of the long tradition of excellence in broadcasting by the BBC. I believe I can speak for the Church of England, and also for our ecumenical partners, in expressing the conviction that the BBC should continue to serve the nation as a public service broadcaster, reflecting the nation's culture in all its breadth and richness.
Given the present period of upheaval within the BBC, with a fifth of the staff having been cut, the White Paper affords the corporation the opportunity of a period of relative calm, free from major anxieties about funding. Given also the pace of development in communications technology, it seems appropriate for the BBC's Charter to be renewed until the year 2007, by which time the broadcasting world may look very different.
My interest covers all aspects of the White Paper, but as chairman of what is euphemistically called "CRAC", the Central Religious Advisory Committee, which acts on behalf of the BBC and the ITC, I have particular concern for the role of religious broadcasting. I wish to concentrate my remarks on that subject. In doing so, I assure the House that I am not interpreting religion in a narrowly Christian sense.
It seems clear that, since the days of Lord Reith, the dramatically changed social ecology of Britain has resulted not only in deep social fragmentation but also in a pluralism which has left seriously weakened our concept of the common good. However, it would be a mistake to draw a further conclusion; namely, that religion in all its forms is being discarded and cast aside. The evidence does not seem to support such a view.
Many people still claim to be religious. In any poll which asks about the level of religious belief, the large majority will claim to believe in a supernatural being. Many parents who do not go to church still want their children to be baptised; and more than half of the marriages that take place each year are conducted in a place of worship. There is growth in the numbers of people going on religious retreats. There is parental demand for religious teaching in schools. The interest in religion and the search for the spiritual is an integral part of many people's lives, even though they may not he expressed in regular church attendance.
864
Television more or less consciously reflects that spiritual dimension to life. It cannot avoid it. News footage about the murder of James Bulger aired serious questions about the nature of evil, punishment and forgiveness. Documentaries, dramas, even soap operas such as "Coronation Street" and "East Enders" periodically tread in religious territory. Indeed, I believe that the broadcast media have a special responsibility. Like it or not, television in particular has enormous potential to help make or mar in our societies a sense of responsibility for each other, a sense of shared values and a sense of spiritual possibilities and meaning.
As the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury recently remarked, religious broadcasting has a special role. It is as the trustee of that spiritual dimension, ensuring that the media's heavy responsibilities in influencing the spiritual life of the nation are exercised consciously, coherently, and for good, in both the programmes made by religious broadcasting departments themselves and other programmes too. That role is all the more essential and difficult in a society beset by the increasing fragmentation and privatisation of religion.
Bearing those matters in mind, I believe that more attention and emphasis should be given to the role of religious broadcasting within the BBC's output. If there is a moral vacuum in our society and if, for the health and wholeness of the nation, there is a desire for a shared public morality, the BBC is ideally placed to explore and express moral and ethical issues from a religious standpoint.
In the White Paper there is only one reference—on page 11 —to religious programmes. But I am quite sure that that particular and somewhat passing reference picks up three very important statements contained in Extending Choice, the BBC's own document, in which it outlined its role in the new broadcasting age. The quotations are brief and unequivocal. First:
"The BBC should place priority on … religious, moral and ethical programming, which maintains a prominent place in the radio and television schedules for programmes of religious worship, music and journalism, covering a wide range of faiths, portraying many aspects of religious culture, and exploring the major moral and ethical issues of our time".
Secondly:
"BBC1 should be the main national channel, delivering quality programmes to a wide audience. It should … ensure that religious programmes retain a prominent place in the schedule".
Thirdly:
"BBC2 should be the more innovative, experimental channel, addressing different groups within the audience … [and] ensure that programmes for special interest groups (whether religious, ethnic or community of interest) are offered when these groups are available to watch".
Noble Lords will have noted the commitment of the BBC to maintaining the place of religious programmes in the schedules. Your Lordships will also have noted the repetition of the phrase "in a prominent place in the schedules". In that connection, the BBC has kept faith. It is to be congratulated on taking the decision, for instance, to leave its "Songs of Praise" programme at its peak time slot on Sunday evening. Despite competitive scheduling on other channels, the audience figures are higher than they have been for the past six years. They

865
regularly reach the 7 million mark; they are watched by one in eight of the population. That is surely an indication that commercial pressures and religious programmes are not necessarily opposed.
Given the fact that for some of its other religious programmes on radio and television very considerable audiences are attracted, the BBC would, I hope, not be averse to increasing its religious output. As a lover of sport I am grateful for the full and quality coverage that sport receives on the BBC. But it is worth remembering that more people attend church, chapel, synagogue, mosque and temple than attend sporting occasions each week.
One other key factor which emerges from the quotations that I gave from Extending Choice concerns religious broadcasting covering a wide range of faiths and portraying many aspects of religious culture. The Central Religious Advisory Committee, which I chair, is a multi-faith committee, and rightly so. One of the key roles of religious broadcasting lies in allowing communities of different faiths to speak to one another. It is also a key aim of the Inter-Faith Network of Great Britain and Ireland, which I have the privilege to co-chair. As a former Bishop of Bradford, I know the inherent dangers of stereotyping. I know also that ignorance creates fear, which in turn produces tension and all too often intolerance. In a pluralist society the role of religious programmes must at least partly be to help people understand what others believe and how they practise those beliefs. Understanding is a key requisite for tolerance; and tolerance is a vital ingredient in a healthy society.
I thank the noble Viscount for having made this debate possible. I want to thank the BBC for the quality and spread of its religious programmes. I am not complacent; nor, I believe, is the BBC. There is room for improvement. The BBC has committed itself to that task. Along with many others, I look forward to monitoring progress and measuring delivery against commitment.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, perhaps I may start by saying how very much we enjoyed the contribution of the right reverend Prelate. The three or four contributions that we have heard so far all made positive suggestions as to how we can go forward, not necessarily strictly in line with the White Paper. We are at liberty to make constructive suggestions because the document was described, unusually, as "a White Paper edged in green". If that means anything, it means that it is flexible; that ideas will be gathered and, where appropriate, incorporated in the final plan. I should like also to congratulate warmly the mover of the amendment. He always entertains us because he has such a light touch. The whole House is sympathetic and he gets his message across clearly and briskly.
I must pass on the apologies of my noble friend Lord Renton, who sadly underwent an operation on his eye last Friday and is therefore absent today. He was a loyal member of our group and attended every meeting. He asked me to say that, had he been here, he would have
866
said that there is no excuse within the BBC for some of the sex and violence currently shown; that it is not appropriate to public service broadcasting. It is harming the morale of the community as a whole and it seems that powerful producers continue to compete with some of the independent elements rather than carrying out the duties of a public service lighthouse which is so appropriate to the BBC.
As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said, vast numbers of views on the White Paper were probably received. It is a question of keeping up with the reading of them, and the noble Lord mentioned one or two. On balance, our group favoured the cohesion of one complaints authority. We felt at one time, as one of the earlier Green Papers suggested, that there could well be a broadcasting council. I concede that we have probably lost that battle unless the Government decide to rethink the matter.
One task must be undertaken with regard to the ITC, the Radio Authority, Sky, Cable and so forth if they are to be in touch and complaints are to be dealt with fairly. The standard letter is too often used in replies. I was glad to see at the beginning of the year that the BBC set up its own complaints authority. I am sure that that is a move in the right direction. Peter Dannheisser is in charge of that and I have been in contact with him. However, it still means that it acts as judge and jury for itself, even if the BBC does not like that accusation being made against its administration and programmes.
When we look to the press complaints authority, we realise how difficult it is to bring a regulatory body into existence. We spent 45 years in that regard finding different chairmen and different solutions and it was not altogether successful. We wish the BBC's internal organisation well. However, it is difficult to believe that the people serving on it will not find their careers adversely affected if they are harsh on some of the headstrong leaders among the producer staff. That is just the sort of accident that happens, with people being sidelined rather than remaining in the main body of the promotions ladder. I fear that that may happen. I hope that the service of those good people will be reserved to carry out what we all hope will be to the advantage of the viewers.
The 1990 Act contained certain argumentative points. But the main thrust was to do with impartiality, taste and decency, which were to be found in Clauses 6 and 7 and in relation to the Radio Authority Clause 90. We spent 13 days in this House debating the issue. And this House is perhaps better suited to undertake such consideration than the other place, where there is less expertise than there is on these Benches. Many of us cannot see why those clauses cannot be lifted out of the Act. The BBC said that it would take cognisance—I believe that was the phrase used—of all that was contained in the Act. Perhaps we can look once again to see why those clauses should not be lifted straight out and included in the new Agreement.
Impartiality was strongly recommended, incidentally, by the House of Commons Select Committee. I wonder whether when we come to the great issues of the mixed constitution of the public service BBC it would be a good idea to have a joint Select Committee. There is a

867
great deal of expertise and experience in this House—I think of the noble Lord who spoke earlier—which could he brought to the counsels on these issues.
It is worth looking at the results achieved by both the ITC and the Radio Authority on the question of sanctions. It is easy to say that this or that must be done. But what is the possible alternative for admonishment or even standing down a contributor who continues to disobey or disregard the rules? I have read the ITC quarterly reports since they were first published. I am sometimes surprised to find that complaints made by viewers are not upheld. I do not need to tell the House that most complaints concern Channel 4. Last week's programme on "The Word" contained a vivid description of Mr. and Mrs. Bobbitt and was pretty close to pure pornography. It was not appropriate for broadcasting into private homes.
"Spitting Image" is bad enough when it lampoons the Royal Family and particularly our Queen. But when it produced the figures showing Jesus Christ, 150 people immediately wrote in. Those complaints were only "partially upheld". But what can be more abusive to the Christian faith than to make a spitting image of Jesus Christ?
I was in touch with the authority and asked what was done about the thousands of complaints, of which only 100 or so were upheld in the past year. I will describe later the action taken by the Radio Authority. But I was told that nothing had yet been done; nobody had been fined; nobody had been stood down. I made the point that on Saturdays and Sundays there is a good deal of evidence of footballers who are shown a yellow card and warned. If they repeat their actions they are shown a red card and sent marching. Why cannot we do something like that when people continue to disobey the codes of conduct, which are very strict? I have the latest one here, but it is almost too heavy to hold up. I wonder whether any of those in control at the BBC ever read, learn and inwardly digest its contents. If they did there would not be a problem. But I fear that some of them become rather more arrogant than humble and the rules are disregarded.
"Spitting Image" was a classic example. But one example which received publicity is Granada which has been disobeying the rules of advertising codes—I believe eight times so far. At present the authority is trying to levy a £6 million fine on the channel. But that is not as bruising as some may think. Its total turnover for the year is £190 million, so it is roughly 3 per cent. That is the first action taken in the independent sector.
I asked the Radio Authority for a summary of its actions and received a fax this morning. Apparently nine stations were fined for code offences, amounts ranging from £500 to £5,000; a further five stations were fined from £800 to £1,000 for failing to record programmes. That is a little bit of a discouragement, but I wonder whether we will see any action by the ITC. I am sure it would not have happened in the noble Lord's day.
I congratulate the Government on stopping the broadcasting of Red Hot Dutch. That porn channel may be a sign of what is going to happen in the future. Perhaps we should initiate a change in the European law that satellite and cable should be licensed in the country
868
in which the programmes are received rather than just in the country from where they are transmitted. Such a change might be universally popular in Europe and even certain people in the House of Commons might vote for it. Perhaps we could make that change. I do not believe there would be much argument about it.
I wish to make two other brief points. First, because we are not setting up a Broadcasting Council we are giving much more power to the governors. The introduction to the Directions to the Governors, signed by Duke Hussey, which I received from the BBC this morning, asks:
"How can the BBC be made more accountable to viewers and listeners while maintaining its independence?".
The governors have a part to play, but when I read this document I wondered whether they would have enough time to carry out all their responsibilities. They will have to look into cross-subsidisation as between the private sector and the public sector and it will be very difficult to unravel overheads. They will have a real problem on that score if the private sector is to be a substantial amount of the whole. The more I looked down the list of their responsibilities in the document, the more I wondered whether they would have enough time and energy to carry them out and also whether they would be suitably rewarded for all the time that they would be taking attending to the many functions for which they are now taking on responsibility.
Secondly, I should like to say a few words about the watershed. A good debate on the issue was initiated last January by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and noble Lords in all parts of the House seemed to agree that the watershed should be later. In France it is 10 p.m. or 10.30 p.m., but still we make it 9 p.m. That really is unrealistic. Nine o'clock is far too soon, particularly when young people are so adept now at using video recorders. They can set them up and go to bed and watch the programme the next day. I believe that the watershed is being used as an excuse. I have seen dramas in which four-letter words are liberally used. When one asks whether that is not objectionable, the answer comes, "Well, it was after the watershed". But taste and decency and all the qualities that we are trying to encourage in this country are not allowed after 9 p.m. We are suborning the young. I believe that we should take account of the recording methods now available and strengthen the watershed. It should not be an excuse for showing sex and violence and all the other things that are leading our nation astray.
One of the biggest consumer protection associations in this field, the National Viewers and Listeners Association, which is run by Mary Whitehouse, was set up in 1966. Mary Whitehouse is now a very elderly lady but is still energetic. She wrote a book entitled A Most Dangerous Woman. In it she records that an order was issued by the then director-general, Hugh Greene, that,
"under peril of losing his job no employee of the BBC was to have any contact with me whatsoever".
That lasted for 11 years. Hugh Greene left the BBC three years after he made the order but it stayed there. Twenty five thousand people accepted that she could not

