Lords Sitting of 18 December 1996

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELL2OR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Re6ad by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act,
Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act,
Theft (Amendment) Act,
Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office Act,
City of Edinburgh Council Order Confirmation Act,
Edinburgh Merchant Company Order Confirmation Act,
Scottish Borders Council (Jim Clark Memorial Rally) Order Confirmation Act,
Western Isles Council (Berneray Causeway) Order Confirmation Act.

Disabled Driving Instructors
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What rules govern the eligibility and approval of people with disabilities qualifying to become driving instructors.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, any disabled driver who can demonstrate to a professionally competent assessor that he can take control of a motor car from the passenger seat in the event of an emergency may apply to become an approved driving instructor, subject to the same eligibility rules as an able-bodied person.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that welcome reply, which represents progress from the previous position. Will he confirm that records show that disabled drivers tend to be more careful and have fewer accidents than able-bodied people? While safety must come first, is there any reason why skilled disabled people should not become proficient instructors in appropriate vehicles and, in due course, official examiners for driving tests?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I certainly feel that this change in the rules represents progress. It allows disabled people quite properly to become driving instructors. Unfortunately, record6s are not held in a form which shows whether or not a driver has been disabled. However, it
1498
seems that disabled drivers particularly value the independence and mobility that a car gives them and therefore exercise very considerable care. As to my noble friend's latter question, provided that the procedures I described have been met there is no reason whatever why such a person should not be a good driving instructor and go on to a successful career.
As regards testing, there is unfortunately less possibility that a disabled person could conduct driving tests. People taking a driving test use their own vehicle or a driving school car. Those will nearly always be fitted with manual transmission and will not be adapted for use by the disabled. With those provisos, there has been real progress.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and for the encouragement that he gives to disabled drivers. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, is a very skilled operator of his vehicle. I have never seen him come into collision or near collision with anything. Whether he wishes to become an instructor, I know not.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, clearly the skills of my noble friend, not only in the driving arena but in many other fields, are without question. My noble friend is right to draw attention to the abilities of disabled people in this respect. It is clear that they can go on to provide valuable service in the area of driving instruction.

Working Time Directive
2.40 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they are making toward exemption from the 48-hour week (the "working time" directive) imposed by the Treaty of Rome, and whether such exemption can be agreed by qualified majority rule.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the Government have tabled proposals in the intergovernmental conference to ensure that the working time directive no longer affects the United Kingdom and to prevent any other "social engineering" directives from being imposed on the United Kingdom. The outcome of the intergovernmental conference must be agreed unanimously and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made clear that he will insist that the changes we have proposed form part of that outcome.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, my noble and learned friend will be aware that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister wrote to M. Santer on 12th November to say that he had only agreed to the opt-out on social policy because the other countries agreed that the social chapter could not be imposed on the United Kingdom. He s6aid:
"The other Heads of State and Government also agreed that arrangement. without which there would have been no agreement at all at Maastricht".

1499
Does this saga not show two things—first, that we cannot trust arrangements made with our partners and, secondly, that we should begin to think of renegotiating our relationship with the European Communities?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That's a job for the Whips!
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I can congratulate the noble Lord on asking the most unpredictable question, as we move towards the end of the month. No, what it does reveal is that my right honourable friend was insistent, at the time of Maastricht, that those matters should be excluded. Now that it has been determined by the courts that they are included, if we are to go forward with success in the intergovernmental conference, he will demand and continue to demand that those matters are properly, once and for all, excluded.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, rather than threatening to impede future developments in Europe unless there are treaty changes, would not the Government gain more by taking the advice of the director general of the CBI and adopting a constructive attitude towards the directive, taking advantage of the considerable amount of flexibility that lies within it?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. There is a degree of flexibility within the directive. Whether it is helpful flexibility is more open to question. My noble friend was right. The Prime Minister clearly understood—as did everyone else, including parties opposite, at the time of the Maastricht Treaty—that the social chapter and anything that might be passed under it were excluded from imposition on the United Kingdom. It seems to me that my right honourable friend is absolutely right to insist on those matters being resolved. It is not only the issue of the working time directive that is involved. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, the European Commission has in preparation a White Paper on those areas which are exempted from the working time directive. If they were to be imposed upon the United Kingdom, most prominently in the offshore working area, far from there being an improvement in the safety and health of those who work there, there might be much greater risks.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend confirm that the 48-hour restriction is not in force and will never be in force?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I am sure my noble friend will agree, the United Kingdom has obeyed and always will obey the law. As we have failed to get the directive and its application to the United Kingdom removed, we will set about the process of consultation with a view to implementation. The objective of the Government, and particularly the Prime Minister, is that before the intergovernmental
1500
conference is resolved—and it is hoped that that may be achieved some time next year—we shall insist that the directive is disapplied in the United Kingdom.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is a pity that this important issue should have become a political shuttlecock? Does he further agree that on the grounds of safety and of maintaining a level playing field between ourselves and other countries in Europe and on the grounds of the possible advantages in generating employment, on merit the reduction of working hours is desirable? To that end, is the Minister prepared to commission an independent and objective inquiry into the merits of reducing working hours in this country in the near future?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, if the noble Lord examines working hours in the United Kingdom, he will find that at a certain point on average the number of hours worked is less than the average for the European Union. It is not as though we were still using some kind of Victorian factory approach. People are working less. It is critical to understand that those matters are best left to employers and employees to resolve. As I have said previously and now repeat, if we take an area of activity such as the offshore industry, it would not only be extremely undesirable but would positively add to the risks for those who work in that industry if the directive were imposed on them.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend tell the House why he equates success at the IGC with agreement? Further, can he tell us why the Prime Minister did not simply say to his European colleagues in Dublin, "I will not agree to the stability pact until you have all agreed here and now to the solution not only of the 48-hour week problem but of the fisheries problem and the beef problem"? It would be better than making another show of defiance since, in the past, as the beef crisis shows, that has not been successful.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the reason my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has kept to his position is that that was what he believed he had successfully negotiated at Maastricht. That is what everyone else understood he had successfully negotiated. It seems to me that the position he adopted is both consistent and reasonable: that if there is to be an outcome to the intergovernmental conference next year or thereafter he is right to insist that those matters which everyone believed had been excluded from the Maastricht Treaty should once and for all be put beyond any question and that Article 118a should not allow those types of social engineering provisions to be imposed upon the United Kingdom. As to the other points, the noble Lord goes much wider than the issue of the working time directive.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister a aware that the 48-hour week is based on the five-day working week which is now the accepted norm and that

1501
that represents a nine-and-a-half hour shift? Does the Minister agree that that is far too long and the sooner we do away with it and cast it into history the better?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, that is not the only feature of the working time directive. The number of ways in which it would have to be implemented would seriously damage our competitiveness, not least our ability to attract inward investment through being able to put up large factories much more quickly than is possible anywhere else in Europe. As I indicated in my previous answer, the issue of 48 hours is not the kernel of the matter because in real terms we work something like 371/2 hours here. What is critical is that it should not be imposed upon us. It should be left to those who negotiate such matters—employees and employers. It is a matter for them and not for imposition in the form of a directive.
Lord Monson: My Lords, one could reasonably argue that a maximum 48-hour working work is desirable on health grounds for a number of stressful occupations, but can anybody seriously claim that a minimum four-week holiday, agreeable as the idea may be, has anything whatever to do with health? That argument does not stand up intellectually at all. Does the Minister agree that the European Court of Justice does not do itself a great service by pretending otherwise?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as this Question goes on, the idea of a four-week holiday becomes more and more desirable. The noble Lord is correct. It is impossible to say that someone who works a 48-hour week must have four weeks holiday for reasons of his health, desirable as it may be and attractive as it may be to many of us. It is extremely difficult to see how a four-week holiday is intrinsically bound up with an individual's health.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some 2.5 million British employees do not have a paid holiday? Is he further aware that until this directive arrived on the scene there was no obligation for people to be paid on public holidays? Bearing in mind that it is Christmas, the period of goodwill, will the Minister join me in welcoming the directive so that those people can have a paid holiday over Christmas?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: No, my Lords, I regret that I cannot say even at this festive season that I agree with the noble Lord. If employers and employees wish to come to agreements to extend the amount of time given over to holidays, the shortening of the week and the like, far it be from me to interfere. If they can achieve that and maintain their business in a competitive fashion, that is a matter for them. It is not a matter for this directive.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, further to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, is my noble friend aware that many of us believe that the Government are to be richly congratulated on not
1502
listening too carefully to a biased minority view within the CBI and instead paying much more attention to the views of the Institute of Directors and the Federation of Small Businesses?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, that is the first time I have ever been complimented for not listening. Certainly, there is a wide diversity of view on this matter. As my noble friend indicated, some very prominent people in management and among those who run small businesses are all too aware of the very real danger for our economy as a whole of any imposition of the directive.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, from the trend of the noble Lord's replies, am I to understand that the Government have no interest whatsoever in the working conditions of the people in this country?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: No, my Lords. I cannot imagine anything further removed from what I said. Perhaps I may demonstrate. The noble Lord may remember from a previous Answer that I gave that most of those who work within the public service, for whom I suppose the Government have to take a responsibility, have terms and conditions which meet with compliance under the directive.