869
be talked to. Even her letters were not allowed to be forwarded. They had to be sent to a national newspaper and then sent on.
It is extraordinary how a modest, humble lady, who was trying to work against the general swing of an extreme political slant, was sent to Coventry and was not in any way used. It is nothing new, but I hope that it has now finished. In 1981 only two people were on the list which had to be sent up for approval. One was Mary Whitehouse and the other was Enoch Powell, obviously for some past reason. I am not blaming the current BBC because I am sure that it has reconsidered the matter. However, it is very unpleasant indeed when the most powerful media influence can make sure that someone is not used on any programme. I recognise that Winston Churchill had exactly the same treatment in the 1930s. The people of the day also used their power to keep him off the air. If that had not happened we might have been better warned than we were of the rise of Hitler's militarism.
I shall finish with a quotation from the most admirable speech of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury in the debate on the Address. He finished with some classic words which bear repeating in this context. He said:
"The aim is not to knock as many people as possible off their pedestals and feel good about their downfall. The aim is to help all of us … to serve the common good as well as we can".—[Official Report, 22/11/94; cols. 175–6.]
Those are the words of the most reverend Primate and I do not apologise for repeating them. They stand repeating. I hope that notice will be taken of them and that we shall get that message across to the broadcasters who have the power to influence for the good or for the bad.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, personally I find the White Paper a somewhat disturbing document. However, I know a great deal less about this subject than I used to and mine, I think, will be regarded rather as a voice crying in the wilderness.
My attitude may well be due to my inability to anticipate and understand the full extent of the technical progress that is likely to take place sooner than we think in the broadcasting industry, nationally and internationally. Many of us have heard qualified people speak of the air being full of satellites of the Murdoch type which will be able to penetrate this country without our ability to impede them in any way. That may all be an exaggeration, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, was very encouraging about the situation. But there is a real possibility that some of these horrors are nearer than we really think. Others may be able to see and understand more clearly what is happening in the technical world and are content therefore to await events and just "take note" of the White Paper. The Government clearly believe that the BBC will be able to evolve into an international multi-media enterprise. I wonder whether that is true. I do not believe that the phrase "multi-media enterprise" is a very encouraging description.
870
It is perfectly true that the BBC has an unrivalled reputation, but it will be competing with a host of powerful competitors with great resources and very wide international experience. There is every evidence that standards of programmes, generally speaking, are declining worldwide and the BBC may well find that its virtues will be insufficient to sustain its position. I very much hope that this expectation is not ultimately found to be true.
As a governor of the BBC in the early 1970s I found the corporation a pleasantly confident organisation; financially well off, with a staff of skilled and experienced broadcasters still relying, rightly, on their wartime reputation. They faced little competition and enjoyed public support. The governors were politely treated, quietly deceived from time to time and starved of information about future programmes. I shall refrain from giving examples. Since those days the Corporation has, of course, in many ways changed for the better. The noble Lord who follows me will be able to explain what has happened. But it is still possible for laymen to pick holes in its behaviour. Impartiality is one of the key issues. I agree very much with what the noble Lords, Lord Annan and Lord Donoughue, said. The BBC has to be more honest than it has been in the past.
But if we are going to protect the BBC's position in the future, the most important thing to my mind is to change and enhance the role of the governors. They must decide the overall policies of the Corporation and ensure that the management carries them out. The chairman must exercise ultimate executive responsibility and although the governors should be non-executive their position should be virtually the same as that of the non-executive director of a public company. The present quaint arrangements must be eliminated. This, I know, has long been rejected but when the Corporation finds itself facing several powerful international rivals the Government may like to think again.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I suppose I should declare a past interest in that I was deputy chairman until last year. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, did not like the White Paper. I find myself therefore in the somewhat unusual position of defending the Government because I do like the White Paper. I formally welcome it, although I am bound to tell the Minister that in due course I shall mention one or two reservations.
I welcome the fact that in the White Paper the Government, as has been said, propose that the BBC should be the main public service broadcaster. I am sure that that is absolutely right and a sensible thing to have suggested. I am bound to say to my noble friend Lord Donoughue that I agree with him—and I believe I understood what he was saying—that he and I both disagreed with the Labour Party in the idea that there should have been an Act of Parliament to deal with the BBC. I believe that the Royal Charter and the Agreement which have been proposed are a much better proposition if we are to be really concerned about the independence of the BBC. That is a matter to which I wish to refer in a moment.

871
There has been reference to the commercial nature of the BBC; I want to say a word about that. I know that there is some anxiety about the commercial activities of the BBC, as expressed by a number of bodies outside and in this debate. Bob Phillis, the deputy director general, in a very good speech yesterday, made it clear that there would be a level playing field and that there really is no need to worry about the way the BBC proposes to carry out its commercial activities.
I believe it right to continue the establishment of the BBC with a Royal Charter. I agree with my noble friend Lord Donoughue about the period of 10 years and I wish to return to that. It is right that it should be 10 years from January 1997 and not 15 years. A great deal is going to happen in the 10 years to the year 2007. I wish I could foresee the possibilities; clearly, however, there are going to be many technological changes. It would be silly to take the matter beyond that, given that we do not know what the position will be.
I wish to say a few words on the subject of impartiality. A great deal has been said about that. I believe that my noble friend—if I may call him that—Lord Annan knows very well the enormous respect and regard I have for him even if I had not agreed with what he said, which I did. I am glad that the Minister also agreed that the word "impartiality" should appear right at the heart of the Agreement. It is made clear under Recommendation viii in an annex to the document.
As regards the period of five years or 10 years, I shall return to that in a moment. I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord On-Ewing, about programmes such as "Spitting Image". I am bound to tell him that I do not normally watch it. When I did watch it in the past it was so awful that I decided not to watch it again. The noble Lord suggested that if a broadcaster had been lacking in impartiality in a programme he had produced he should perhaps be given a yellow card or two yellow cards which is the equivalent in football, as he knows, of a red card and then dismissal. I am not sure whether we should get to that level although as a strong Manchester United supporter I always regret it when one of our players gets a red card or two yellow cards or whatever. Certainly, I share the noble Lord's concern about impartiality.
My noble friend Lord Annan said that in the past the board of governors sacked a director-general. I am sure that he is aware that the current chairman and I did sack a director-general fairly shortly after we became chairman and deputy chairman. We did that with the support of the board of governors because we did not think that the director-general was doing the job as we expected. That has and can be done. We have to be very careful how we handle that particular sanction. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Annan will agree that as governors we must not be seen to be constantly breathing down the necks of programme producers; otherwise independence will go straight out of the window and I do not know what kinds of programmes we would get. In the first instance the sanction must be in the hands of the director-general and then ultimately in the hands of the board of governors, particularly those of the chairman and deputy chairman. I believe that is what the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, was saying.
872
Inevitably, there is concern as regards the question of impartiality. When I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury I woke up every morning and used to think—I nearly said "My God"; I hope that the right reverend Prelate will forgive me—how on earth did that come to be the first item on the news? Why did they put it that way? I thought that they were biased. The important factor to recognise is that we are not impartial, especially those of us who were in another place. None of us is impartial; we are all biased politicians. What we see as biased, others will see as unbiased. So one man's bias is another man's wholly and absolutely perfect programme. It is important that we recognise that. The programme producers are never going to get it absolutely right.
I believe that the Minister said that the balance should be in one programme. I hope that he did not mean it because the noble Lord, Lord Annan, recognised, quite rightly, that one has to balance over a series of programmes although, as he rightly said, one must not produce something which is lacking in impartiality in January and then say that it will be put right in July or maybe August when there is a quiet session. The matter should be put right within a few weeks. It is absolutely right that that should be done.
I know for a fact that programme producers, controllers and the managing directors of programmes care very much and look very closely at this whole question. They have produced the guidelines. If producers are not abiding by them they had better watch out. Whether they get the yellow card or not is another matter, but it would certainly be frowned on if they were not carrying out their remit of producing impartial programmes. Surely it is better to do it that way. There is a very good guideline which is sent out to producers and there is a systematic review and continuing discussions about it.
That is the situation at the moment. As regards impartiality, I know that there are programmes which can never be impartial because they give the particular view of one person. By the very nature of things that cannot be unbiased. But that is part of the editorial mix. The following week another person will be giving the opposite view. That is perfectly reasonable. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, nodding in agreement. It is dangerous to lay down rules that are so tight that they destroy the very independence of the BBC about which we all care.
I turn now to the question of producer choice, which has also been much criticised in many quarters. As the paragraphs in the White Paper make clear, producer choice has been abused. The new arrangements make an excellent change whereby responsibility for commissioning programmes is separated from making them. That ensures better value for money. Indeed, in its first year, there was a saving of £100 million which went straight into programmes. That has to be a good way of getting value for money.
I turn next to the question of listed events. I care a fair bit about sport and listed events bother me. I am bothered, for example, that Sky and other such channels can buy premium league football—and have done so—thus excluding public service broadcasting, apart from the BBC which has been able to get such programmes

873
late on a Saturday night. If we are not careful and the Government do not ensure that the question of listed events is watched closely, the only way in which the public will eventually be able to see a listed event will be by subscribing to Sky or some other satellite television channel. I am sure that none of us would want to see that.
Reference has been made to World Service Radio and increasingly to World Service Television. I shall not say too much about that except to note that it has been said that World Service Radio has a good reputation all over the world and is of great benefit to the UK. It certainly is. The Select Committee said that World Service Radio provides a superb service and greatly enhances the UK's international reputation. That comment related to audibility. In fact, the World Service is not only helpful in terms of radio and television; it is helpful to our traders around the world. It is a wonderful service that people tell you about all over the world. World Service Television only began in 1991 —it is hard to believe that—and is already building a similar reputation. I believe that the competitiveness of the BBC in World Service Radio and Television does us all a great service.
I turn now to the licence fee, a point on which I have some disagreement with the Government, as does my noble friend Lord Donoughue. I am pleased that the licence fee is being proposed as the main source of funding. Paragraph 1.17 says that that will be the case for at least five years and that the position is to be reviewed before the end of 2001. Frankly, that contradicts what is said later in paragraphs 5.4 to 5.9. The Government recognise, as I did when I served in government, that although it sounds fine, democratic and fair to say that they will take from income tax, value added tax or general taxation the amount that is now provided by the licence fee, in practice it would put the BBC into the public expenditure round every single year. As one who for five years had to deal with public expenditure, I know what that would mean. I would not want to see that happen. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter is nodding in agreement. We must ask why, if the Government believe that, they are saying that they will review the position in five years rather than 10. I simply do not understand it.
Of course, there is no disputing that the licence fee is a form of poll tax. It may be that because the Government had such misery over the poll tax they do not like the idea of continuing the licence fee beyond five years. I should be glad if the Minister could tell us that the review is only about the amount and that, in practice, they propose to continue with the licence fee for at least 10 years, and not five.
I recognise the problem that is posed by the licence fee, as would any of your Lordships who used to canvass at election time. That is especially so in sheltered accommodation where some people pay only 10p for the licence fee while others pay a lot more. I note that the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, agrees. One was not well received in such circumstances, especially if one was a Minister. One had to try to find an easy explanation—and it was not easy to find one. On the other hand, I am bound to say that, much as I
874
would have liked to find some other way of dealing with the matter, to adopt a means of funding the BBC other than by the licence fee would be to do great harm to the very independence of the BBC about which we all care.
I turn briefly to the question of the appointment of members of the board of governors. Again, I agree with the Government that to have such appointments approved by a Select Committee would once more be to bring the BBC right into the party political arena. I would be very sorry if that were to be proposed. Of course, party politics enters into the appointment of governors—although the fact that the present Government appointed me answers that argument, I suppose. I do not know, but it certainly shows a little impartiality on the part of the Government. In my seven years as deputy chairman, there was never one occasion that I can recall when party politics entered into our discussions on BBC matters. I do not know the party political views of other members of the board of governors. All that I know is that we did not have a problem with party politics.
I hope that any government would seek to be fair and balanced in making appointments to the board of governors but, after that, the board of management must be a matter for the board of governors. The board of governors should appoint the director-general, who will then advise the board of governors on the appointment of the rest of the board of management. We were very fortunate and, I believe, absolutely right as a board to appoint John Birt who has been heavily criticised and wrongly abused. I believe that he is doing an excellent job running the BBC in a way that should please all your Lordships.
Finally, perhaps I may return to the question of accountability to Parliament. Constant examination by Parliament of the details of the way in which the BBC is handling its affairs and programmes may sound like good parliamentary accountability but, as paragraph 6.41 says, it would subject the BBC to party political controversy and damage once again that crucial independence about which I have spoken.
Overall, I believe that the White Paper has got it about right. I do not have too many opportunities to congratulate the Government, so I am happy to do so today. I welcome the White Paper. The Government deserve our congratulations on introducing it.
5.57 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, those responsible have concentrated ex-governors of the BBC into the middle of the list of speakers. I have to confess that I, too, am an ex-governor of the BBC—of 1960s vintage. I expect that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and my noble friend Lord Greenhill probably have justifiable complaints that they wasted a lot of time correcting mistakes for which in my day I was responsible.
A great deal of what is at stake depends to a certain extent upon the meaning of words. I should like to express my thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for the temperate way in which he has addressed these problems in the correspondence that we have had from him in the unofficial all-party working group. By way of illustration, perhaps I may consider the word