Nuclear Arms Control: Canberra Report
2.53 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will make the statement on the Canberra Report promised by the Lord Chesham on 2nd December (HL Deb., col. 463).
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we welcome both the report's acknowledgement that it is for the nuclear weapons states to negotiate nuclear arms control measures among themselves and its call for further reductions in the US and Russian arsenals. The report also acknowledges the unilateral reductions that we have already undertaken in our nuclear forces. We support the report's emphasis on the crucial importance of effective verification and its call for a fissile material cut-off treaty. But we disagree fundamentally with the report's assertion that nuclear deterrence has no role. I am writing to the noble Lord, setting that out more fully. A copy of that letter will be placed in the Library of the House.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the comprehensive nature of the noble Lord's reply. But I regret the exception that he made, especially as at this time, I am sure he will agree, there is a very considerable movement against nuclear weapons. Does he agree that that is to be found not only in the Canberra Report but also in the meeting of top brass from all over the world, including a score of American generals and a similar number from Russia, making it clear that they regard the weapon as an enemy

1503
of mankind and to be got rid of as soon as possible? Will the Government have another look at this issue from that point of view, particularly as we were represented at the meeting of what I described as "top brass" by the noble and gallant Lord, Field Marshal Lord Carver?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we agree very much with parts of the statement on nuclear weapons by the International Generals and Admirals, as I believe it is now generally called. However, the views of many of those signing the statement are well known to us. We have already said that we support some of the points made in the statement, but we judge that nuclear deterrence remains an important element in ensuring security and stability in Europe.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, will the Government recognise that there is a slight flaw in their argument that only the nuclear weapons states should determine whether they get rid of nuclear weapons? Does the noble Lord agree that, if that logic were extended in this country, effectively the Government would be saying that it should be up to those people in this country who own handguns to determine whether they should get rid of handguns?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I have absolutely no intention of going into the area of handguns at this moment. It is fairly ridiculous to suggest that one should. So far as concerns nuclear weapons states deciding this issue, that is exactly what has been recommended by both the Canberra Report and the International Generals and Admirals.
Lord Carver: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the Government will support the report when it is presented by the Australian Government to the United Nations disarmament conference in January? If not, why not?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I have already explained that we cannot support the report totally because we do not believe that the role of deterrence has disappeared. Disarmament measures cannot be divorced from the broader global security context. Deterrence continues to make an essential contribution to European security.
Lord Clinton—Davis: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the vital element is to ensure that non-proliferation is implemented as soon as possible so far as concerns such weapons and that verification is an essential component of it?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the element which is lacking in this country and which is now becoming evident throughout the world is the element of urgency? I do not make any distinction between one side of the House and the other on this point. Will the noble Lord take further
1504
cognisance of the feeling that is spreading throughout the world that we must take the matter of getting rid of the nuclear weapon more urgently than has been the case hitherto?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the record of this Government stands very well so far as the urgency that has been achieved and what we have achieved in relation to other countries. I do not believe that we can be criticised for it.

Hearing Aids
2.58 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to provide improved hearing aids on the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, NHS hearing aid centres may purchase and supply to a patient free of charge any type of hearing aid that they consider medically appropriate.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, first, let me say that I have no interest to declare. I use a cochlea implant and do not use a hearing aid. I am very surprised at the Minister's response. She should know that, although that is the theory, in practice very few deaf people can obtain that kind of private aid through the National Health Service—and good luck to those who can get them.
Is she aware that the present National Health Service aids are very old-fashioned? A recent report by Hearing Concern said that, while they are helpful in quiet surroundings, they are of very little help under most circumstances. That is quite a condemnation. The poor performance is because there is no provision in this aid for cutting background noise, nor for the automatic boost of sound, nor for multidirectional microphones. I am told by some experts that also the specifications are inadequate. Cannot the Government help those millions of people who depend on that second-class technology?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is quite right that the noble Lord should say that he does not have an interest to declare in this subject. However, many of us feel that he has shown enormous courage and determination in overcoming his disability. More than half a million hearing aids are allocated each year to those who need them. The department is looking carefully at the advanced digital hearing aid to which the noble Lord referred. It is still at the developmental stage. It is up to those involved in audiology to decide what is the best type of hearing aid for an individual. But none is excluded from the National Health Service.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am a very lucky chap? I asked for a hearing aid, and I received one of a high specification very quickly. It is better than the very expensive privately

1505
supplied ones that I had before. Furthermore, it cuts out noise and takes in the ring, or whatever it is, that goes around the House.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am delighted that we have one satisfied customer of the NHS here today.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that despite the views of my noble friend Lord Gisborough there is some sympathy for the views of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, which I recall from my own experience in the department? Is she satisfied that the manufacturers of hearing aids are sufficiently subject to the spur of competition in order that they may bring forward continuous improvements to their products rather than relying on the enormous captive market of the National Health Service?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, six manufacturers supply hearing aids to the National Health Service. Trusts which supply these appliances go out to competitive tender every year for them.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that she has a semi-satisfied customer, in that I am on the way, I hope, to getting a more satisfactory hearing aid from the National Health Service than I have had hitherto?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am delighted.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, can the Minister comment further on the discussions a few weeks ago, which were somewhat heated, about the entitlement of war pensioners to enhanced hearing aids? At that time the Government said that there was no need for additional private help because medical evidence suggested that NHS hearing aids were satisfactory, although I understand that many doctors who are experts in this field have since come forward to say that that is not so. Can the Government now publish the evidence on which they made that decision?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is a matter for the War Pensions Agency and the Department of Social Security to decide what type of hearing aid individuals who are war pensioners receive. The hearing aid service is free to anyone through the National Health Service and, as we have heard this afternoon, many people are very satisfied with it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister was answering as if she were not responsible for the War Pensions Agency and the Department of Social Security. Does she not recognise that on these occasions she answers for the Government as a whole?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. I was just clarifying where the responsibility lies within the ministerial team.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the war pensions issue is a very important one
1506
which we will be raising shortly? But for the moment will she address her mind to the question I am raising of an improved National Health Service hearing aid for the many millions of people, especially older people, who rely upon it? Will she take my word for it that she is misinformed when she says that this hearing aid is at the developmental stage? I know that it has now been developed. An advanced hearing aid is available now. I am not suggesting that the health service can afford it overnight, but will she try to push it forward a little? Because so many issues are involved and because this affects many millions of people, will she see a deputation consisting of myself, Members from both sides of the House and perhaps Members of another place and experts in the field just to discuss the better use of resources?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord is aware that I am always delighted to see him. There have been several occasions when he has come to my office and we have discussed these issues. My door is always open to him.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have a very expensive hearing aid which fits into my ear? It costs around £1,000. Surely, with the advances now taking place, if the ministry were to place an order with firms which produce small computerised hearing aids to improve the hearing and the lives of deaf people enormously they could be bought extraordinarily cheaply. Surely this is a case where the ministry should use its buying power to bring down the price.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is up to trusts to decide where to buy hearing aids. There is the NHS Purchasing Centre. Many of the trusts go to the centre but others prefer to place their contracts individually. That is a matter for them. We believe that we get good value for money. It is competitive. Six firms are involved. Every year the contracts are put out to competition. Hearing aids are a very personal thing. We recognise that individual aids are needed by individual people. That assessment is best made through those involved in audiology—the consultants, technicians and others involved.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I note the competitive nature of the manufacture and supply of hearing aids to those who need them. However, does the noble Baroness agree that it is advisable for individuals who think they may need a hearing aid to rely not solely on the advertisements of the manufacturers or the representations that they or their agents make but that at all times it should be kept under the clinical control, first, under the general practitioner, and then, if necessary, the ear, nose and throat specialists?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I would not want to restrict choice. If people prefer to go directly through an advertisement, that is up to them. However, the noble Lord makes a good point, in that we have comprehensive services to support the supply of these devices. It is important that people make use of those services because clearly they are beneficial to them.