875
"impartial". You cannot be impartial as between good and evil. Somebody had a bright idea and said, "Let's coin a new term and call it 'due impartiality' and leave other people to decide what difference the word 'due' makes". That is the sort of thing that makes the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, a little difficult to agree with. When the noble Lord uses the word "impartiality" does he mean "due impartiality" or just "impartiality" stripped of any qualification? I do not know. Perusing the documents, here and there I come across a phrase and reflex action makes me search for my blue pencil immediately. It could never have been penned by somebody who understood what he was writing about. I wonder how it found its way into the documentation.
What that presupposes, of course, is some kind of hierarchical structure with a top and a bottom. Between the top and the bottom there is a process of delegation, including, possibly, the authority to delegate further. Somewhere down the lower regions of the organisation there is accountability, answerability, responsibility, and so on, to the source of authority. But when I read a combination such as "delegated responsibility" I wonder whether whoever penned those terms could possibly have been aware of what he was doing.
You can delegate authority; you cannot delegate responsibility. You cannot make someone else answerable for what you are answering for. That is the basis upon which I have been searching for the proper attitude to be taken towards the subject matter of our discussion. If one goes to any manufacturer of a product, whether it is a sewing machine or motor car, and ask him, "What do you make?", he will be able to show you a sewing machine, a motor car, a bottle of coca cola, or whatever it may be, but the product of the BBC, and all the programme companies, is variable. First, it is not the same from channel to channel; secondly, it is not the same from hour to hour; and thirdly, it is not the same from day to day of the week or from week to week of the year. It is an utter impossibility for any one person to monitor in real time the whole output of the BBC, either in advance or in retrospect. What can be done is to set up a system of monitoring. That is done for the BBC partly by the Government and partly by the BBC itself.
The answer to what should be done to those who violate the code has been much advocated by myself and the noble Lord, Lord On-Ewing, and has been discussed in philosophical terms by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. For someone who disobeys a clear directive there should be a warning, followed by a final warning, followed by dismissal. That should be understood clearly, and somehow or other written into the person's contract of employment.
If we compare the structure of the BBC with the structure of an ordinary public limited company there are certain differences which are worth noting. We should ask ourselves whether they are intentional differences or whether we have merely introduced them by inattention. Of course, the establishment document of a public limited company is its memorandum and articles of association, but the shareholders elect the directors to direct the company, to settle its policies and
876
to approve its managerial structure. They do not issue directives to the directors telling them how to do that. Directors are supposed to be qualified to know how to do that before they ever come forward for election.
Furthermore, the directors regard their position as more or less a marriage rather than a job to be initiated at one point and dropped at another. If one joins the board of a public company it is with the belief that one is going on with it until retiring age. Of course one has to suspend one's directorship and be re-elected every three years, or whenever the company articles prescribe, but one is not put on the board for a few years with someone else put on the board to replace one. It is not like that. There is a continuing team.
The board of directors appoints its own chairman as the board's spokesman. It has complete authority from the shareholders to make that appointment. The shareholders do not appoint someone to be chairman over the heads of the other directors. In the case of the BBC, we have an appointed chairman, and that immediately derogates from the authority and responsibility of his colleagues. He becomes thereby, through the exercise of ministerial authority, or whatever it may be, primus inter pares. However, even he is not a permanent appointment in the sense that the chairman of a public limited company is, of course, like the other directors, subject to re-election every so often. Normally the expectation is that he will go on as chairman until he reaches retiring age, whatever the retiring age for the company may be. He then retires and takes his place at the old boys' lunch with the other former directors.
None of that applies to public corporations such as the BBC or other quangos: the chairman is appointed over the heads of his colleagues, and that puts him in an unusual position. We must ask ourselves whether that is really what we want. I go back to the analogy. The directors of a public company appoint the managers. They may recommend one or two of the senior managers to be executive directors as appointed by the shareholders. They too must come up for re-election from time to time, and if they were not re-elected by the shareholders, they would probably lose their jobs as managers.
The directors do not get down to the work of managing themselves. They see that the company has the right managerial structure. When it comes to the relationship between the governors of the BBC and the management board, they appoint the director-general, and they and the director-general may choose certain selected managers to be members of the management board. But of course they do not, and should not, interfere with the day-to-day management. They should do that through the director-general and their executive colleagues. While they cannot inspect the BBC's output on a day-to-day basis or an hour to hour basis, they can monitor it.
I remember a conversation between my father and André Citroen. My father asked him, "To what do you attribute the success of your enterprise?" André Citroen's answer was, "I have a complaints department that reports direct to me. All complaints go ultimately through my hands, after being sieved out for me". It was

877
to that, he said, that he attributed his success. That is what the governors of the BBC should do. They should have a monitoring system for complaints. They should then take the appropriate disciplinary action, after due warning, in respect of people who systematically disobey the rules laid down.
Whether those analogies between a public limited company and the BBC should be followed exactly and precisely, I do not know; but those are the things we should be debating. Parliament must then monitor the monitors, as it were. We are responsible for everything. So I come to the vexed question of the Charter, on the one hand, versus Act of Parliament, on the other; in other words, do the memorandum and articles of association of the BBC come from the Queen in Council, the Queen in Parliament, or from both, or from one of them?
With our usual preference for compromise, the establishment document is issued by the Queen in Council, and the Agreement is subject to approval by the Secretary of State in Parliament—the Queen in Parliament, the final authority. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, I do not know, but with my general distrust of words and draftsmanship and our ability to put what we mean in unambiguous writing, I am in favour of having one document issued from one ministry approved by one Parliament, as opposed to two documents where it is not necessarily obvious that words in one mean the same as words in the other and one can go on playing hide and seek indefinitely with terms of reference.
I suspect strongly that game of hide and seek with the Charter, the Licence and the Agreement is something that went on in my day and that it still goes on. That is why the board of management can do exactly as it pleases, and treat the governors, very politely, as more or less nonentities.
I want to say one thing about the corruption in the world in which we live. I received a document—I expect that the noble Viscount has it—from the National Viewers' and Listeners' Association which contained a potted version of all the pornography and violence that there has been in the broadcast media for the past six months. I was unable to circulate the document because it was embargoed until one minute past midnight this morning. However, I have placed a copy in the Library and it is available for everyone to read.
The document is absolutely shocking. The language is shocking and in that connection I must enter a disclaimer. Bad language is sometimes excused on the ground that for reasons of artistic integrity and so forth corrupt people must use corrupt language. Artistic integrity does not excuse the public display of corrupt documents. However, your Lordships should have no illusions as to where the corruption lies; it lies with us not as Members of Parliament but as human beings. The public are corrupt, we are corrupt and human beings are corrupt. We indulge our corruption at third hand, as it
878
were, by seeing it as entertainment on broadcast media. That is why we have tolerated it so far, but we should tolerate it no further. In that spirit I shall sit down.
6.10 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, it is a daunting task to follow three former governors of the BBC. I well remember an incident some 70 years ago. After fiddling with a cat's whisker, I suddenly heard through the earphones, "This is 2LO. Hello children". Since then, I have had a great admiration for the BBC and therefore I am in support of the White Paper in general—in particular the decision to continue the BBC as public service broadcasting funded by a licence fee.
However, there are present drawbacks which need to be rectified when the new Charter comes into operation. Many of them stem from the lack of clarity about the responsibilities of the governors. As other noble Lords have said, clearly it is not the job of governors to manage the BBC. However, it is their job to agree the policies of the BBC and to monitor the management in carrying them out. At present, those tasks are far too remote from each other. The question is whether the governors accept full and ultimate responsibility for all the activities of the BBC, as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, suggested they should, or whether they see themselves principally as guardians of the public interest, acting as a regulator remote from what management does.
If it is the latter it is too much of a "judge and jury" arrangement for the BBC when criticisms are made. In limited specific cases complaints can be dealt with by the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. Now they are to be merged but apparently will have no more power than they have at present. In my view, the Board of Governors should act in the same way as the board of any plc. However, I entirely accept that the analogy must not be taken too far, as was said by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. The board should have similar obligations to obey the law and it should be answerable to a regulator, in the same way as directors of plcs are responsible to the DTI, the independent television companies to the ITC and the trustees of charities to the Charity Commissioners.
It would be perfectly possible to make a combined BSC and BCC perform the regulatory function of ensuring that governors abide by the Charter and the Agreement. That would be preferable to setting up a second regulatory body. However, in the absence of a regulating authority, the BBC has set up its own internal complaints department. As far as it goes, that is good. It is set up to deal with criticisms not covered by the BCC or BSC but it simply emphasises that the "judge and jury" factor still exists.
I believe that there should be a regulatory body for the BBC similar to that for the ITC. It would deal with all the accusations relating to breach of the Charter and the Agreement. How else can the Agreement and the Charter be enforced, as referred to by my noble friend Lord Astor? As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, there are no problems with the ITC because it has full powers to revoke licences or impose financial

879
penalties. But, clearly, that is not practicable for the BBC because such penalties would simply be passed on to the public.
That is a most difficult problem to solve. Perhaps, as has been suggested, individual producers could be penalised for consistently breaking the rules. It is possible that governors could be held to account and personally penalised, as are directors of plcs for unlawful trading. Some solution to the problem must be found, otherwise we shall continue with the flabby disregard of the present Charter and codes of practice that lead to the kind of broadcasting so forcefully described by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. We must find a solution or we shall have a continuation of the present situation whether on impartiality, violence, sex, crime or children's programmes.
I have one final question. Will my noble friend Lord Astor give a categorical assurance that this House will have the opportunity to debate the Charter and the Agreement in draft form? Time can then be given for amendments to be made before publication of the final Charter and Agreement. Surely, that is the best way of enabling this House, which has so much experience in this field, fully to contribute to the continuing high quality and success of the BBC.
6.17 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, the "ex-governors of the BBC" section has now come to a close. I thought that perhaps I should make that clear. It is right that we should have a debate on this most important, complex and sensitive subject, even though some of the "light blue" noble Lords might have wished for a happier date on which it might be held. I thank the noble Viscount the Minister for his assurances in respect of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Annan.
Just as beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, I am inclined to the view that partiality principally lies in the ear of the hearer. Impartiality is of importance and is greatly to be desired. But control of taste and decency and of the right of people not to have their cherished beliefs mocked or ridiculed, or of ethnic minorities not to be spoken of disparagingly, seem to me to be equally important objectives. We have heard all about impartiality; but those issues must be thought about, too.
The fact is, however, that politicians—and I hope that they will forgive me for saying this—tend to be obsessed with the subject of impartiality. As the distinguished biographer, Philip Ziegler, recently wrote:
"It can be taken for granted that every British politician believes the BBC to be prejudiced … in favour of the other party".
How true, my Lords! I seem to recall a downward twist in the earlier relationship between the government of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, and the BBC—so nothing much changes over the years.
I further believe—and I have no statistical evidence to support the belief—that politicians tend to exaggerate the influence which radio, TV and the press have on the electorate. Incidentally, by doing so, they unconsciously diminish and patronise that very body of the people.
880
Having made that observation, let me say straight away that it is vital to have in place machinery to ensure that the common-sense rules of impartiality are not breached and that standards of taste and decency are not grossly offended.
The Government's statement from another place said:
"Like other broadcasters, it"—
that is, the BBC—
"will continue to have obligations to observe due impartiality on controversial issues and to ensure programmes do not encourage crime or offend against good taste, decency or public feeling".— [Official Report, 6/7/94; col. 1292.]
Well, Amen to that!
The objectives are certainly admirable. But with regard to "like other broadcasters", the whole point surely is that the BBC is not like other broadcasters. It handles its own affairs in isolation from the statutory framework which embraces all other broadcasters. It only has to satisfy its governors who admittedly represent the listeners and viewers but who scarcely mirror the role of non-executive directors, as we have been hearing this afternoon, in terms of a hands-on commitment. Of course, it also metes out its own justice.
Indeed, in the White Paper the Government go further and at paragraph 6.10 they envisage that the governors' main responsibility will be,
"to ensure that the BBC's programmes, services and other activities reflect the needs and interests of the public".
That may be satisfactory to ensure that the BBC does not bury Radio 4 in future or switch all listeners to FM bands; but it does not exactly send out a message to producers who are seeking to try it on that their card is numbered. After all, it is hardly the same ball game for independent broadcasters where, in extreme cases, the licence may even be removed and where financial penalties for infringement of obligations are imposed.
In a service financed by the public purse, such an outcome is clearly not possible. Very well; alternatives should be considered, and it really is important that we should not just tiptoe round this issue. We really must get down to start thinking about it properly.
Although I am doubtful whether the suggestion about the football referee's yellow and red cards or indeed a points system not unlike that in use for motoring offences, where you gradually come up until you become a "totter", would necessarily work in respect of erring directors and producers. They might be adaptable or they might not. But if they are not, then let other ways be found for I cannot seriously believe that human ingenuity cannot devise a procedure acceptable to most people which protects the freedom of artistic endeavour but which punishes those who usually abuse it—and I have to say this—for sensational or commercial reasons. That is why they do it.
I do not wish to appear unhelpful. No one could be more relieved than I at the Government's acknowledgement of and commitment to the concept of excellent public service broadcasting as exemplified by the BBC. Gone (one would hope for ever) are the flushes and fancies of the 1980s with regard to ideas such as the BBC paying for itself through advertising or appealing to the lowest common denominator in

881
programming to achieve success in the ratings war. Conversion is always to be welcomed, and I harbour a sneaking hope that like all converts, this Government, should they be in a position to be so, will in future become a stronger advocate of the merits of public service broadcasting than even the most vociferous disciple of the late Lord Reith.
As I have said, I do not wish to appear unhelpful; but I cannot for the life of me understand this preoccupation with Royal Charters. Perhaps it was a good wheeze in 1926 because it enshrined the new corporation's freedom from political control. I can understand that. But that was nearly 70 years ago and if the penny has not dropped by now that the BBC is an independent body, it never will. Why cannot the BBC be established by statute, just like all other forms of broadcasting in this country, and be not controlled by Parliament but directly answerable to it? I have the distinct feeling that that preference for Royal Charters, which, as we have heard, inevitably obscures the direct lines of responsibility, is a more cosy arrangement for the principle players involved. I believe that it serves only to obfuscate the chain of command, thereby making largely unenforceable control of the corporation's obligations.
I conclude by welcoming two proposals arising from the White Paper; first, the development of the BBC's commercial expertise in partnership with other organisations, which must be widely welcomed as must secondly be the proposed merger of the BCC and the BSC, about which we have heard so much about today. That will undoubtedly result in less confusion which arises inevitably when there is a multiplicity of bodies with disturbingly similar names and whose very existence may perversely have had the effect of deterring potential complainants who, when it came to the crunch, could not be bothered to find out which body did what.
The trouble with a debate like this is that one agrees a little bit with nearly everybody so I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not refer to them by name; but I also agree with the idea of a single body in future. I would hope that the Government will look again at that.
It is right that these matters should be fully debated in this House, for what we have here are a number of noble Lords with unparalleled experience and knowledge of these matters—former governors of the BBC; chairmen of broadcasting authorities; directors of radio and TV companies; broadcasters themselves; and even the principal player in an important and admired report on the future of broadcasting. Accordingly, I would ask the Minister to ensure, via his right honourable friend in another place, that the voice of this House is heard loud and clear as the moves unfold and not—as was the case in the composition of the Select Committee, I have to say—shamefully ignored.
882
Put quite simply, those matters and their implications are too important to become flawed by prejudice, ignorance or hearsay.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the Minister should feel very happy about this debate. He has been given a clean bill of health as regards the White Paper and he can report back that there is almost unanimous approval of the general message which comes from the White Paper. The only exception to that for a fleeting moment, was from the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow. He gave very wise advice with regard to future technical developments. He advised us not to take things for granted because matters which we now accept as being almost certain may proceed rather differently when these issues come to fruition.
At one stage at the very beginning of the debate I thought that we were not to have a debate at all. If one remembers the opening words of the Minister's speech, he used almost the identical words of the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Annan. Since the agreement was so complete, I thought that he was going to say, "We accept the amendment and therefore there is no need to proceed further". That was not quite what happened but it was reasonably near to it. Therefore, I believe that my noble friend should feel satisfied because what he has commended today to the House has received almost unanimous approval.
At this stage, I do not believe that we want any more inside knowledge about the BBC, the governors, the deputy chairmen and those who have been part of the actual machine itself. They have played their part and their evidence is most valuable. Of course, it ought to be taken into account, as I have no doubt it will be. I am concerned that we, as part of Parliament, should examine the effect that the BBC, under the machinery as it is set up, is likely to have on the nation. We should be the watchdogs in that respect.
I have much admiration for the right reverend Prelate. He made no bones about it. He said that, whatever minutes he had in this debate, he would use them to sell his Church. He said that he would make clear the rights that his Church has to have its beliefs and its teachings focused properly through that important media; and he did so. In my small contribution, I should like to do the same. However, I should like to do so on the basis of a parliamentary party politician.
I believe that we ought to look at what happened pre-war as compared with post-war. It really has been quite tremendous in terms of its impact on the country. Many of us were parliamentary candidates before the war and operated as such because Parliament is a parliamentary democracy based upon the party system. That is what it is and that is what it is our duty to try to operate. Before the war, Members of Parliament were the real source of influence in arriving at what was a national view on things. They were the ones who, by and large, gave the lead and that was generally accepted. However, that is not accepted today. The power of influencing thought, especially in the world of politics, no longer lies with Members of Parliament; it now lies

883
with the BBC announcers, the people in the media and the columnists in the newspapers. They are the opinion-formers today.
Many of us were fascinated by party politics and government generally when we were very young. I recall the time when my noble friend was Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons. I remember him as a colleague back in 1932 when we were organising political schools, and so on. When I think back to those days and compare where the power and influence have moved to, it seems to me to be quite tremendous. I do not believe that it is to the good; indeed, I believe that it is very much to the bad that the influence for creating public opinion should have moved to the areas that have it today. There is nothing we can do about it. It will not go back. It is a matter of harnessing it in a way where, if it is wrong—and I believe it is in terms of the trend—it will be less wrong than it might be if we did nothing about it.
One example I can give of the contrast is that before the war I was the candidate for Nelson and Colne—little Moscow they called it—against little Sydney Silverman, who was a most adept politician. I was a parliamentary candidate at that time, not a Member of Parliament. However, people turned up when one had a meeting. Indeed, 100, 200 and sometimes thousands on the odd occasions. One was able to use one's influence as a candidate and appeal directly to the people. The influence that one had at times was not that much; but at any rate the direct contact was there. Moreover, when one made a speech it was reported by the newspapers. They did not just pick out one or two words which happened to fit in with the message that they were going to put in their editorial column that day. That applied with the local press in particular, and often with the national press.
It is not good if what I am saying is true; but I believe it to be true. In terms of standing in society, especially in the area where one is operating, my status as a parliamentary candidate then was 10-times higher than that of a Member of Parliament today in terms of public esteem. MPs have been downgraded in a way which is very dangerous indeed. At the end of the day, they are the ones who have to prepare the statutes which eventually become the law of our country. That is what happened then. Now, all the influence is exercised by the columnists and the television announcers. If one wants to influence society, one should not think in terms of becoming Prime Minister or a Member of Parliament; one should think in terms of becoming a BBC or an ITV commentator.
What can we do about the situation, if anything? I believe that the most we can hope to do is to ensure that the new communicators—the ones who in this modern age are in the position to influence public opinion, which results in the sort of government that we have—are treated in the same way. I am not arguing only from the Conservative point of view, which happens to be my belief: the same problem applies to all sides. They are as insignificant as we are in terms of exercising that great influence. But what can we do about it? The most that we can do is to try to get the new communicators—the broadcasters and the columnists —on the same level
884
as the politicians who had this influence in the old days. Of course, our standing ought to be better; if we got theirs to the same level that would be a move somewhere.
When I first came into Parliament—and I have colleagues from those days here in the Chamber—we had no register of interests. We called each other the "honourable Member" on the basis that we were satisfied that we were honourable people. If people declared their interests before they made their speech or before they voted, which is quite correct, that was sufficient. However, that is not now the case. We have to have a register of declared interests, right down to the most minute detail. Then the new communicators pick a little bit out of that declaration, distort it and twist it in a way which makes the honourable Member concerned look as though he is a member of the corrupt brigade. That is how it works now.
I believe that that trend has had the effect of making people who make their contributions as Members of Parliament that much more careful to ensure that they do not allow their personal greed or their personal preferences to take over. Therefore, to that extent it has had a function. However, I should like to put a thought in someone's mind. It could be the mind of the BBC's complaints authority. In order to keep on the rails, why can we not have a register of interests for the new communicators, many of whom slip in as an aside some of the comments which cause the most danger? Why can we not know what is their true background? If those communicators have such power—and, make no bones about it, they have—which I argue they have taken from Members of Parliament, why can we not have something equivalent to, if not the same as, the register of declared interests for them?
It is the little aside which does most damage. "Any Questions" is one of our most prestigious programmes and some of our most estimable people act as the chairman. Great trouble is taken to ensure that the forum is properly balanced, with Government supporters, Opposition supporters, middle of the road supporters and people from industry. The chairman is supposed to be impartial and an outstanding character who can be trusted against all sorts of odds. If one or other of the people appearing on the programme seems to be making a good point which is swaying the programme, the chairman will pop in and make a few remarks as though he is one of the protagonists, but because of his position his remarks carry 10 times more weight than those of the person who made the first point.
I congratulate my noble friend on being able, after this debate, to take back to his department such unanimous approval. However, I hope he will not leave the matter there and that he will find some way of being able to control to some extent this new group of people I have mentioned who are, for the most part, represented by those who operate in the BBC. I am not talking about the governors, the deputy chairmen or the people who operate the machinery, but the people they employ, who appear on programmes and make their points from the powerful positions they hold which the BBC has given them. I support those who have suggested that there should be some way of dealing with people who find a

885
way through the impartiality fence. Why not show them the yellow card and deny them the right to make future appearances on this prestigious, valuable platform? We need to find some way of controlling the people who have taken over the authority which once belonged to Members of Parliament in informing public opinion on political matters. I am not talking about other matters.
It is right that one should speak from one's own experience. I remember vividly that I fought a by-election in Nelson and Colne. It was impossible for a Tory to win that by-election. Six months later I was brought out of the Army again to fight a by-election in Preston against Lord Shackleton, who was the most delightful opponent to have to deal with. When it was announced that I was to be the candidate, Lord Beaverbrook, who was then the great power in the land, rang me up. He asked me whether I would fight the election, with his backing, on the basis of being the anti-American loan candidate. I had to say no. I said that I did not think I could do that because I felt that, after the cost of the war and all that that meant, the loan to prime the pump such as was envisaged in the American offer was not only desirable but vital. Lord Beaverbrook was not very pleased about that. He sent a secretary to my first public meeting to say in public what he had said in private about the desirability of my being the anti-American loan candidate. I gave the same answer in public as I had given Lord Beaverbrook over the telephone. I was an insignificant candidate who did not have a wax cat in hell's chance of winning the by-election. The majority against me in those days was 15,000 or 16,000. However, when I gave a similar answer in public to the one I had given Lord Beaverbrook in private, the whole of the opinion column in his paper said that I was a weak-kneed, vacillating Tory candidate who lacked guts.
The next day Sir Anthony Eden was due to speak for me. He said to me, "Well, your view is ours". He made a speech which more or less supported what had been done and the column in the newspaper stated, "The master is as bad as the pupil". But the column space devoted to Sir Anthony was only half that devoted to me.
I make that point to show the influence that people have who are in control of these organs—in the case I referred to, it was a leading newspaper—such as the BBC and the television companies. If we do nothing about the influence these people have and the way in which they use it, where they allow their bias and their personal views to interfere with what should be impartial leadership, we shall be in trouble.
I wish my noble friend the best of luck. He has had a good evening and he has the debate as he would like it. I think it is right that that should be the case, but I would ask him, please, to make certain that his department and, as far as he can, any who follow him are aware of the fact that everything is not rosy, easy and quite as wonderful as some people would suggest it is.
6.46 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I welcome this debate and like most previous speakers I thank the noble
886
Viscount for making it possible because it gives us an opportunity not only to pay tribute to the BBC but also to air some concerns and, indeed, to make some suggestions.
The BBC is one of the few categories in which the United Kingdom is a world leader. It is a world leader in broadcasting and, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said, the BBC World Service on radio and TV is indeed excellent. One only has to travel to experience that. The worldwide competition for the BBC tends to be banal at best and tasteless at its worst, and we really should take pride in the BBC and not knock it. I mentioned the word competition. The BBC competes both nationally and internationally for audiences and export sales, and indeed nationally for scarce financial resources.
As a country we have not yet accepted that there has to be greater public accountability in every case where public funding features. The creativity of the BBC is not an excuse for lax accountability. I hasten to say that I am not accusing the BBC of lax accountability but there is a perception, a suspicion abroad, based on evidence of, for example, TV crews "hunting in packs", that overmanning still persists. The new regime at the BBC under John Birt is to be congratulated in achieving greater management standards —producer choice being just one manifestation of this. There appear to have been strides made in achieving greater efficiency. We must be patient in demanding even more strides in these directions. Speaking from somewhat bitter experience I know that to achieve change in a creative environment is exceedingly slow.
Impartiality has featured very much tonight. I have nothing to add to that, but there are other concerns, two of which are of personal concern to me but I believe they are fairly widespread concerns and both can be tenuously linked. I refer to what I call the lowest common denominator factor and the subject of religious broadcasting.
In preparation for this debate I managed to obtain and read a copy of Producers' Guidelines, which refers to the objective of enabling,
"programme makers and the public alike to see the editorial and ethical principles that drive the BBC".
It is an excellent publication. It is a document of great clarity and it is easy to read.
The BBC has all sorts of responsibilities thrust upon it, some arduous and others that are almost impossible to achieve. But I believe that as a public service broadcasting organisation it has the responsibility to,
"do nothing to undermine standards of behaviour"
or, as the annex to the licence states, not to,
"offend against good taste or decency".
Both of those statements are couched in negative terms. I would prefer to be positive, and I personally should like to go further and state that the BBC should ensure that standards of behaviour are maintained or, better still, improved.
Of course I realise that I have now ventured into the quicksand of definitions of taste and decency, and that is a pretty hopeless situation. I shall try to explain my reasons by anecdote—a factual description of what occurred last Sunday evening.

887
Four people were in my sitting room at home. Three were watching television. The fourth, me, was struggling under a mountain of Christmas cards. I positioned myself at the far end of the room. I had no view of the television screen; there was a cabinet in front of me. However, I could hear the television. That point is relevant. The programme on the television was "Seaforth". Shortly into the programme one word appeared to be used frequently. That word was "bloody". It is a swear word. Having counted about 15 repetitions of that word I spoke to the viewers at the far end of the room. I said, "That's a bit much, isn't it?". "What is a bit much?" they replied. "The constant use of that word". They had not noticed. I was flabbergasted. I realised that while watching television one can downgrade one's attention on the words and concentrate on the visual action. It is subliminal, I fear.
If the words spoken—the dialogue—had featured, say, on Radio 4, there would have been an outcry. We are subjected to lower standards on TV than on radio. Why? And why was that word so essential to the plot that it had to be repeated ad nauseam? I asked the viewers in my sitting room if it would have detracted from the story if the word had not been used. The answer was no.
I know the counter-argument: it is real life. It is said that people speak like that. Sadly, that may be true to a large extent. However, it is not real life. This is real life here in Parliament, and we do not use that word. It is not true of the boardrooms of our commercial companies. It is not true of the Church. It is not true of the professions—the law and medicine (at least, not universally true). Therefore, why stoop to the lowest common denominator? Speech programmes on BBC Radio 3 and 4 maintain standards and set standards in terms of little use of swear words. Why is that not true of TV?
As part of its role of public service broadcasting I suggest that the BBC should have the responsibility to try to encourage the population to desist from using swear words. Swear words cause distress and show a complete lack of respect for fellow human beings.
It is universally acknowledged that there has been a relentless and insidious deterioration in standards of behaviour and respect for others. That downward slide has led, I believe, to an unhappy and even degrading sense of malaise in so many walks of life. It is seen to be smart, chic and radical to push constantly at the existing bounds of decency. Surely the BBC can help to stop that rot rather than encourage it.
I am not so sure that programmes which offend are particularly popular. This week I have heard nobody talk about "Seaforth" but I have heard many people talk about "Martin Chuzzlewit".
My concern about the issue of the lowest common denominator and how it could be tackled is linked with my second concern —religious broadcasting. That subject was ably addressed by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Southwark. Again, I know that I am on dangerous ground and will be told that we are a secular society, and so what if you have to switch on the radio at 6.25 a.m. for "Prayer for the Day", and so what if, because you have been indoctrinated by the BBC to rely
888
on FM you are unable to find the "Daily Service" on medium wave. I know that "Songs of Praise" is popular, as we have been told. An audience of 7 million viewers is terrific. But it is difficult to find religious broadcasts on radio. In this decade of evangelism, subscribed to by all Christian Churches, very little encouragement is given by the BBC to those who wish to learn, to be informed and to draw strength from The Bible.
The timing of religious programmes—or is it a fact that they do not seem to be "trailed" as much as other programmes?—leads me to feel that they are accorded very low priority. Better advertised and better timed religious programmes, plus special programmes to take account of the decade of evangelism, could help to restore standards of behaviour and respect. Coupled with a reduction in bad language, that could make a big difference and enhance the public service broadcasting responsibility of the BBC.
I ask, is that Utopia? Is it achievable? Who would be responsible for effecting this? Would it be the board of governors? From what we have heard on this aspect today, I fear not.
I said at the outset that I would make some suggestions about how the BBC could be improved. I have dealt with my concerns and have given suggestions. I should like to endorse the suggestion that the organisation of the top echelons of the BBC should ensure that there is true responsibility for the product of the BBC at the highest level, as there is for any product from any commercial organisation at board level. If that is not possible at board level, I subscribe totally to the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Annan, that the board of management at the BBC be strengthened by non-executive directors. Until then, I fear that there will always be a charge of "all power and no responsibility", or, as per my noble friend Lord Annan, not enough people who drop clangers carry the can.
6.55 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to debate the White Paper. Indeed, I welcome the White Paper itself. I hope that the BBC will continue to be our major public service broadcaster, despite all the new technologies, for at least another 10 years. That is an important responsibility.
Several knowledgeable comments have been made by experienced Peers. I agree with many, especially the point concerning the role of the BBC in relation to education and the arts mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. I should like to make just one point.
The BBC has great influence in Britain. It has even greater influence worldwide, due entirely to the high respect in which it is held. The World Service has a worldwide audience of 130 million people a week, not only for its wireless broadcasts, but now also its highly successful television broadcasts. I wonder how many people in Britain listen regularly to foreign radio or television stations. Perhaps they do, as we did as children to "Top 20" on Radio Luxembourg.
When I visited Bulgaria at the time of its first free election after the fall of Mr. Zhivkov, so many people came to thank me—not, I hasten to add because it was me, but because I was British. Their main ray of hope