Public Interest Immunity
3.7 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, I should like to make a Statement on the future of public interest immunity in relation to government documents as it operates in England and Wales, in the light of the consultation following publication of the Scott Report. My right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General is making a similar Statement in another place.
The Government are committed to the principle that there should be the maximum disclosure consistent with protecting essential public interests. Your Lordships will recall that the law which prevailed at the time of the Matrix Churchill case was further developed by the House of Lords case of ex parte Wiley in July 1994. Since that case, Ministers have had a general discretion to disclose documents without the prior approval of the court, if they consider that to be in the overall public interest. Against this background, it is the view of Sir Richard Scott that legislation on public interest immunity is neither necessary nor desirable, and the Government agree.
Public interest immunity is needed because of the potential conflict between two important public interests: the clear public interest in the administration of justice, in a criminal case the fair trial of an accused, and what is sometimes also the clear public interest in the confidentiality of certain documents or information. But your Lordships will bear in mind that the so-called immunity is subject to the ruling of the court, and that in a criminal case where government documents are in issue, the judge himself examines any such document and makes the actual decision on disclosure in the light of the facts of the case.
In their proposals for the future, the Government have had particular regard both to the recommendations of Sir Richard Scott and to the many responses received during the consultation process. The Government's conclusions represent a new approach, which is set out in a paper today being placed in the Library of both Houses.
Under this new approach, Ministers will focus directly on the damage that disclosure would cause. The former division into class and contents claims will no longer be applied. Ministers will only claim public interest immunity when it is believed that disclosure of a document would cause real damage or harm to the public interest. This new approach constitutes a change in the practice to be adopted by Ministers but fully respects existing legal principles, as developed by the courts, and is subject to the supervision of the courts. It also accords with the view expressed by the present Lord Chief Justice that,
"public interest immunity should only be claimed for the bare minimum of documents for which the claim of serious harm can be seen to be clearly justified".
The Government intend that this test shall be rigorously applied before any public interest immunity claim is made for any government documents.
1508
It is impossible in advance to describe such damage exhaustively. It may relate to the safety of an individual, such as an informant, or to a regulatory process; or it may be damage to international relations caused by the disclosure of confidential diplomatic communications. Normally it will be in the form of direct and immediate harm to, for example, the nation's economic interests or our relations with a foreign state; in some cases it may be indirect or longer-term damage, to which the disclosure of the material would contribute, as in the case of damage to a regulatory process. In any event, the nature of the harm will be clearly explained.
This new, restrictive approach will require, so far as possible, the way in which disclosure could cause real damage to the public interest to be clearly identified. Public interest immunity certificates will in future set out in greater detail than before both what the document is and what damage its disclosure would be likely to do, unless to do so would itself cause the damage which the certificate aims to prevent. This will allow even closer scrutiny of claims by the court, which is always the final arbiter.
The new emphasis on the test of serious harm means that Ministers will not, for example, claim public interest immunity to protect either internal advice or national security material merely by pointing to the general nature of the document. The only basis for claiming public interest immunity will be a belief that disclosure will cause real harm.
In relation to national security, the Government's approach takes into account the types of information which Parliament defined as sensitive in the Intelligence Services Act 1994, although as I have said a document will not attract public interest immunity simply because it falls into a pre-defined category.
Many public interest immunity claims are not the responsibility of government. Although the Government believe that their approach can be applied more widely, the paper placed in the Library only restricts government claims.
I am grateful to all those who have contributed to the debate and taken the trouble to respond to the consultation exercise in this complex area. A combination of the revised regime laid down by the House of Lords in ex parte Wiley and the Government's new approach should ensure that public interest immunity claims will be significantly less frequent in future. And I repeat that any claim in a criminal case will always in the end be subject to review by the court itself.
I believe that these factors, combined with the new test based on serious damage which I have described and which is set out more fully in the paper today being placed in each Library, provide what should prove a sensible, balanced and effective regime for the future, and I commend it to your Lordships.
3.13 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, at the fag end of this Administration, the Government's late conversion (after 17 years of restrictiveness) is a little hard to take. It really is a little rich. The beneficiaries of 17 years of

1509
restrictiveness herald a new openness, but one that can only be delivered by an incoming government. If there had been this spirit of openness 10 years ago, the events leading to the Scott Report would never have occurred. There would have been no issue of concealment by Ministers of information favourable to the defendants in the Matrix Churchill trial. I need not remind your Lordships that the Scott Report was about government attempts to conceal from Parliament changes of policy in relation to arms to Iraq and to conceal from the courts documents which, in the event, led to the acquittal of the defendants—defendants who would never have been brought to trial if the documents had been disclosed up front in the first place.
But I must not allow myself to be sour. If a late, although limited, belief in openness has taken over, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will be the first to agree that,
"Joy shall he in heaven over one sinner that repenteth",
even when the sinner is a government whose opportunities to continue sinning will be abbreviated in any event by the judgment of the people which is to be delivered on their stewardship.
Your Lordships will know that public interest immunity protection can be claimed on a contents basis or a class basis. That is the distinction that underlies the Statement that we have just heard. A contents claim is that the content of the document, if disclosed, would probably damage the public interest. A class-based claim need not allege that. There are decisions of your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity, which, of course, still stand, upholding many class-based claims; for example, Cabinet minutes or papers, documents concerning the security of the state, high-level interdepartmental minutes and documents concerning the administration of the armed services, to give only a few examples. I take it from the Statement that so far as this Government are concerned, class-based claims will never be made again. That is what I understand. The Statement reads:
"The former division into class and contents claims will no longer be applied".
I understand the Statement therefore to be that in future Ministers will claim public interest immunity only where they actually believe that the disclosure of particular documents would cause real damage to the public interest and that no class claims as such will be made in the future. I invite that understanding to be confirmed. I assume that that means that application for immunity for documents which formerly would have been covered by class claims—I have cited examples—will still be made but on the basis of a belief by the Minister that to reveal them would cause real harm to the public interest. I ask for that too to be confirmed. I also ask for confirmation that the new policy which the Statement announces will apply equally to civil as to criminal litigation.
Perhaps I may ask one further question. Can the noble and learned Lord confirm that Ministers will be free under the new policy to make up their own minds in applying the test—what damage would disclosure of this particular document (or of these particular documents)
1510
cause?—so that there will be no repetition of an instruction to Ministers by the Attorney-General that they must sign? Will the noble and learned Lord therefore confirm that hereafter decisions to claim public interest immunity will be free, uninfluenced decisions by Ministers themselves applying the new test explained in the Statement?
I note, but dispute, the Government's view that legislation on public interest immunity is neither necessary nor desirable. Will the noble and learned Lord confirm that after the decision of your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity ex parte Wiley in July 1994, to which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack referred in the Statement, the Court of Appeal in the case of Taylor v. Anderton has upheld a class-based claim by a police force—that is, a public interest immunity claim in respect of the class of reports of officers investigating complaints against the police? The reason put forward and upheld by the Court of Appeal was the old "candour" one—that frank reports would be inhibited unless there was a class protection. I found that a depressing decision. I agree with Sir Richard Scott, who has expressed the hope:
"that class claims will never be made if they cannot be based on something more substantial than the 'candour' argument".
My question, therefore, is this: in the context of the Government's announced decision to rule out legislation, if it is thought wrong (as the Statement tells us that it now is) for the Government themselves to advance a class-based claim, why is it right for the police to be able to advance class-based claims? Why should not such class-based claims be ruled out generally in favour of the new test which the Government say that they will apply for themselves? Is there any reason, for example, why a local authority might not argue, just as the police argued in Taylor v. Anderton, for a class-based immunity in relation to some sensitive internal investigation? I suggest that there is need for legislation, and that, however welcome this Statement may be within its own limits, it does not comprehensively address the problem of public interest immunity certificates, nor does the greater flexibility that it heralds on the part of the Government in that limited area in any way meet the point that what this country urgently requires is a comprehensive freedom of information Act.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I echo much of what the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, said. This is a cautious step forward, but dealing with a matter of such public concern on the last full day before Christmas will not encourage great public confidence that the Government are treating this matter with the responsibility that it deserves.
The issue of public interest immunity is raised by the Statement, and I ask the noble and learned Lord to clarify where the ministerial buck lies, because one of the points that emerged most clearly in Matrix Churchill was the claim by Ministers that they were bullied and brow-beaten by Law Officers into signing the certificates and that only the now Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Heseltine, held out against that. Does the new guideline mean that that behaviour by Law Officers and that defence by Ministers will be at an end?