889
for years was the possibility, often illegally, of listening to our BBC World Service. It played a vital role in their lives.
Yet back here the television that speaks to us in our own homes has an unrecognised, even disproportionate, influence on our lives and on the way we form our ideas and arguments. As my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls stated so clearly—and I repeat the point because it is so important—during any national election campaign in this country today any large political meeting can no longer compete with the television screen. The BBC accordingly has an enormous responsibility.
Edmund Burke referred to the fourth estate as:
"more important than them all".
As the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, explained recently, he meant that through what the media wrote and said they had more influence on people's thinking than the other three estates—the Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal and the Commons.
A natural tension always exists between journalists working in a free and open society and the government of the nation in which they operate. It was said recently by a foreign journalist that,
"governments have the natural tendency not to reveal all the facts about their departments and operations. That tendency often clashes with the duty of the free press; to uncover and tell the people what they need to know about their government's operations".
He went on to say that,
"there should be no restrictions placed on the press when it investigates government, acting in its role as 'watchdog' or guardian of the public good".
However, investigative journalists—whether they be from the television, wireless or the written press—should always conduct themselves in accordance with professional journalistic standards when pursuing their investigations. Even in a country like Britain which is very open, where we have a great tradition of free press and free expression, any government nevertheless wants to protect itself. Our free written press and the audio visual media are vital elements in the reporting of everyday life, of the good things in our society as well as the exposure of corruption and wrongdoing.
But, in turn, my point today is that they have a duty to report responsibly and fairly. I want to thank the Minister for introducing the debate today. I welcome the Government having produced the White Paper setting out a blueprint to carry the BBC into the 21st century. I hope that they will continue the exciting new steps they have taken recently in forming a global strategic alliance with Pearson Plc. That will keep the BBC—as is the aim of the White Paper—serving the nation and competing worldwide.
7.1 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, like many other speakers, I also welcome the White Paper on the future of the BBC. As a corporation, the BBC has played a major part in our lives. The licence fee ensures that it remains publicly funded with a firm commitment to public service broadcasting. However, the commercial advantages offered by opportunities opening up in the
890
media market should still remain secondary to the corporation's fair and balanced public service broadcasting commitments. I sometimes wonder, I must admit, whether those principles have gone a little astray. At this point I should like to thank the Minister for his clear assurances on the matter.
I accept that there is a long-established rule of impartiality now incorporated into the BBC Licence. This should mean freedom not only from government but commercial influence. It is very important to the corporation's national and international standing.
The Broadcasting Complaints Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council are to be merged. I hope that a stronger body will emerge from this union. Am I right in thinking that it will not have any statutory powers? By comparison, the ITC does have statutory powers. Its code on impartiality is clearly drawn up with no room for misunderstanding. The code applies to all licensees and compliance is a condition of the Licence. It is the responsibility of licensees to ensure that employees and programme makers—independent or on the staff—observe the provisions of the code. A section under the heading "Objectives" states:
"Impartiality does not mean that broadcasters have to be absolutely neutral on every controversial issue, but it should lead them to deal even-handedly with opposing points of view in the area of democratic debate. Opinion should be clearly distinguished from fact".
The BBC has undergone a substantial change to its structure in recent years and some of that change relates to training schemes. For instance, the reporter training scheme appears to have been abandoned, as have apprenticeships in engineering and technical operations. Sadly, the closure of the BBC radio and script units may mean that guidance which used to be offered to young writers has been reduced, though I now understand that a team might be transferred to the drama department.
Traditionally, the BBC has provided the seed corn for most of the entertainment industry. Practically every media person I know has either been trained by or worked at the BBC. Because of its role as a leader in industry training, it is worrying to see the BBC contracting in this department.
I am afraid I am going to take a slightly different view. I believe that the introduction of producers' choice has gone some way to undermining the stability and continuity of employment at the BBC. I gather that the input from independents has risen as high as 46 per cent. for drama and light entertainment. Just how the percentage is split between those two groups I do not know. It must be that, on average, independents could usually underbid the BBC because of differing base costs. John Birt himself has said that the BBC needs to ensure that its in-house departments are good enough to win orders but that could only come about if there was a level playing field between the two sectors.
At an all-party media group meeting, John Birt accepted that morale was at a low ebb, and that in the short term it was probably not likely to improve. However, he stressed that once the restructuring of the corporation was completed, morale would improve. He himself has also said that there are powerful arguments for the BBC to maintain its strong production base.

891
However, could it be that the structure of employment contracts, with their potential lack of continuity, need to be reviewed in order to preserve the BBC's greatest asset—namely, a committed, qualified and experienced workforce? Within the current climate, surely it must be difficult to retain and motivate individuals of the calibre which in the past enabled it to establish an unassailable international reputation for diversity and for excellence.
We need to make sure that the BBC, with its enduring service to public sector broadcasting, continues to prosper and build on its already considerable achievements well into the next century. I do not want to see any part of this large corporation sold off to the private sector. Once it becomes fragmented, it will gradually cease to be great.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I wish to address two issues in my brief contribution this evening: the importance of maintaining standards of taste and decency within the BBC and the particular challenges arising from increased satellite broadcasting from abroad.
I have told the House before how I believe that there is no better guide for standards in broadcasting than the inscription which appears in the foyer of Broadcasting House in Portland Square. It bears repeating:
"To Almighty God, this shrine of the arts, music and literature is dedicated by the first Governors in the year of our Lord 1931, John Reith being Director General. It is their prayer that good seed sown will produce a good harvest, that everything offensive to decency and hostile to peace will be expelled, and that the nation will incline its ear to those things which are lovely pure and of good report and thus pursue the path of wisdom and virtue".
We have sadly often had cause to feel that the BBC has departed from that path in recent years. I am glad, therefore, that this White Paper does stress in paragraph 3.13 that the BBC should pay more attention to audience concern about violence, sex and bad language.
The BBC should, for example, study seriously the latest report from the National Viewers' and Listeners' Association, showing that in 20 films screened on BBC 1 and BBC 2 between January and June this year there were 67 violent assaults. Such violence makes a profound impression on young people and surely must be one contributing factor to some of the horrific violent incidents we have seen involving young people in recent years. I should say, of course, that there was violence on other channels mentioned in the report, but this debate is mainly on the BBC.
I would favour that the proposed agreement between the Secretary of State for National Heritage and the BBC board of governors, mentioned in paragraph 6.3 of the White Paper, should spell out in simple terms what is meant by standards of "good taste and decency". Then no one would be in any doubt about what to expect from programmes.
Of course, the BBC does not operate in isolation from other broadcasters either in this country or abroad. I am not suggesting one set of rules for the BBC and one for other broadcasters. They should all operate to the same high standards on issues of taste and decency.
892
We caught a glimpse of what the future might hold with the broadcasting of Red Hot Dutch earlier this year, first from Holland and then from Denmark, which, thankfully, the Government stepped in to ban. I understand that the European Commission will shortly announce its proposals for a new trans-frontier broadcasting directive controlling broadcasting in Europe. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will fight hard to protect standards to avoid a repeat of the Red Hot Dutch débâcle.
In closing, I make one suggestion to the Minister. If a satellite broadcaster wishes to broadcast into a country it should have a licence in the receiving country and not just in the country from which the broadcast is made. If the new directive included such a provision, the UK could maintain standards and protect the BBC by preventing anyone from broadcasting unacceptable material into the UK. That was, of course, the point made by my noble friend Lord On-Ewing in his balanced and authoritative speech earlier in the debate. Is that not something which, surely, we would all support?
7.10 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Viscount for enabling us to have this debate. I also welcome him back to DNH, with its major broadcasting responsibilities not only for the BBC but also for the Welsh fourth channel. I declare an interest as chair of Screen Wales, which is a media partnership agency involving BBC Wales as one of the senior partners; and also my membership of the general advisory council, which makes me responsible, among other things, for the selection process for membership of the Broadcasting Council for Wales.
I shall not, however, talk about the specifics of the structure of the BBC this evening. I want to take as my text paragraph 1.7 of the White Paper and to welcome the statement there that:
"The BBC's programmes should reflect the interests and cultural traditions of the United Kingdom as a whole. Programme-makers, presenters and performers in all parts of the United Kingdom should contribute fully to the BBC's national output, as well as to its regional and local services".
Having read my text, I want to congratulate the Government, and indeed the BBC governors and board of management, on taking the debate on broadcasting in the United Kingdom a little further than we took it in our debates in another place on previous broadcasting legislation. As a number of noble Lords emphasised, we are in the world of multi-media global culture. I make no apology for using those words. They are used generally within the industry and within culture. They present a challenge to traditional terrestrial broadcasters. They also present a challenge to traditional nation state regulators. This is where the Government are catching up with the real world. They are understanding that it is only as a public service broadcaster which is also an international media player that the BBC can survive and contribute not only to the internal cultural diversity of the UK but to broadcasting systems worldwide.

893
In relation to that, I would emphasise that competition in the multi-media global scene does not just emerge from the BBC centrally. It is not just BBC Enterprises or the BBC's board of management in Broadcasting House and White City which is a multi-media player. The national regions—as the BBC has always fondly called them—are also players in their own right. It is important therefore that there should be opportunities for them to play their role, not just within the network structure but also on the broader basis of the multi-media scene.
It is for those reasons that I welcome the commitment in the White Paper to the role of the BBC in the multi-media market and to looking at the BBC as an engine of economic development in the cultural field. That is just as important as the contribution that it makes to reflecting the life of the United Kingdom internally. In that sense, I do not share the concern that was expressed by some noble Lords about the role of the Department of Trade and Industry in the promotion of broadcasting (or of broadcast product) or indeed the role of the Welsh Office in the context of Wales in the development of multi-media. I warmly welcome the speech that was made on this very issue this week at a conference in Cardiff by the Secretary of State for Wales. We have an opportunity now to develop our cultural product in all parts of the UK in a way that will benefit us economically and will also benefit our cultural image. I believe that there are people world-wide who look to us to do that.
I do not share the pessimism which, again, was expressed by some noble Lords about the difficulty of programme sales in other markets. The demand for content now in our multi-media industry is so enormous that we shall be at pains to fulfil it. Therefore, there is clearly a role for the quality product of the BBC and other broadcasters in the UK in that market.
I turn now to some of the issues that arise in the way in which the White Paper is to be implemented. I share the view that was expressed by a number of noble Lords that perhaps the time has come for us to have conventional broadcasting legislation for the BBC rather than the arrangement of Charter and Agreement. I say that because, as someone who debated previous broadcasting legislation involving both the ITC (as it now is) and S4C, there seems to me to be no inherent difficulty about legislating in the normal way for broadcasting structures. I appreciate that, historically, at the time that the BBC was created there was a different relationship between the state and broadcasting. Now we are in a world of greater diversity in terms of numbers of broadcasters. It might have made more sense to go down the road of regulating for all public service broadcasting in the United Kingdom in one piece of legislation. I agree with the noble Lord on that matter. After all, it is not just the BBC that is a public service broadcaster. All our broadcasting is either publicly funded or publicly regulated in some form or other. Therefore there is a case for an organising principle in legislation which bears all those matters in common.
894
That is where some of the difficulties that we have arise in relation to some of the specific matters that will be in the agreement.
I turn back now to the commitments set out in the White Paper on regional product and regional programming. I refer in particular to paragraph 3.24, which reads almost as well as if it had been written by Screen Wales itself in that it talks about the importance of the variety of programme production; it says that there should be significant programme bases in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and in the major English regional centres; and of course in that way incorporates part of the recommendations of the Select Committee, which emphasised that the possibility of a commitment to network production outside London might be included in the Charter.
I understand that the Minister's view is that such a statement might be included in the Agreement. I shall be very interested to have his response on that point at some later stage in our debates. I do not share the view that was expressed by some of our Scottish colleagues, and by some independent producer representatives, that there should be a quota for programme production. I believe that we are capable in the national regions of competing on a level playing field with the rest of the BBC or indeed with other independent production centres. However, we need to make sure that the playing field is level, in the sense that the resources are there and also in terms of staffing, and in financial terms to enable our media centres to develop a competitive base. For those reasons, I hope that there will be clear reference, if not in the Charter then certainly in the Agreement, to the whole question of programme bases outside regions. I understand that that may well be the Minister's view, and I look forward to hearing his response.
A related issue is the structure of the broadcasting councils, the role of governors and the role of the national councils. I welcome the statement in the White Paper about the specific role of the governors in relation to the board of management of the BBC centrally. I also welcome the fact that a similar role—to use the word in the White Paper—is envisaged for the broadcasting councils. This is significantly more than their present role. It means that they now have a role in the management, or at least in the accountability, of the BBC's operation in the national region. Controllers, will have a greater independence in relation to their budgets. (This is stated in paragraph 6.22 and in the whole range of surrounding paragraphs from paragraph 6.16 on, which I shall not quote in detail so as not to lengthen my speech inordinately). Paragraph 6.22 gives controllers a budget for programmes produced specifically for audiences in each country. We have therefore a clear devolution of the internal structure of the BBC.
My questions are: how much of this will appear in the Charter; how much will appear in the Agreement; and how is it to be policed, as it were? I appreciate that the BBC itself has taken some major steps in transferring its programming out of the metropolitan centre to other metropolitan centres or to regional centres. I appreciate also the fact that the BBC now has an English regional structure. I always believed that it

895
was important for the English regions to be treated at least on some basis of equality with the national regions of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. On all those counts therefore I welcome the level of debate which is now seen in the White Paper.
But as I said, there are a number of concerns. To what extent are we to have a clear programming policy incorporated into the objectives of BBC management? How are resources to be allocated equitably between national regions and other regions? How will we ensure that there is a sufficient level of capital investment in talent and production skills throughout the UK? How are we to ensure that the responsibility towards a regional policy is clearly stated? Is it to be in the Charter or only the Agreement? How are we to ensure that the structure for appointing the various governors and councils makes them as democratically accountable as possible? With all due respect, I do not believe that the present structure of parallel selection and nomination amounts to democratic accountability.
Having asked those questions, I end by welcoming the White Paper and the fact that there is a clear statement of the way in which public service broadcasting can be revived and made multinational in the true sense of that word, in the context of our multi-media global village and its mass culture. I believe that it is important that the whole of the UK in its cultures, regions and nations participate in that process.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I view my position in the list of speakers as that of a long-stop and I shall not ask your Lordships to stop long, having regard to my contribution. I propose to confine my observations to the question of impartiality.
My first point is that the BBC accept, and so inform their producers in their written guidance, that,
"the notion of impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. No area of programming is exempt from it".
It has been said that an Irishman—maybe an Irish BBC official—when asked how he managed to be fair and just, said that he always tried very hard to be halfway between partial and impartial.
In the annex to the Licence and Agreement, which prescribes the terms and conditions of the corporation's operations, the BBC accepts as a duty,
"to ensure that programmes maintain a high general standard in all respects (and in particular in respect of content and quality), and to provide a properly balanced service which displays a wide range of subject matter [and] to treat controversial subjects with due impartiality … both in the Corporation's news services and in the more general field of programmes dealing with matters of public policy".
That vitally important aspect of the BBC's constitutional position is clearly far too important to be confined to an annex. I am delighted to learn that that is also the view of the Government.
I should like to attempt to make a positive suggestion. I believe that the obligation to act with due impartiality needs to be spelt out, particularly having regard to the absence of any effective sanction when impartiality is not exhibited.
896
Noble Lords' viewing and listening habits no doubt vary considerably, but I imagine that none of your Lordships will have any difficulty in producing some clear examples of the media's failure to act fairly and justly. Let me take a recent example known to all noble Lords: the programme on your Lordships' House. It was a mocking, insulting programme, designed to ridicule and to parody the activities of the House and its important contribution to the legislative function of Parliament. Some may say that such trivia has no impact and that its lack of quality and content ensures its own almost immediate destruction. But does it? Last Friday, at a dinner in Cambridge, I met a German professor who told me that the film had been shown on Bavarian television because Bavaria has an upper House in some respects comparable with ours. He was astonished at the way in which our House had clearly been caricatured.
What is involved in the obligation to act with impartiality? I suggest that there are five features at least. First, the programmes must be properly balanced. If the programme itself does not contain its own internal balance, then, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, the balancing views must be produced within a reasonable time in order that all views should be reflected in due proportion.
Secondly, a complete and detailed picture should be presented, thus avoiding any suppression or censoring of valid points on one side or another. Thirdly, questions should not be hostile, hectoring, aggressive or rude. Interruptions in the middle of a sentence should be avoided. Fourthly, the approach to contentious issues should be dispassionate. For example, the easy ride should not be allowed to one side when the other side is examined vigorously. Fifthly, the personal views of the presenters and reporters should not feature in the programme. An interview is not an occasion for the interviewer to put across his opinions and views. Its purpose is to obtain the views and opinions of the interviewee, developed and tested by questioning.
There is not the slightest novelty in any of the observations I have just made. I culled them from the guidelines produced by the BBC for its producers. I add a further proposition of my own; namely, that there should not be put in the mouth of interviewees answers which they have not given but which the interviewer hoped they would give and put into their mouths as a preamble to a long question. The experienced person will say, "One moment, I didn't say that" and then go on to deal with the question. The inexperienced person, anxious to answer the question, will overlook the fact that there has been attributed to him something that he or she did not say at all. I submit that it is essential that the elements of due impartiality are adequately recorded either in the Agreement or in some suitable exchange of letters between the Government and the BBC.
The noble Viscount observed that the obligation of due impartiality should be stated clearly. How else can it be stated? Secondly, he said that the binding legal contract is the instrument of control and added that the obligation of due impartiality should be there stated to

897
make it effective and enforceable. However, the obligation must be adequately particularised if it is to be taken seriously. That is the purpose of my suggestions.
7.29 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we have had a particularly interesting and wide-ranging debate in relation to the Government's proposals for the future of the BBC. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, said that he agreed a bit with everybody. So do I. I wish on that note I could sit down, but I should perhaps attempt to respond to some of the individual points raised by your Lordships, even though I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, when he said that Ministers are not often able to see much TV. Indeed, I shall not make my remarks too long so that I can go home this evening to watch some television.
We had wide agreement in your Lordships' House on the importance of the role of the BBC as a public service broadcaster. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, was particularly concerned with what happens if the BBC disobeys the terms of its Agreement. The Agreement is a contract between the BBC and the Secretary of State. If it contravenes the terms of the Agreement, a number of important sanctions are open to the Government. Under the Charter the Secretary of State can take steps to revoke the Charter if the terms of the Agreement are broken. I am sure the BBC would be loath to put itself in a position in which the Charter was placed in jeopardy.
The noble Lord suggested that if contraventions occurred, heads should roll. Members of the BBC staff who do not abide by the rules which stem from the Charter and the Agreement are subject to the normal disciplines of the organisation. If the governors were responsible for such contraventions, they could be removed.
It is always difficult to achieve a balance and impartiality between programmes. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, is right in saying that it is not sufficient for the BBC to say that a balance can be achieved by broadcasting an unconnected programme some months later. That does not achieve the obligation of "due impartiality over time". The BBC's Producers' Guidelines say,
"It is not sufficient to claim that other unconnected programmes or media will ensure that balancing views will be heard".
Those are its own guidelines in Section 3.5 to which the noble Lord referred.
The noble Lord also put forward the suggestion that the BBC's board of management should invite members of the commercial sector to act as non-executive directors. The Government have said that we will ensure that appointments are made to the board of governors to ensure that there is the necessary commercial expertise on the board. The BBC appointed senior management staff with considerable private sector experience to direct its new commercial activities. In addition, by participating in joint ventures with the private sector, the BBC will also have the benefit of the expertise of its private sector partners. However, if it wishes to appoint non-executive directors to the board of management, there is nothing to prevent it from doing so.
898
I welcome support from the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for the BBC, one of our more important institutions in this country. I am only sorry that his party feels unable to support one of the other great institutions in this country at the moment.
The noble Lord made two important points in relation to the BBC's commitment to the arts and its educational role. It is agreed that the arts are an important part of the BBC's role as a public service broadcaster. It is a major patron of the arts, spending more than £300 million a year on arts programming. The White Paper says that,
"the BBC should remain a major cultural patron of music, drama and the visual arts. It should continue to commission and broadcast new works, and to nurture creative talent".
It has undertaken to maintain its support for the arts, and that undertaking is currently contained in the annex to the Licence and Agreement. We propose that an obligation on those lines should be included in the new Agreement.
The three aims of the BBC in its programmes and services are to inform, to entertain and to educate. We propose that those three traditional aims should be stated more clearly and explicitly in the new Agreement and Charter. The White Paper says that,
"the BBC should continue to broadcast educational programmes of all kinds".
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said that the Agreement should contain both a list of services and an extended list of conditions and, importantly, the governors' resolution that they will meet those requirements. The new Agreement will contain all three elements. As I said, it will be a contract between the BBC and the Secretary of State. That is an important point and I hope that it resolves the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. We aim to bring forward the new Charter and Agreement to give both Houses of Parliament the opportunity to debate the documents during this parliamentary Session.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asked also whether parts of the White Paper needed legislation to be implemented. The merger of the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission will require primary legislation amending the 1990 Broadcasting Act. We hope to bring forward legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.
The noble Lord referred also to the privatisation of transmission services and the BBC's view. The BBC is assessing the future of its transmission service. At present it has not come to any conclusion on the most effective way forward. As I said in response to a recent Question in your Lordships' House, we are considering that matter carefully ourselves.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Is he aware that the deputy director of the BBC last night announced that it concluded that it needed to keep the transmission service?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am not aware of what the deputy director of the BBC said last night. I do not believe that there is a yes or no answer on this. It is important that we put the BBC in a position where it is able to take advantage of and have the money to finance

899
the important step into terrestrial digital television in order to be competitive in the market and in the BBC's world market.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, asked whether the new Agreement would contain an obligation to provide a daily report of Parliament. Yes: that is an important part of the BBC's obligation as a public service broadcaster and the requirement will be carried into the new Agreement.
The noble Lord made the interesting point of why world service television should not be funded from public funds in a similar way to world service radio. World service radio has a wide reach and provides news coverage and other programmes in many countries and languages. To build up that network required a large input of public funds. But world service television is different. We do not see it as replacing radio or matching its wide coverage in the near future. It is an attractive commercial product for the people around the world who value the BBC's reputation for high quality programmes and fair coverage of events. People are willing to pay for these new services, and it is right that the BBC should be able to take advantage of that interest to generate a return for the licence fee payers at home. That is why we do not propose that world service television should be paid for from public funds.
The noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Thomson of Monifieth, and my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing were concerned about the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council. They offered the alternative of a merger with the ITC to bring forward a consumer council for broadcasting. The main responsibility for considering complaints rests properly with the broadcasters themselves and the broadcasting regulators. The BBC is subject to both the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and their procedures. A consumer council would weaken the links that we believe should exist between the BBC and its audiences. It is essential that broadcasters stay closely in touch with public opinion and it is preferable for audiences to speak directly with broadcasters. The role of the governors is absolutely crucial in that respect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, asked whether the two merged bodies would have statutory powers. The answer is yes. The new body will continue to produce statutory codes of programme standards. All broadcasters, including the BBC, are subject to these codes. If the BSC finds that a broadcaster has failed to keep within the codes, it can require it to broadcast its findings and prevent it from repeating the offence. That will continue to be the case for the new merged body.
The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, suggested that the BBC governors should have a complaints unit and should discipline producers who break the rules. The Government are very keen that the BBC should listen carefully to the views and complaints of its audiences. As my noble friend Lord Caldecote said, the BBC has already set up a programme complaints unit and a complaints committee to give independent consideration to serious complaints. Where the governors discover that the BBC's own rules have been breached, they will
900
take steps to ensure that the breach does not recur and to exercise the normal desirable disciplines over its employees.
My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing was concerned whether the BBC governors could realistically carry out the onerous responsibilities that we are putting on them. We believe that the duties we are placing on the governors are reasonable and realistic and similar to those on directors of other major organisations. The governors will have primary responsibility for all the BBC's activities and will be accountable to Parliament and the public for them. That does not mean, of course, that the governors have to have direct control over these activities. Their main duty is to ensure that the necessary framework and rules are in place to enable the BBC to meet its obligations and objectives and to ensure that the BBC employees work within that framework and those rules. That is no more onerous than the very broad responsibilities borne by boards of many major companies.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, who told me that, unfortunately, he had to leave at 7.30 p.m., referred to the importance of religious programming. The BBC has committed itself in Extending Choice ensuring that religious programmes retain a prominent place in the schedules. We support that commitment and the BBC's wider responsibilities to serve all parts of the community. I listened with great care to the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, on religious programming.
Three distinguished former governors of the BBC shared their experiences with us: the noble Lords, Lord Greenhill and Lord Barnett, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. We also had the opposite view. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, spoke from the other end of the spectrum, from the point of view of the viewer, and referred to the effect of the BBC on this country. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls spoke while wearing what one would describe as his political hat. He explained why his career of standing in elections is over. In his speech he probably persuaded your Lordships' House why his career of standing in elections should be far from over. He made a campaigning speech which I am sure would win him any election now.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, outlined the role of the governors and the director general in giving guidelines to producers on programme standards, including impartiality. I very much agree with the noble Lord that the governors and the director-general have responsibility for setting the framework of standards for the BBC's programmes. The Producers' Guidelines, to which the noble Lord referred, provides that framework. Ultimately, it is the governors' responsibility to ensure that producers abide by the rules set out in that document.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, was also concerned about sport and listed events. We believe that viewers and listeners should have the best possible range of choice. Choice is being enhanced by the introduction of specialist sports channels, increasing the extent and variety of sports coverage on television services generally. The sale of rights to broadcast sporting events