1511
There is also the question upon which the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, touched and upon which I should like the noble and learned Lord to expand. It is the part of the Statement which states:
"Many public interest immunity claims are not the responsibility of government".
That is so, but that makes this a partial measure only. How do the Government intend to encourage other bodies which can claim public interest to adopt the new standards that the Government have set for themselves?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for the support for the Statement which the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, gave, which I take to be supported also by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. So far as concerns the time that the Government have to put the procedure into practice, I, of course, do not share the prophecy of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. I believe that this practice will prevail for a long time to come.
To answer the questions so far as I recollect them: of course this applies to the civil and criminal jurisdictions. In the criminal jurisdiction, in particular, of course, the court will always itself look at any document which is not to be disclosed on the ground of public interest immunity. With regard to the practice of Ministers in relation to both civil and criminal jurisdiction, this Statement applies.
Secondly, the intention is that the document should be looked at from the point of view of serious harm in respect of that document, taken, of course depending on the circumstances, in conjunction with other documents.
It is of course correct, as has been said, that a distinction between class and contents claims has been recogInised by the courts as they developed this law. However, the fundamental point in both those cases is damage by disclosure to a relevant public interest. What this Statement is dealing with is the risk that too much concentration on the form, in relation to the class of document, damages the real focusing on the fundamental test, which is damage by disclosure. That is what the Statement says.
Members of the Government in future will look at the documents from that point of view rather than merely considering whether they fall within a class or are already recognised by the courts as constituting a damage to the public interest by disclosure.
It is of course for the courts to develop the law in that area, subject to the authority of Parliament. The courts have developed the law. Ex parte Wiley is a considerable development of the law since the Attorney-General advised in relation to the matters upon which he did advise. There are certainly clear statements in authority that in certain circumstances Ministers would have a duty to claim public interest immunity.
The situation has been developed as a result of the case ex parte Wiley. So far as my researches go, the important matter for the courts now and in the future is to consider how the test is applied. It does not
1512
necessarily mean that the courts will not also examine class claims in a more particular way perhaps and from a slightly different point of view than hitherto.
In relation to the last full day before Christmas, I am not sure how lacking in fullness tomorrow's day will be. It is an important day and an important debate. Surely this is a good day upon which to make an important announcement of this kind. It will give those of your Lordships who are not coming tomorrow, if there are any such, the opportunity fully to consider this Statement in the kind of relaxed atmosphere that, with most of your Lordships, will apply in the days before Christmas.
With regard to ministerial responsibility for claiming public interest immunity, it is clear, and always has been clear, that ultimate ministerial responsibility for a certificate signed by a Minister is on the Minister signing the certificate, whether that be the Secretary of State for Home Affairs as in Conway and Rimmer, or any other Minister. It depends of course upon the circumstances which Minister it is that signs the certificate, but it is plain that it is the person who signs the certificate who is responsible for it.
3.28 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, at the beginning of his Statement, my noble and learned friend said that it referred to England and Wales. I should be grateful for clarification because, while cases in Scotland are likely to be rare, I am aware that highly confidential documents can exist or originate in Scotland; for example, connected with the Security Service or operations by the police against serious crime. Courts in Scotland might well be involved in such cases. Is a similar change intended to be made in Scotland, or is Scots law, felicitously, already satisfactory in this area?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sorely tempted by the last part of my noble friend's question. The difficulties that have arisen in recent times have arisen in relation to the operation of the legal system of England and Wales. The consultations which preceded this Statement focused principally upon England and Wales. It is for that reason that the Statement, following the consultation, focused on England and Wales. The law and practice in Scotland are, as my noble friend knows well, not identical to those in England and Wales. Since no problems have been thrown up by the operation of the system in Scotland, we felt it unnecessary to make any statement in relation to that important jurisdiction.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, as far as I understood the Statement, it appears to be an improvement on the past situation. I shall read the debate tomorrow with great interest at my leisure. I welcome very much what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said about documents signed by Ministers. I was surprised to hear of the dispute that arose out of the case to which this matter gave rise. The noble and learned Lord was quite unequivocal about it. On the last occasion Mr. Heseltine had objections to signing a document and was told by the

1513
Attorney-General that he must sign it. If that situation arises in future can the Minister refer back to the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor this afternoon and say that he takes responsibility for the matter and is not ready to sign the document? How is the matter to be resolved in future?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not want to go into the detail of the previous case, but it is clear that ultimately a certificate was signed in terms different from those originally proposed to, for example, Mr. Heseltine. The certificate was altered to take account of his difficulties in relation to it before it was signed. Ultimately the matter went to the court.
One other matter that arises is that a Minister is entitled to receive advice in relation to what he does, but it is ultimately his decision whether or not he accepts that advice. In my judgment, plainly he has responsibility for that. As far as concerns the Matrix Churchill case, it is clear that the documents in question were available to the defence a considerable time before the case collapsed. It is not accurate to say that the case collapsed on the disclosure of the documents. It collapsed at a later stage in regard to the oral evidence that was given.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, referring to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, I seek clarification about the practice of government in Scotland. Is it the same as that in England and Wales?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I explained a moment ago that law and practice in Scotland are somewhat different from England and Wales. I am not conscious—I do not know whether the noble Lord, with his considerable experience of Scotland, is—of any difficulties in Scotland such as those that have arisen in England in recent times in connection with this matter. In broad terms, the principles are very much the same in Scotland and England, but the development of law and practice is not the same. The basic system of law in the administration of justice, civil and criminal, is different. I believe that it is wise to concentrate on those areas in which difficulties have arisen and to try to take an important step forward in the light of experience. I do not regard this altogether as repentance but more as learning from experience how to make improvements to the system of public administration.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was almost but not wholly clear and satisfactory in his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. Surely, if responsibility rests with the relevant Secretary of State or Minister he must have the option of refusing to give his signature if he does not believe it is right to give it. It was that point in the Matrix Churchill case that was extremely obscure. It would be a great advantage if the noble and learned Lord could confirm that where responsibility lay with the Minister the Minister's signature could not be automatic.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it may be that one detail of the background is being slightly overlooked in
1514
the question of the noble Lord, who has considerable experience in this area of practice. In decisions before this time the courts said that in certain circumstances there would be a duty on the relevant Minister to claim public interest immunity. Therefore, it is right that the Minister should be advised that if he is satisfied that these circumstances have arisen, then that duty does arise and he has a legal obligation to sign the statement. However, whatever advice the Minister receives, ultimately the responsibility for the certificate that he signs is his.
The discussion that has taken place in relation to this matter may not give full effect to the fact that in decided cases there was a statement to the effect that this was not a privilege. In the old days this was referred to as Crown privilege. The courts modified that and pointed out that it was not a privilege but an important aspect of the safeguarding of the proper function of the public service. Therefore, where such damage by disclosure would arise the Minister would not be exercising a privilege but discharging a duty in making the claim. That is the basis of the matter. Ultimately, it is the Minister's responsibility to form a judgment on the facts, apply the relevant law as he is advised, and take a decision.
Lord Merlyn—Rees: My Lords, questions have been raised about the relationship between a Secretary of State and the legal adviser to the Government. I was surprised to read in the Scott Report that so many junior Ministers had signed a public interest immunity certificate. I had always understood—indeed, in a similar case I was so advised—that only the Secretary of State could sign and that junior Ministers should not and could not sign. Is that still the case?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should have thought that that would be a matter of good practice where the senior Minister was in a position to deal with the documents and form a judgment. That may be quite a large task. As the noble Lord knows only too well, the Secretary of State may have many heavy responsibilities upon him. This is a heavy and important responsibility. Where the Secretary of State is able to undertake the matter and sign the certificate, for my part I should think it appropriate that he should do so. But there is nothing to prevent a junior Minister from making a claim. There may be all kinds of reasons—involvement and other matters—why the Secretary of State cannot do so. From time to time claims have been made by officials, for example in relation to documents which relate to a previous administration which it would be inappropriate for the current Secretary of State to see. I agree with the thrust of the noble Lord's question that, this being a matter of considerable responsibility, the most senior Minister available to discharge that responsibility should do so as long as he is able to discharge it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, in justice to the Attorney-General should it not be said that it is now overwhelmingly accepted that the legal advice he gave at the time as to the law as it then stood was, contrary to the opinion of Sir Richard Scott, entirely correct?