901
is one of the principal ways for sporting bodies to generate income. They generate significant income. Sporting bodies should themselves be allowed to judge the balance between the amount of income from broadcasting rights, the size of the television audience, the amount and type of broadcast coverage, and the impact on potential spectators and players and on the individual sport.
My noble friend Lord Caldecote asked whether we would debate the Charter and Agreement in draft. As I said, we shall ensure that there will be a debate. The Charter will be laid for debate in draft. The Agreement will also be capable of change if that is regarded by the Government as necessary because of what is said in debate in either place.
The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, talked about the new responsibilities of BBC Wales and how they would be spelt out in the new Charter and Agreement. The Charter will include a clearer definition of the role of the national councils. The Agreement will include an obligation on the BBC to make a reasonable proportion of its network production in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Together, the two documents will make it clear that all parts of the UK should contribute fully to the BBC's activities. The BBC's commercial activities will largely be built on the vast archive of quality programmes which the BBC holds. Those will include programmes made in Wales and other parts of the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, asked about an accounting officer and whether the BBC should be answerable to the Public Accounts Committee. The BBC is different from most of our public bodies. Its very establishment by means of Royal Charter helps to ensure that the BBC remains properly at arm's length from the political process. In this country we have a long tradition of ensuring that there is no undue control over broadcasters by all of us who are closely involved in the political process. That must continue. The functions of accounting officers provide a direct link of accountability to the PAC in another place. For the BBC to be put in a position of such direct accountability to Parliament could place the principle of separation in some jeopardy. The BBC reports to Parliament in laying its audited annual report and accounts before both Houses. The National Heritage Select Committee in another place can, and does, probe the activities of the BBC. I believe that these are appropriate means of holding the BBC to account.
In the second part of his Motion the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asks, in effect, why the licence fee should not continue for longer than five years and whether the review is only about the level of that fee. We may well conclude in five years' time that the licence fee is still the best way of paying for the BBC. That is our conclusion at the moment. We looked at the other options, as your Lordships know, and we have concluded that at present the licence fee is by far the best way of paying for the BBC. But who can tell what will happen in five years' time?
902
We have heard tonight of some of the changes that may happen in broadcasting. The broadcasting picture is changing very rapidly and so we cannot be sure. That is why it is important that we keep it under review, at the five-year point, before the end of the new Charter. I do not think we should prejudge this and I do not think that the Government are prejudging it. All we are saying is that we need a point to look at in five years' time in order to review the position and make sure that we are still doing the right thing.
The Government welcome the responses to the White Paper and the contributions which your Lordships have made to that process in the debate today. I can give your Lordships the assurance that the Government will consider carefully all the points made in this debate before reaching any final conclusions. I reiterate that your Lordships will have the opportunity to debate these issues again before the BBC's new Charter comes into force. It is important that I should point out that it is not only the Government who should pay careful attention to this debate but also the BBC itself—the chairman of the BBC, the governors of the BBC and the management of the BBC. I am sure that they will pay close attention to this debate. I hope that they pay particularly close attention to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
I hope that the assurances I have given this evening will have gone all the way to satisfying the very valid point made by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. I have said that I agree entirely in principle with what he is trying to do. I hope I have explained why we believe that the Agreement is the best place to put these important elements of impartiality. I also hope that I have persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, who has a similar intent to the noble Lord, Lord Annan. I trust that I have satisfied his concerns.
I hope that following what I have said about the review it will be felt that in no way are the Government prejudging any debate on the licence fee. To keep that option open is not a detriment but could be an advantage. It could easily be an advantage to the BBC. With that assurance I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, will feel able to withdraw his amendment to my Motion.
Lord Annan: My Lords, the noble Viscount has spoken so generously that I very much hope that the House will give me leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

South Birmingham: Hospital Services
7.51 p.m.
Lord Howell Lord Howell rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take to ensure that South Birmingham Health Authority provides adequate hospital services for patients.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, my noble friend Lady Fisher has had to go home. She has not been well recently and has had to withdraw from this debate which I am sure your Lordships will understand. Secondly, I believe I am right in saying that according to

903
information which has reached me rather late the Minister spent a considerable amount of time in Birmingham yesterday visiting the hospitals and no doubt acquainting herself with what she believed I might say and getting the answers. Perhaps I may say how much I welcome that. It is very good—especially in the context of these hospitals—that Ministers themselves are trying to investigate and come to grips with the story as I shall unfold it. Although I am critical I want the noble Baroness to know that her visit was appreciated.
I have initiated the debate because it is no longer possible to tolerate the disastrous state of affairs governing the management of the South Birmingham hospitals. There has been financial and administrative chaos in this hospital group for many years past. Vast sums of money have been abused. At least an extra £6 million was provided to bail them out of their financial predicament, following which specific assurances were made to the Public Accounts Committee which have not been met. Now redundancies and closures are taking place on a grand scale. The essential point of this debate; namely, the health service of the good people of Birmingham is being sacrificed on the altar of financial book-keeping to which this hospital group management now gives top priority over patient care.
These are strong words, but I intend to prove every one of them. There is a long history of this matter, but I do not need to detain the House over much about it. It became so notorious that the Public Accounts Select Committee of the other place held hearings about it and issued two of the most damning reports I have ever read in 40 years' membership of Parliament. They ought to produce resignations or sackings, but no such events occurred; nor did the appropriate Ministers of the day—they are not the present Ministers—think it right to accept any responsibility.
Perhaps I may comment that every penny of public money is a Treasury and ministerial responsibility. It matters not whether it is spent by a quango or a health authority. If there is abuse, or worse, it is the ultimate responsibility of the department and the Minister. No such responsibility has been accepted in the affairs of the South Birmingham Health Authority.
In its first report issued in October last year, the Public Accounts Committee says that serious shortcomings in the management control and accountability of the regionally managed services led to a waste of at least £10 million, this at the expense of health care for sick people in the West Midlands. The PAC says that it was astonished that the privatisation of the supplies branch proceeded without the knowledge of the regional health authority. There were serious failings at all levels of management and a serious failure by members of the RHA and its then chairman.
A second hearing of the PAC took place and it reported as recently as July of this year. In the interim the RHA had provided an additional £6 million of funds to meet redundancy costs and to balance the books. The questions and answers at this second hearing on 16th February this year are the starting point for my anxieties.
My colleague, Mr. Terry Davis, Member of Parliament, took the lead. Again and again he asked for assurances that after the £6 million payment and the
904
previous report, the financial affairs of the South Birmingham Health Authority were now in order and that it now had enough money to balance the books and to provide treatment for all who need it. He asked: is it a question of overspending or underfunding? Sir Duncan Nichol told the committee that he thought so but that he relied on the judgment of the region. Yet he was the chief executive of the National Health Service.
The same question was then directed by Mr. Davis to the chairman of the West Midland Region, Mr. Brian Baker. That revealed that an extra £11.2 million was given to the South Birmingham authority in 1992 to clear up its accumulative debt. Sir Duncan Nichol believed that the authority had now been allocated enough money year by year to meet its obligations and to ensure that there was no underfunding; so did the regional chairman.
I must now ask the House to consider the present chaos, which I shall describe, in the affairs of this group of hospitals in the light of those specific assurances. There has been a most serious and continuing deterioration of services; a serious collapse of morale affecting consultants and nursing staff; and a continual worsening of services for patients who have the right under the law—the National Health Service Act—to receive full and immediate treatment for their illnesses.
I spell out some of the factors: a daily fight to get very sick patients into an inadequate number of beds; routine cancellation of operations for seriously ill patients; no ophthalmology service now available for this large area of Birmingham; a pioneering gastro-intestinal unit has disappeared; the world-renowned burns unit is under threat. The consultants there wrote directly to the Secretary of State in September. I ask the Minister whether any action has followed their approaches to the Minister. Varicose veins patients are now shipped to Manchester for treatment which could be provided much more cheaply in Birmingham. One hundred waiting heart patients were contracted to receive treatment at the infamous Clydebank hotel, or Clydebank hospital, which has now collapsed. It is now hoped to send them to King's College Hospital in London. I shall return to that matter shortly.
There is at present a total ban on non-emergency admissions. The intensive care unit had to refuse 60 emergency patients during the year because there were no beds. The breast cancer unit was left without a consultant surgeon when he left saying:
"it is not possible to provide a top quality service under the financial restrictions".
Fracture clinics are cancelled due to the shortage of junior doctors. The consultant urologist says,
"he is ashamed of the service he can offer after having his bed complement reduced from 52 to 22".
In that department 1,000 patients have been waiting for up to two years for treatment. That is a most serious matter and one can imagine their discomfort.
In its policy document Looking Forward the RHA proposes to axe 1,100 beds and replace them with community care. That is in just one group of hospitals. Not only is there no money for such a programme, but

905
the community care programme is now being asked to transfer money back to acute services to keep those acute services alive. The same policy document forecasts a reduction of between 332 and 482 beds —that is 43 per cent. of all beds—by 1997–98. In fact, the programme has been accelerated to such an extent that a 375-bed loss has already been achieved in 1994—not 1997. Staff cuts of the magnitude of 1,200 have been ordered by the region. In fact, 300 went last year, 775 this year and another 400 will go next year when the general hospital loses its acute unit.
It is my contention that the care and treatment of patients is the National Health Service's supreme duty. All financial management and book balancing are merely mechanical factors to enable patients to be treated. That is the purpose of the National Health Service, but that is not the position in that group of hospitals. The very opposite is the case.
On 11th April this year, Mr. Bryan Baker, the chairman of the West Midlands Executive, wrote to Mr. Brian Stoten, the chairman of the South Birmingham Authority and demanded a robust action plan to achieve real savings. He promised £6 million for redundancy costs and another £10 million for price support. He confirmed in his letter the 1,200 staff reductions in the acute unit and the additional 400 to be added from the general hospital. He concluded by expressing his concern that the:
"Corporate information care plan and the quarterly monitoring information have been rendered largely meaningless".
That is a disgraceful letter. It contains not one word of concern about the effect of all that on patient care and the services provided for the sick, which is the prime responsibility of those gentlemen and that authority.
The authority is now taking refuge for its policy of mass destruction in the hearings held before the Public Accounts Committee, which is why I went into detail about them earlier. In a letter to the British Medical Association dated 12th May 1994, Mr. Michael Waterland, the chief executive of the acute services unit, says that the focus of the PAC hearings was on its fiscal duty. So it was, but equally compelling were the assurances that were sought and given that funds are adequate to meet patient needs, as I have already shown.
In his letter to the BMA, Mr. Waterland says that, irrespective of quality, his hospital group has three priorities. I shall quote what he stated in his letter. He said that priority No. 1 was "income and expenditure balance"; that priority No. 2 was "income and expenditure balance"; and that priority No. 3 was "income and expenditure balance". When he made the same point to the Community Health Care Council, I understand that he added:
"patient care is a secondary consideration".
That is quite intolerable, quite contrary to the purpose of the health service and, I believe, quite contrary to the purpose of the Government. So it is, and that is the gravamen of my charge. Patient care and attention, the first duty of the health service, has been sacrificed in those hospitals on the altar of financial expediency.
Finally, I turn to the effect of all that on waiting lists and staff morale. The waiting list deterioration is quite deplorable and totally in contrast to the Government's wishes and claims about improvements. In March 1993, 218 patients had been waiting over one year. By March this year, that number had increased to 1,037. In September 1993, 20 urology patients had been waiting for more than one year. By June this year, that figure had increased to 227. In general surgery, no patients had been waiting more than a year in September 1993, but by June this year 235 patients were waiting. In ENT, the number of patients waiting for treatment for more than a year rose from 36 in September 1993 to 135 in June 1994.
I could give many examples of the suffering that that is causing very sick people. I shall content myself with just one case. Mr. Anthony Damms lives at 111 Eastfield Road, Bordesley Green. In June 1993 he suffered a heart attack and was treated at the Heartlands Hospital, from where he was referred to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in December last year. He was told he needed bypass surgery and that that would take place in six to eight weeks' time. In April this year he was told he must wait until July or August. In August he was told it may be another 12 months. However, on 21st November—a month ago—he received a call to report for tests on 25th November with a view to being operated on on 2nd December—last week. Told to check the position on the day before—1st December—he did so only to be told not to come in as there were no beds available.
Out of the blue last Saturday morning, two days after he should have been admitted, Mr. Damms received a letter, not from the Queen Elizabeth Hospital but from the consultant he had seen 18 months ago at the Heartlands Hospital, telling him that he may still have a considerable wait and asking him whether he would consider treatment in London. His wife tells me that he also suffers very badly from arthritis and cannot walk across the road, much less travel to London
No citizen should receive such treatment. At this point I was going to ask the noble Baroness to look into the case, but such is the expedition that occurs when Members of Parliament raise matters in the House that I am glad to report that the television companies interviewing me today have informed me that Mr. Damms has now been told that he will have his operation on 29th December. Perhaps I may say how very pleased I am for Mr. Damms that we have achieved such a remarkable success, but I am bound to ask: What about the other 99 patients who have been waiting a long time and need an operation? Is somebody going to do something about them? However, we must be thankful for small mercies and on behalf of Mr. Damms and his family, I must express my appreciation.
I turn now to staff morale. It could hardly be worse. The number of consultants who have resigned is frightening. They include four consultants in haematology; one vascular surgeon; one general surgeon; and one microbiologist. Seven other consultants have taken early retirement.
In September and November last year one of the ward sisters felt it to be her duty to draw the serious situation to the attention of the directorate. Among other matters in her letter which I have seen she referred to the fact that her ward had been left with only two nurses on duty, no provision for meals or help for the manual handling of patients. Agency nurses were of poor quality. There were often no domestic services and no team cleaning. In September she wrote:
"In short, the ward is filthy. Nurses already stretched to the limit are having to clean toilets and baths. I have written to the hotel services manager to no avail. My ward has an excellent reputation. I have never known morale so low, my keen conscientious staff are looking elsewhere for other jobs where they will be valued".
Then in November the sister wrote again. She said that she had no alternative but to close the ward as patients' lives were at risk and the few remaining staff could not be expected to manage under those pressures. That shows an alarming situation which merits the most intensive investigation. Like all the facts that I have quoted, they speak for themselves. No embellishments are necessary.
Mr. Brian Edwards, the chief executive of the West Midlands NHS Executive, has kindly sent me during the past few days a copy of a letter he has written to the South Birmingham Acute Unit. I have no doubt that he has also sent a copy to the Minister in anticipation of the debate. It was obviously an attempt to anticipate what I was going to say. It expresses confidence that waiting list targets can be met and that performances will be improved. One can only hope so, but those generalised comments ignore totally the vast cuts in staff and beds that have taken place, and the vast increase in demands for admissions.
My belief is that the only way to restore confidence is to have an independent outside inquiry into the affairs of the hospital. That is not into the financial mismanagement—the PAC has done that—but into the level of patient care which is the sole purpose of the NHS.
Sir Duncan Nichol gave firm assurances that the action plan put in place to rectify the financial mismanagement in that area health authority would not damage the service. The truth is that it has not solved the financial problems, and it has damaged seriously the services provided for the public. That is why an independent inquiry is now essential to restore public confidence. If the Minister cannot grant me that request today, perhaps I may hope that she will continue to apply her mind to the hospital to ensure that the finances are put right and, what is most important, that the good people of Birmingham receive the services to which they are entitled.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, my noble friend has revealed a sad and serious catalogue of errors. It is hard to believe that a management team could have miscalculated so often, and gone against professional advice. It has been said, with some justification, that one possible beneficial effect of the Government's NHS legislation has been to remove decision-making power from the vested interests of the hospital consultants and move it to managers
908
acting on behalf of patients and communities. But in South Birmingham that policy seems to have misfired totally.
What has happened is the equivalent of a ship dropping its pilot while it is still going through a dangerous passage, full of rocks and dangerous currents, and handing the wheel to the purser who is more skilled in financial calculation than navigation. However, even in financial terms, the Birmingham managers have managed to run the ship aground.
A further example of that, which was given to me by an orthopaedic surgeon, is the decision of the managers to ignore a carefully costed plan put forward by the clinicians concerned accepting that the famous Birmingham Accident Hospital had to be closed but proposing that the Selly Oak Hospital be the site of a new burns and trauma unit. However, that plan was rejected. The general hospital was chosen as the site for the accident and burns service which was created there at a cost of some £4 million. However, after less than two years the decision has been taken to resite the unit at Selly Oak, as originally proposed by the professional staff involved, at a cost of some £6 million.
While the bulldozers are now pulling down the old accident hospital, and patients are being treated at a new unit at Birmingham General Hospital, contractors are building yet another new unit at Selly Oak. That has meant a loss of £4 million of taxpayers' money. That is at a time when the grave shortages, redundancies and bed closures which my noble friend described are taking place. The situation has become so uncertain that, as my noble friend pointed out, a number of senior clinical staff have resigned or taken early retirement. Among those are two general surgeons, Mr. Geoffrey Oates and Mr. John Harman, who have been re-employed in a private hospital which receives patients who cannot be accommodated at the acute unit. Despite that, as my noble friend pointed out, South Birmingham has a waiting list which has been increasing steadily.
I turn now to primary care which, as the Minister knows, is my own field. One of the key features of the RHAs Looking Forward … Moving Ahead strategy was the development of primary care. That involved, in particular, improving practice premises and increasing the number of nurses. But funds are needed for that, some of which were to come from the savings being made in the acute unit. However, as my noble friend pointed out, so rapid has been the run down of beds, and so great has been the disruption of services as a result, that money has had to be diverted to the private sector to contain the increasing size of the waiting list.
As a result, improvements in primary care have hardly been noticeable, except perhaps in fundholding general practices. Incidentally, in creating multi-fund administrative units of a rather luxurious nature, they seem to have no shortage of funds. Fundholders' patients are partially cushioned from the results of the administrative bungles which have been described—a further example, if one were needed, of the two-tier system that the fundholder scheme has created. Sadly that is a case of "to he that hath shall more be given", since poorer districts with the greatest health needs have the lowest proportion of GP fundholders.