1515
Was not the advice that the document in question fell within a class that had been previously recognised by the law as to be withheld and there was no ministerial discretion in the matter?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am happy to endorse that. It is appropriate that that statement should come from such an eminent authority on the Cross Benches. I entirely agree and I sought to explain that in relation to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. It is because there was a duty to make a claim in the circumstances that applied that that was the situation.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I am sorry to pose this question, but I am now totally confused. I do not understand how there can be ministerial responsibility if there is no ministerial discretion.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is an extraordinary statement. For example, Ministers of the Crown are under an obligation to obey the law and to act lawfully. That cannot imply that they have a discretion not to do so. The mere fact that one has responsibility does not mean that one has a discretion not to do what one is advised it is right to do, for example, in relation to taking a decision or signing a document.
If one has a statutory obligation to do something, it does not imply that one has an option not to do so. If one signs the document, of course, one has a responsibility for it. The reason one has discharged one's duty in that way is because, in my specific example, of the obligation imposed by law.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, what I am a little worried about is the way in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, phrased his comments. I have the greatest respect for him on all these matters. But Ministers derive such authority as they have from statute and from Parliament. Those are the only two bodies to which they are responsible—to the statute and to Parliament.
Can the Lord Chancellor make it absolutely clear that if the opinion of the Attorney-General on a matter of law differs from that of the Minister and the Minister does not agree with that interpretation, he is perfectly free to decline to sign a document. If that is so, I assume that he may be challenged in the courts at some stage. But it is his responsibility and his alone and no Attorney-General can require a Minister to sign a document with which he disagrees.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is surely plain that, where a Minister seeks legal advice, it is right that he should have regard to that advice, for instance, from the Attorney-General.
There is possibly a misunderstanding lying behind this confusion. The Attorney-General's advice is given on the basis of the Minister being satisfied in relation to a specific matter. The legal advice may be, "If that is your position, this is what you must do". Unless the
1516
Minister has reason to suppose that the legal advice is wrong, the Minister, not being a lawyer, is unlikely to have grounds on which to refuse the advice or refuse to follow it.
A responsible Minister obtaining legal advice with which he has no reason to disagree will surely wish to follow it. Of course, he may have reason to doubt the legal advice and, if so, to challenge it, explore it and see on what it is based. That in no way detracts from his responsibility to take legal advice. He, not being a lawyer, if that be his position—some of us do not have that particular route—it would surely be rational for him to follow that advice unless he has reason to doubt it. In that case he should raise those doubts and seek to have them resolved before deciding on his course of action.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, the point in the Matrix Churchill case was that the Minister saw perfectly clearly that if the document was not released there would be a miscarriage of justice. Nevertheless, the Attorney-General told the Minister that he had to sign the document. Not only was that the situation, but counsel for the Crown at the trial was instructed to ask the judge to keep those documents from the jury. In the end it was only because the judge refused to do that that there was not a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, surely what the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, is saying is true. The Minister saw perfectly clearly that if he refused to sign the document there would not be a miscarriage of justice, and that is what the whole matter was about.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this is not the occasion on which to seek to reopen the details concerning that case. I am prepared to do so, but this is not the right use of your Lordships' time when we are discussing this Statement.
The position was accurately put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I can well see that situations could develop—that is the reason for the policy set out in the Statement—where concentration on class claims as such, without perhaps focusing sufficiently on the reason that the courts have admitted those class claims, may sometimes damage the real exercise which the Minister is seeking to carry out. It is in order to try to remove that kind of mechanical reliance on class claims that this change of practice is to take place; that is, in order to try to alleviate for the future any problems of the kind advanced in the past.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this time is for Back Benchers and I do not wish to intervene and would not do so if it were not absolutely necessary. But is it not clear that the Lord Chancellor has been the subject of high level and profound interrogation? Would

1517
it not be to the benefit of the House if the usual channels were to find time for a debate on these important matters which was not time-limited?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the important matter is the Statement of what the position is for the future. I hope that I have made that absolutely clear.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, not to me.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord says that it is not plain to him. Let me have one more go. In the light of this practice as presently stated the Minister will be responsible for the signature if he signs a certificate. If he takes legal advice in that regard, he still retains responsibility for it. That remains the position, as it has always been.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has been speaking on this matter now for half an hour. May I suggest to my noble friend the Leader of the House that we now get on with the main business?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agree that his Statement today adds a second safeguard in that it emphasises the role of the trial judge in determining what is or what is not in the public interest? Is it not the case that in the Matrix Churchill trial the step forward taken by the judge, Sir Brian Smedley, was that he, for the first time, demanded to see the documents; having seen them, he came to his conclusion. No previous judge in a criminal trial had demanded to see the documents for which public interest immunity was claimed.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my understanding of the law in England and Wales—at least since Conway v. Rimmer—has been that the court is the ultimate tribunal to decide whether a public interest immunity claim should prevail. It has the responsibility of weighing interests other than those which in former times were thought to be the responsibility of the Secretary of State. The court has that responsibility and it is important that the court should adequately and fully discharge that responsibility, as I believe it has done and will continue to do.

Business of the House: Debate, 19th December
3.50 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Baroness Hayman set down for Thursday, 19th December shall be limited to three hours.— ( Viscount Cranborne)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Media
3.51 p.m.
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont rose to call attention to the role of the media in a democratic society; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there has probably never been a time when the standards and behaviour of the media have been of so much concern to the people of this country. Your Lordships may agree that, as we come close to a general election, it is timely that we should discuss the role of newspapers, radio and television in the governance and preservation of the democratic society in which we live. Of course, we have not even begun to take in the implications of a world in which communications—telecommunications, television, personal computers and the Internet—have all been integrated into one interactive global system. I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, makes his maiden speech he will have something to say about that.
My concern today is with the conventional media. It is through radio, television and newsprint that the vast majority of people in this country will continue to receive their news, information and entertainment well into the next century. During the brief time at my disposal, I wish to discuss one or two ideas about the role of the media as seen from both inside and outside and to ask how the performance of the media measures up against those perceptions.
It would be fair to say that within the media there is a degree of uncertainty, to say the least, about the function of the journalist. There was an interesting example of that in the strange episode of John Birt' s lecture at Trinity College, Dublin, a year or so ago. Some of your Lordships may recall that Mr. Birt, the Director General of the BBC, delivered a fairly blunt criticism of the rudeness and discourtesy which disfigure a good deal of contemporary radio and television interviewing. During the course of his speech Mr. Birt made the following comment, which seems to me to be eminently reasonable. He said:
"journalism is not an end in itself; it is a means to an end … we need to reassert that journalism's highest purpose is to inform the citizenry".
He was immediately set upon by his fellow journalists. One correspondent wrote:
"Journalism is simply the exercise of free speech … it has no hierarchy of purposes".
Another attacked his comments on politeness and said:
"deference to established power is not now, and never has been, the function of a free press".
One columnist took up most of a page in the Evening Standard rubbishing the director general and placing the blame for hostile interviewing on the fact that the persons being interviewed, usually politicians, are slippery liars well practised in the art of evading the issue. Finally, perhaps encapsulating the whole issue neatly, another columnist offered the following definitive pronouncement on her trade. She wrote authoritatively
"John Birt was wrong. Disrespect is the first best quality of ajournalist".
It is clear from all that, and from other examples which one could enumerate, that some people, although not all, involved in the media are reluctant to accept any responsibility or loyalty higher than that which is summed up in phrases such as, "the public have a right to know", and, "our only business is to publish the news". They seem unable or unwilling to comprehend that the public interest means something more than just what interests the public.
It is perhaps relevant and proper, therefore, that those outside the media should ask what are the proper functions of a free press in a free society. Does the almost total freedom which our press enjoys carry with it any collateral responsibilities?
I believe that most thoughtful people would agree that within certain limits the media should be free to examine the activities and behaviour of public institutions and public individuals. Responsible investigative journalism is essential if we are to safeguard against the kind of corruption and malpractice which, if not detected and uprooted, can poison the system of liberal democracy.
However, there are certain limits and it would be a statement of the obvious to say that those limits are frequently ignored or brushed aside. One of those limits concerns the right of individuals, including those in public life, to a degree of privacy and freedom from harassment. Another concerns the limits of what is known in the code as taste and decency; that is the shorthand for gratuitous displays of sex and violence on television, often in an unpleasantly perverted form, and the use of obscene and offensive language.
However, as disturbing as some of those issues may be, and I am sure that other noble Lords will deal with them at some length, I believe that the most important function of the media has to do with what I regard as the clear obligation of a journalist to contribute to the preservation of the political institutions which guarantee all our basic freedoms, including the freedom of the press itself. In that context, it is a matter of some concern that television journalism today is an especially acute example of a modern tendency which is sometimes described as adversary journalism. That is a concept of journalism in which all established institutions and authorities are regarded as alien and threatening, and traditional values and standards as archaic and irrelevant. It has, to a large extent, taken the place of serious journalism, even in some of our quality newspapers. In television it is rampant.
The distinguishing characteristic of serious journalism of the traditional kind was that it examined political and social problems almost from the point of view of an alternative government; in other words, as though searching for measures and solutions for which the journalist himself might in other circumstances be responsible. The less responsible approach now taken by the modern adversary journalist is especially striking in the relationship between the media on the one hand and terrorism and other forms of political violence on the other.
I suggest that in a free society, where democratic processes exist for the redress of genuine political grievances, a free press should have no difficulty whatever in establishing its moral position as between the society in which it exists and anyone who threatens to undermine and destroy it by violent means. Yet in some sections of the media there seems to be an instinctive tendency, when faced with a conflict between parliamentary democracy and the rule of law on the one hand, and on the other hand extra-parliamentary activity, lawlessness, violence and even terrorism, to adopt at best a position of moral equivalence between the two positions and at worst to give the benefit of the doubt to the terrorist, the protest movement, the radical activist or disaffected minorities.
That brings me to an issue which has been debated inordinately without any great result, but I beg leave to raise it again. It is the issue of balance, bias or impartiality—whatever one likes to call it. For obvious reasons, that is much more a matter for television and radio than the newspapers. Of course, it is legislated for in both the Charter of the BBC and the Broadcasting Act. It is not—and I hope that no one will believe it is—a matter of bias to the Right or to the Left, to use those old fashioned and somewhat irrelevant political terms. The merits of that argument are often in the eye of the beholder. My real concern is the adversarial journalist's bias against the standards, values and institutions of a civilised society.
As long ago as 1983 in a speech which he made to the Institute of Journalists, the late Stuart Young, who had recently become chairman of the BBC's Board of Governors, reminded his audience that:
"the BBC is required under its Royal Charter and Licence to refrain from expressing itself on matters of public policy. Above all, our viewers and listeners expect our journalism to be balanced, fair and impartial'.
But I believe that I shall be saying nothing of startling surprise to your Lordships if I say that the BBC manifestly does not always provide balanced, fair and impartial journalism.
Indeed, viewers and listeners have a right to expect even more than that. And it was another BBC mandarin, Huw Wheldon, a man whose professional integrity was beyond question, who pointed out that the concept of balance in media reporting is sometimes assumed to mean a naive and over-simplified requirement to present two sides to every problem. On the contrary, Huw Wheldon said, it is more a matter of truth than of balance. He said that what was needed was:
"an intelligent effort to make sense of all the facts, however difficult, and not just some of them".
I believe that it is because the media have failed to accept standards of that kind, put forward from within the media, that they are probably lower now in the public esteem than they have ever been, certainly in my memory. Of course, there is an argument advanced by Alexis de Tocqueville in his book entitled Democracy in America that,
"in order to enjoy the inestimable benefits which the liberty of the press ensures, it is necessary to submit to the inevitable ills which it engenders".
That is very persuasive, but of course it can be pointed out also that that calculus, that proposition, loses its validity if the inevitable ills to which he referred become part of a losing gamble with freedom, democracy and hastening the disintegration of the civic order.
As I have tried to suggest, what is at issue here is the role of the media in a free society and in preserving a free society. Clearly there is a very delicate balance to be preserved. Even in free societies or, perhaps I should say, especially in free societies, most governments would prefer a press that was not too critical or inquisitive. When the media become too importunate and inquisitive even the most tolerant and flexible government of any political complexion begin to look for ways in which to prevent them from standing in the way of the policies which they wish to apply and which they have been elected to pursue. When the media behave arrogantly or unwisely, as they do sometimes, a government's desire for regulation attracts increasing popular support, as is happening today.
I know that other noble Lords will address the problems of proper regulation. I merely make the point that if proper sensible and intelligent regulation is not effective, it will lead—and it has already led—to demands for some form of censorship of the media. In my view, that would be a major step towards the erosion of a free society. But if it is to be avoided, the media must recognise that while they need hold no loyalty to any government, they have a clear responsibility to democratic society. That includes a proper regard for the conventions and institutions which are necessary to preserve a democratic system.
It is not too extreme to say that at present there is a real danger of the weakening of the foundations on which our democratic society rests—for example, Parliament, which is to a certain extent ignored by some of our quality newspapers, an independent judiciary and a secure system of law and civil order. Some people accuse the media roundly of being largely responsible for that decline. While that accusation may be going rather too far, it is possible to argue that even if they are not helping to undermine the values of a liberal democracy, some sections of the media are not exerting themselves unduly to ensure its preservation. It is time that the role of the media in a modern democratic society became the subject of more serious debate.
We now have not public discourse but a public brawl. Newspapers mount vicious and often unjustified attacks on the private lives of public figures. Politicians are harassed and patronised by radio and television interviewers who seem to believe that they are more important than the person being interviewed. There is widespread concern among viewers, listeners and readers about distorted news values; deplorable standards of written and spoken English; the deliberate blurring of the line between fact and fiction, especially in the making of what are sometimes called "docu-dramas"; and, most seriously, of occasional blatantly inaccurate reporting based on unreliable sources. In other words, as Huw Wheldon put it, there is a lack of respect not just for the facts but for the truth. It is no exaggeration to say that some, although not all, sections of the tabloid press, radio and television are seen by most people to be debasing the standards of
1522
behaviour and cultural values on which any enduring civilised society must be based.
I conclude by saying that it is of course inevitable that proprietors, editors, presenters, writers and interviewers and all the other practitioners of the media will be sensitive to threats of outside control of their activities. But they should never forget that if, as a result of their attitudes and activities and as a result of what they do and do not do, civilised values are debased, free political institutions are weakened and undermined, intelligent debate and rational discourse ceases and democratic society eventually goes into decline, it is the freedom of the press which would be the first freedom to disappear. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, it is a very great honour to address your Lordships' House for the first time. I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for giving me this opportunity to make my maiden speech in this important debate on the media which he has initiated. My remarks touch upon just one aspect of the matter; that is, the question of how best to communicate with the public at a time when the media are such a dominant force in our society.
It could be said that in the Garden of Eden, in approaching the forbidden Tree of Knowledge, humans felt a need to know for the first time. Six thousand years after the Garden of Eden, the need to know has been replaced by the right to know and the media have inherited the role of asserting mankind's democratic right to know.
The media have brought into being a new form of democracy, a democracy of information where information is knowledge and knowledge is power; where information is for the benefit not only of the elite but is properly to be shared among all the people. Indeed, today there is very little that we do not know. We know the income of Her Majesty the Queen; we know the pension of the chairman of ICI; we know which schools produce the best A-level results; we know which hospital has the best record in hip replacements; we know how much tar and nicotine there is in a cigarette; and we know the precise contents of a packet of cornflakes.
That is well and good but perhaps one of the unintended consequences may be that people have so much information that they no longer have time to listen to a long detailed argument. How then should the public be addressed in this "mediaocracy"? Winston Churchill once quoted Mark Twain's letter to a friend which began:
"I wanted to write you a short letter but I didn't have time".
Churchill understood that simplicity is all; but he knew also that to achieve simplicity is very difficult. It requires what Bertrand Russell called the painful necessity of thought. That is why it took longer.
We should remember that the earlier forms of mass communication were not complicated; they were extremely simple. That is why they worked. When President Roosevelt wanted to persuade a profoundly