909
In South Birmingham £500,000 has also been taken from the allocation for the psychiatric services—an area in need of more, not less funds—to buttress the acute unit in its difficulties. One answer often proffered by the Government —I have heard this from the Minister—when it is said that there has been too great an increase in the numbers of managerial staff, is that the NHS was previously undermanaged. The South Birmingham story shows, however, that far from improving services for patients these new managers have made them worse and wasted huge sums of public money in the process.
8.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for this opportunity to debate with the select group here tonight the health services in South Birmingham. Although the Chamber is not crowded, I recognise that the subject is of enormous concern to the people of Birmingham. There has been room for misunderstanding and therefore I welcome the opportunity to go into some of the issues tonight.
As your Lordships will be aware, South Birmingham has been dogged with financial problems since its inception in 1991 when it was created out of the merger of the old Central and South Birmingham Health Authorities. I do not wish to retread old ground as to why the financial problems occurred or why it took so long for them to be rectified. As the noble Lord said, this has been thoroughly investigated by the Public Accounts Committee and was covered in detail in its 36th report, which was published last July and to which the Government responded via a Treasury Minute on 18th October 1994.
The Department of Health and West Midlands Regional Health Authority have accepted that senior managers failed to resolve the financial problems within South Birmingham Health Authority in the prescribed timescales.
New senior management teams for both the South Birmingham Acute Unit and South Birmingham Health Authority have been recruited and together they will work to resolve the immediate financial problems and ensure that the acute unit achieves a balanced income and expenditure position by October 1995. It will be announced tomorrow that John Boyak will be appointed chief executive of the acute unit and therefore both teams are fully appointed.
In parallel with these changes, new and exciting developments have also been taking place across Greater Birmingham. We should not lose sight of those. Your Lordships will appreciate that, as South Birmingham is an integral part of the city and comprises one of its two health authorities, anything that affects Birmingham as a whole has equally strong implications for health services in the South Birmingham conurbations.
Many cities throughout the country are becoming aware of the growing need to plan their health services so that they take account of today's rapidly changing demands and in doing so are in a strong position to carry
910
them forward into the next century. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, will know only too well, medical science and clinical practice do not stand still and we need to be aware of developments and harness them. That is good management and better quality care for patients.
Birmingham has recognised this need and accepted the challenge. On 9th December 1993 the health authorities in Greater Birmingham jointly published a discussion document called Looking Forward. This sets out broad proposals for reshaping health services in the city by recognising the important changes that are taking place. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that among those changes are plans to enhance and expand primary care.
I am well aware that in developing its health care services Birmingham has had many false starts. It is an enormous task and quite understandably local people have a right to be sceptical over this latest attempt. However, it was with this scepticism in mind that the Greater Birmingham purchasers ensured that Looking Forward was subject to as much public discussion and consultation as possible. They listened carefully to local people's views and amended the proposals to meet their concerns.
On 1st July the West Midlands RHA announced the outcome of these consultation exercises. None was formally opposed by the Birmingham Community Health Councils and this meant that the planned £100 million plus investment programme for Greater Birmingham could now begin.
In South Birmingham this involves investment of more than £70 million. It includes the planned transfer of the Children's Hospital from its present dilapidated location to a refurbished Birmingham General Hospital at a cost of more than £20 million; the development of a high quality accident and emergency service throughout the city and in particular a new £6.8 million accident and emergency department at South Birmingham Acute Unit; and the development of a new £8.5 million oncology centre for cancer sufferers at the South Birmingham Acute Unit.
During my visit to Birmingham yesterday I was told that Professor David Kerr, a leading cancer specialist of international renown based at the South Birmingham Acute Unit, has rejected the opportunity to move to a number of other leading cancer centres in this country because of the excellent facilities in South Birmingham and the encouragement and respect he has had from the management. Also planned is a new £6 million neurosciences centre, again at the acute unit; a £14 million refurbishment of Birmingham Women's Healthcare NHS Trust; a new health centre at Quinton as part of a £23 million investment in primary care across the city; and a major investment in the fabric of hospitals in South Birmingham, including £37 million on upgrading and improving facilities at Selly Oak Hospital, part of the South Birmingham Acute Unit.
Some of these initiatives are already under way and others are scheduled to take place over the next few years. In all, they represent a significant investment in local services across both the primary and secondary care sectors and all will considerably benefit the people of South Birmingham.

911
The noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Rea, drew our attention to the bed closures taking place in particular at the South Birmingham Acute Unit. As I have already pointed out, improved medical technology and clinical practice means that more patients are being treated more quickly using fewer beds. Since 1987 the average length of stay in hospitals in the West Midlands has fallen substantially. For example, in the past six years the average length of stay for general surgery has fallen from 12 to eight days and for eye surgery the fall has been from five days to three.
Day case surgery has become a more common method of treatment. In South Birmingham since 1987 the number of day cases treated has risen by 234 per cent. In the West Midlands about 40 per cent. of cases are now treated on a day case basis. The West Midlands RHA believes that a target of 60 per cent. is reasonable. This is good news for local patients. Credit must go to those who planned, built and now work in the new £640,000, 18-bed day case unit which has recently opened at Selly Oak Hospital and which will benefit the people of South Birmingham.
However, in the midst of all this investment there is a complicating factor. In the past, many health authorities have sent their patients to the South Birmingham Acute Unit for treatment. These authorities are now developing services more locally and this means that fewer patients are being referred to Birmingham. This is better for patients but means that the acute unit has had to look at the various services it provides. It has had to match the changes in demand to the income that it now receives. This is one of the key issues underlying the acute unit's current financial situation.
The noble Lord quoted from a letter from the chief executive citing the importance of having a sound financial position. Every health authority must live within its means, and there is nothing more demoralising for staff or miserable for patients than having services that are expanded one moment and cut back the next. South Birmingham has to get its house in order and regain the stability which staff and patients so badly need.
Inevitably, the review of services has had an effect on the acute unit's organisation, although actual permanent bed closures at the unit have been minimal; a total of 42 since January this year. A significant number of these have been the result of major refurbishment taking place elsewhere in South Birmingham, necessitating short-term bed closures. Unfortunately, there have also been a number of temporary closures at the acute unit because of a shortage of nurses with the required specialist skills. An example is the cardiac unit, where 10 of the 62 beds are currently closed for this reason. This matter is being addressed by the health authority, which is seeking to recruit suitable staff as soon as possible. Interestingly, the situation at the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital and Birmingham Children's Hospital is the reverse, where there has been an increase in the number of beds available over this same period.
912
Noble Lords have also drawn attention to the redundancies taking place. I wish to say, first, that it is always regrettable when redundancies are necessary but in this case it is essential in order to ensure that South Birmingham lives within its resources.
No significant redundancies have occurred at the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital or the Birmingham Children's Hospital; but, since the beginning of the year, 770 posts have gone at the South Birmingham Acute Unit. The vast majority have been administrative and clerical but some have been from the nursing and medical grades. Only 14 of those redundancies in total have so far been compulsory with the majority achieved through freezing of vacancies and voluntary early retirement.
Decisions on what posts should go is a matter for local managers, who must take account of local needs and the reductions in workload. It is certainly not the case that patients' lives are being put at risk because of those reductions. Posts go because the work is no longer there.
To help those whose jobs have been affected, South Birmingham Acute Unit has set up a staff commission which has been notified of some 400 nursing vacancies since June. In addition, there are plans to retrain about 60 acute nurses to work as community and practice nurses, reflecting the move towards greater care in the community.
Both noble Lords raised the question of waiting lists. The West Midlands Regional Health Authority is unique in that it has set all hospitals within the region a target of guaranteeing all patients who were on West Midlands waiting lists as at 1st July 1994 the offer of treatment by 31st March 1995—a maximum waiting time for treatment of no more than nine months. An additional £10 million region-wide has been made available to achieve that. South Birmingham is signed up to this target but to achieve it means an additional work load. I should explain to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that that is a short-term initiative, over and above the normal workload. It will not be of a long duration once the backlog has been cleared. Therefore, it is a good idea to use other facilities in order to accommodate that increased workload.
The noble Lord mentioned the situation concerning the cancellation of operations. That is an area of great anxiety, which needs careful management. In that authority, the level of cancelled operations is high. That is partly attributable to the fact that the South Birmingham Acute Unit is heavily involved with treating emergencies and many cancelled operations are a direct result of unexpected surges in the emergency workload. That is particularly true of the cardiac services.
The noble Lord mentioned also intensive care beds. Currently in South Birmingham there are 25 intensive care beds but a further four will be opened in January 1995. Also, a new cardiac bed is due to be opened early next year. I hope that that will relieve the situation.
In his Question the noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked what action is proposed to ensure that South

913
Birmingham provides adequate hospital services for patients. I have already outlined what is planned for the future, but let me also mention very briefly the excellent services already provided: the Birmingham Children's Hospital provides first-class patient care not only to the local community, but to patients elsewhere in the UK and overseas. Its expertise includes craniofacial surgery, oncology, cochlear implants, liver programme including liver and small bowel transplants, cardiac services; the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, a single specialty orthopaedic hospital where outcome measures compare favourably with world standards; a women's hospital providing excellent maternity facilities and gynaecological care; strong community and mental health support from the local community and mental health trusts. Perhaps the most significant is the South Birmingham Acute Unit which offers one of the widest range of specialist leading edge services in the country including: one of the largest and most extensive transplant programmes in Europe; a quick and early diagnosis facility for the early detection of cancer; a major injuries intensive care unit for burns and trauma patients; one of the top national comprehensive cardiac programmes in the country; a direct access service for GPs to the day surgery programme; the most extensive renal programme in Europe; and a urology department which was a finalist in the national Hospital Doctor of the Year Awards for this year. Add those services to the planned £70 million plus investment in services in South Birmingham over the next four years and I believe that your Lordships will agree that that shows considerable commitment to providing excellent hospital services to
914
the people of Birmingham in the future. Sadly, therefore, I cannot accede to the noble Lord's request for an inquiry.
Lord Rea: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, in her reply she said that the reason for the smaller income of the unit was that fewer patients were being referred to Birmingham for treatment and presumably for operations. How is it then that the number on the waiting list has been increasing?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I believe that I explained that it is to do with all the changes that are taking place: the need to close beds to refurbish some of the other units; and some of the moves that are taking place concerning the children's hospital and other developments.
Lord Howell: My Lords, the Minister said that she is not able to accede to my request for an inquiry; and I am sad about that. But will she assure the House that she and her ministerial colleagues will maintain a continuous interest in the affairs of those hospitals until the service provided meets the satisfaction of the Members of Parliament and the people of Birmingham?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I willingly give an undertaking to the noble Lord that we shall keep a very close eye on South Birmingham. The situation needs improvement and I shall give a personal commitment to that.

Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before nine o'clock.