1523
isolationist America to help our country in its darkest hour, he invented one phrase of two words to help him to do that. He called his policy "lend lease". He explained it very simply too;
"Your neighbour's house is on fire. He comes to you, and asks if he can have your hose. You say, 'I will not give you my hose. But I will lend it to you. You can borrow it to put out your fire. And when the fire is out, you will return it to me".
A simple image of a fire and a hose.
The history of the world is built on such simple and precise use of language. Let us think of the most effective messages over the years. There was nothing long-winded about "Libertë, egalité fraternityé, nor about "Workers of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains." No one had to explain what it meant when they heard John Kennedy say:
"A torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans";
or when they read on the Statue of Liberty:
"Give me your huddled masses yearning to breathe free!"
When they said, "Go west, young man", they did so in their millions. No one needed further elucidation when Jesus said:
"Do unto others as you would be done by",
or when Martin Luther King said, "I have a dream".
The great communicators in history have always made things simple: "Your country needs you", "No taxation without representation" or, "One man, one vote". These are not just slogans; they encapsulate whole philosophies, aspirations and political systems. In this media-driven world, which is the subject of today's debate, the public expect and demand that those who come before them to express a view have, before they speak, eliminated vagueness from what they say and distilled their argument down to its essence. It is, in fact, a mark of respect for the listener—a modern form of good manners.
This search for simple language actually has an excellent effect upon the idea being advanced. Its action is that of the threshing machine. It sorts the intellectual wheat from the chaff. It is more than a discipline, it is a test. It forces exactitude or it annihilates. It accelerates failure when a cause is weak, and it clarifies and strengthens a cause that is strong. And that is the best argument I know in favour of its use in all forms of public communication today.
I shall always endeavour to apply that test, with what success your Lordships may judge, to my own contribution in this House. I am grateful to your Lordships' House for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech today. I look forward greatly to the comments and ideas that we may hear during the rest of today's debate.
4.12 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, first, for giving us the opportunity of debating today,
"the role of the media in a democratic society";
and, secondly, for the fact that it gave the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, the opportunity to make his maiden speech among us. On behalf of your Lordships'
1524
House, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on actually putting into practice the skills in advertising—the simplicity of the message and the directness of it. We look forward to hearing the noble Lord's further contributions in this House. If they are sharp and to the point, they will be even more appreciated.
Bishops sometimes receive invitations to speak to conferences. I treasure one: a conference of the editors of provincial newspapers when I was invited to speak about a free and responsible press in a democratic society. No Bishop could have been given a task which he took to more readily. I should like to focus on those two issues—a free and responsible press in a democratic society.
Freedom is not just about the right to communicate that which you believe you wish to communicate; it is much more subtle than that. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has already indicated to us something of the subtleties involved in the term "freedom". Perhaps I may share with your Lordships' House the warning given by the Roman Catholic Bishops of England and Wales in their recent report entitled The Common Good. They made the point:
"Moral responsibility does not always sell newspapers. We are concerned about the dangerous consequences for the common good when market forces in the mass media are pushed to their logical conclusion, a process of which we see some evidence. Contrary to the optimistic expectations of the beneficial fruits of competition that were made by Adam Smith, there are signs that it is a characteristic principle of newspaper economics that had journalism will drive out the good".
The concern that we speak easily about a "free press" needs to be balanced by that freedom which is quite clearly undermined by the economics of the newspaper industry. What the Roman Catholic Bishops say together I would also want to support.
I want to believe that self-regulation through the machinery of the Press Complaints Commission, and so on, will work better in the future than it has in the present and in the past. There are some who would say that the jury is still out: a free press, but a responsible press as well.
It is part of the Jewish/Christian tradition that we say:
"Thou shall not bear false witness",
against your neighbour; nor perhaps be economical with the truth. The truth is at the centre of a free and responsible press in our democratic society.
I should like to raise with your Lordships' House two issues about truth and about responsible reporting. Perhaps I may take the issue of the world of Islam. What picture do your Lordships have when we use that term about Moslems, Islam, Iran or Iraq? Most of the images that we have come to us through television and most of the knowledge that we have has, for many of us, come from newspapers. Yet the world of Islam is a complicated, quite divided at times, world religious community and one which requires subtlety and balance in communicating how it acts and how it responds.
The pictures of the martyrdom to be seen in Iran and the pictures of fundamentalism gone rampant are not balanced reporting about the world of Islam. If you travel to Tanzania, you will find quite a different picture

1525
of Christians and Moslems living peacefully together in a co-existence in which they help each other. Such pictures are not provided for us by and large by our press. The press has a responsibility to educate us so that the world may be a safer place and a place in which there can be true peace.
In my own city of Bristol at the end of the second riots in St. Paul's, the press reporting did not help us bring about a reconciliation afterwards. It was the use of adverbs and adjectives which inflamed the situation and did not help that second stage move on where we wanted to have the possibility of bringing peace, order and justice. A free and responsible press is not just about educating us and not just about providing us with new information; as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, it is something about an alternative government that provides us with a just society. We have much to thank the press for but we need also to be vigilant. It is too important just to let it lie like that.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Chadlington: My Lords, it is a very great honour to address this noble House for the first time. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for encouraging me to make my maiden speech in this important debate which he has initiated. I should first declare a general interest in that, as chairman of Shandwick, I spend much of my time working with the media. I should also declare a specific interest as I shall be mentioning the work of Bill Gates who, as chairman of Microsoft, is a client of ours.
The impact of technology on the whole world of communications is having, to my mind—and will have—an extraordinary effect on the media as a whole. This will not be a change of degree but rather a change of kind. I believe that it will ultimately render the media unlike anything that has gone before. It may even result in these laws and voluntary codes of conduct, which we often debate, being unable to constrain them.
The key to understanding this is the fact that the control of information is already moving away from the media to the consumer—a consumer who is not constrained by advertising, scheduling or time. Anyone who has access to a PC and a phone line can already tap into unlimited information and opinion—without having to purchase a newspaper or magazine, switch on a television set or a radio station. These sources of information will escalate dramatically.
I give your Lordships one example. I read that just after the year 2000, Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, and Craig McCaw, who have together established the Teledesic Corporation, will launch 840 communications satellites, at a cost of 9 billion dollars, in effect to wire the world. These satellites will carry interactive voice, data and video services. As a result, every corner of the world will be able to obtain instant information from anywhere else on the planet. The impact of these technologies is multiplied still further when we remember that, according to one estimate, some 50 per cent. of the world's population has neither made nor received a telephone call.
1526
There will be instant information, instantly available, globally, in real time. And you will not need a computer to access it. A television, telephone or some other affordable, hand-held device will do.
We already have a medium in use today which illustrates how difficult it will be to protect the interests of the majority in a democratic society in this very near future. Consider the growth and control of the Internet. Currently the Internet links more than 32,000 computer networks to connect at least 2 million computers and over 30 million users via modems and phone lines in 135 countries. Within three years the Financial Times estimates that that will rise by between 30 and 40 per cent. For the first time in mankind's history, we have today a single-language—English—global, completely interactive medium which can pinpoint one person or a group of people with specialist interests as easily as reaching tens of millions.
The Internet and all the other burgeoning technological media provide a new way of thinking, of getting news, of being entertained, usually in an interactive way. However, they all provide real opportunities and threats to our democratic society because, with all this power, they have no gatekeepers. Anyone can access them, anytime and anywhere in the world. There are no rules regarding truth and falsity. Carefully presente0d lies can receive global currency. Unfounded rumour can appear of international importance. They provide worldwide public platforms for literally anyone—pressure groups, political extremists—endowin0g their views with an authority and a currency no traditional news media would allow and indeed it would probably be caught in the legal and voluntary codes which we all know about.
I believe we face a world of information overload, without constraint, without gatekeepers and without editors. These news and information systems can either be used for globalising what is true and balanced about our society or, if they go unchecked, may become a prime source of information and entertainment reflecting the views of the ill-informed, the extreme and those with an interest in undermining our democratic society, not in protecting and promoting it.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I must first congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, on a really admirable maiden speech. It was beautifully delivered and marvellously lucid about exceedingly complicated matters. We very much hope we shall hear him time and time again in the years to come.
I have two things to say. The first is to lament the state of the quality press in our country. Apart from the Financial Times, where do we find the equivalent of Le Monde, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung or the Neue Zurcher Zeitung? Serious reporting of news has almost vanished. Our top newspapers fill their space with columnists who discuss the issues in terms of the personalities of the day. Not content with employing dozens of gossip columnists whose task is to dig up dirt on people in public life, serious news is trivialised by treating it as gossip instead of setting out the issues and analysing them.

1527
The excuse the press offer is that readers today are interested in people, particularly those in public life whether they are "pols" or pop stars. I trace the decline of the press back to Private Eye. Private Eye did real service to this country in uncovering crooks, scams and the seedier side of business. But it also was unscrupulous and despicable in the way that it hounded people by printing often untruthful accounts of their private lives. Many of those it libelled could not afford to bring an action—as the prurient, puritanical editor well knew.
That brings me to my second point. We need a law of privacy. Alas, neither of the main parties has the guts to bring one in. They prefer to talk about drinking in the last bar. The consistent exposure of the sexual peccadilloes of politicians has rotted confidence in Parliament. That is what happened in France in the 1930s with Le Canard Enchaine. That is what happened in the Weimar Republic. What was the result? Both France and Germany today have laws that govern the privacy of the individual and their private lives and protect them from exposure. Why cannot we do that here?
It is not only the great and the not so good who suffer. Ordinary people suddenly find themselves door-stepped, hounded, harassed, threatened and offered bribes by the weevils of those sanctimonious editors who talk of the public's right to know and declare "It is all in the public interest". What will happen in a few years' time when Prince William and Prince Henry are out in the world? Shall we allow every single item of their private lives to be scrutinised by the press? We all have private lives that should be inviolate from intrusion.
Moralists may be shocked by this assertion but I shall spare them the lists of Prime Ministers and Cabinet Ministers who are or were adulterers. What worries me is the alacrity with which present Prime Ministers accept the resignation of some of the lowliest of their placemen if a breath of suspicion is aired. Every time one of them resigns, the tabloids and the quality press rub their hands and gloat that they have brought down another man who aspired to exercise power. Bring in a Bill of privacy and that will break their power.
Until then, could we see someone in public life take heart and when challenged say what the Duke of Wellington said to Harriet Wilson when she threatened to reveal their liaison in her memoirs? He said "Publish and be damned". Or would the soapy moralists argue that Wellington should have been sacked from his command in the Peninsular War because he went to bed with a courtesan?
4.29 p.m.
Lord Wrottesley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for introducing this debate and therefore giving me the opportunity for the somewhat daunting task of making my maiden speech. I suppose I should also thank the noble Lord for the chance to speak on a matter I know little about. Listening to the noble Lords who have already spoken on the subject, and looking at
1528
the list of noble Lords who will speak after me, I am reminded of my inadequacy in years as well as experience. Unlike my noble friends Lord Saatchi and Lord Chadlington, who also made their maiden speeches, I have not been blessed with a career in the media. I shall therefore, in the best traditions of this House, be making an amateur judgment. If my youthful impetuosity should lead me to make any controversial statements, I beg your Lordships' indulgence. In keeping with the rather flawed logic behind making a maiden speech on a subject of which I have scant knowledge, I propose to tackle the thorny issue of regulation of the press.
Of all the media, of all the ways in which we choose to inform ourselves, the press is the most anarchic, the most sensationalist, the most controversial, some might even say the most insensitive. For those reasons alone, it can surely be argued that the press needs to be bound by statutory regulation. Resorting once more to the flawed logic for which I am fast becoming renowned, I believe strongly that the press should be self-regulated by a collective sense of responsibility and professional integrity. To deny to the poet or painter expression of what he or she feels is to impose a form of imprisonment. However, I concede that the articles written by many tabloid journalists can hardly be called prose, let alone poetry.
As a medium the press has had a long and chequered history. It has been responsible for sustaining democracies, for maintaining totalitarian regimes and for obtaining scandal. The diversity and variety of publications and newspapers add to the rich and colourful reputation of a medium that informs, investigates and educates. It is a very different beast to other media, with a specific agenda: to sell newspapers. Circulation is its god. The press must appeal to its readers. It has to be partisan, opinionated and sensationalist to survive in a world that is characterised by stiff competition and shifting allegiances.
In such an environment excesses will occur. The argument for regulation is unquestionable. The issue is whether statute law should be used to curb the excesses of an irresponsible press, or whether responsible editors should use the existing framework of guidelines to regulate themselves. The press has been at the forefront of public discussion for centuries. A code of conduct has evolved, avoiding the ugly spectre of statutory regulation, which has not existed since Magna Carta.
The role of adjudicator falls to the Press Complaints Commission, chaired by my noble friend Lord Wakeham. He is the headmaster nobody wants to see. Colleagues and pupils alike respect his even-handed approach, as I am sure we all do. A barometer of the success of the Press Complaints Commission is the number of complaints that are considered: 2,508 in 1995—up 28 per cent. on the previous year. Eight out of every 10 complaints successfully brought to the commission were settled by editors themselves. The figures show that the Press Complaints Commission is winning the confidence of the public and is an effective tool of self-regulation.

1529
In 1927 Judge Brandeis of the Supreme Court of America wrote that,
"public discussion is a political duty. The great menace to freedom is an inert people".
Informed public opinion is the most potent of all restraints upon government. To quote, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, did, Alexis de Tocqueville,
"the press is not characterised by the good it does, but by the evil it prevents".
4.33 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, it is a considerable pleasure to congratulate the third of our maiden speakers today. The noble Lord, Lord Wrottesley, made a distinguished contribution to the debate. I notice that, apart from the media, he lists as one of his interests parliamentary reform. So he may have come to the right place at the right time. He is also, I note, a tobogganist. On the evidence of his speech today, I assure him that in this place it will not be downhill all the way for him. We greatly look forward to hearing more from him in the months to come.
Since time is in such short supply, perhaps I may concentrate on one different aspect of this important topic which we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Chalfont for bringing before us today. I should like to refer briefly to this House's relationship with the media. It is a relationship which has in the past been chequered and, dare one say, largely unsuccessful. It is true that, on the positive side, the televising of this Chamber's proceedings some years ago did much to create any favourable image that your Lordships may enjoy today.
But what of the so-called "factual" programmes about this place? I am trying to choose my words with care. They have been unfortunate, to say the very least. I think that is largely due to a certain naivety in this House in regard to the media. We may in all innocence, for example, assume that all a TV company wants to do is present a strictly factual picture of the Lords at work; and we have almost certainly been flattered by such an interest. Anyone who knows anything about the media, however, is aware that a director starts with a preconceived idea of what he wants out of the finished programme and all filming and interviewing is accordingly ruthlessly tuned to that masterplan.
To that must be added the regrettable fact, already referred to, that our proceedings are seldom reported adequately, if at all, by even the broadsheet press, although that fact is of course an extremely worrying development affecting Parliament as a whole and must carry serious implications for any parliamentary democracy.
So far as this House is concerned, a major cause of this sorry state of affairs may lie in the imprecise and diffuse arrangements in place for dealing with requests from programme makers and feature writers. There is, very properly, the administrative and security side, most ably represented by Black Rod; and then there is what I may describe as the political side, where it may sometimes be difficult to share a common view or compose a speedy response to any media approach, even allowing for the good will inherent in the usual channels.
1530
It would be a pity if, for example, perceived flaws in the composition of this House in the eyes of some should result in anything less than a robust desire to present its work in a favourable light to the outside world. Likewise, we do the image process no favours by always accepting with some self-satisfaction the favourable views of others about us. This House is good at what it does. But in our heart of hearts we all know that it could be even better.
However, all is not doom and gloom, and I welcome unreservedly recent steps taken towards a more professional approach, and in particular the appointment of a highly experienced Senior Information Officer to be responsible for developments in this area. I respectfully suggest that her most immediate task must be to gather these disparate, at times even conflicting, threads together and, with others, to get agreed a suitable chain of command and areas of responsibility which are unambiguous and therefore effective. That is a matter of urgency.
I suppose that the irony of the present situation lies in the fact that we as a House repeatedly boast, quite rightly, about having experts within our ranks on every subject under the sun. That includes the public relations industry. Indeed, we have had conspicuous examples of that today. We probably have a greater concentration of experience and expertise within this industry than almost any other that one can think of. However, I suggest that we have failed to take advantage of that bonus. Can we not begin now to make amends by at least establishing an advisory group, call it what you will, to advise those who must often take difficult decisions in these matters? The stakes are now too high for well-intentioned amateurism or conflicting objectives governed by sectional interests.
I believe this to be an important issue. I would accordingly be grateful if the noble Lord the Minister, with his usual kindness, would convey the gist of his remarks to his noble friend the Leader of the House. What the media have to say about us is important. Let us be sure that it will also be as accurate as we can make it.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in view of what the noble Viscount said about the part played by your Lordships' House in this important matter, is it not rather significant that in this debate the Cross Benches are well filled and so are the Government Benches? But the Opposition Benches are almost empty and there are only two members of the Opposition speaking in the debate, the Front-Bench speakers who will wind up.
As the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, broadcasting now influences people's lives so much that it is essential that Parliament should, without interfering with the views expressed, try to ensure that the highest standards are observed. Technically, as was said by the two maiden speakers, we have reason to be proud of the progress made in recent years by the television authorities. Most programmes are presented with great skill and deserve praise. Those on music and opera, history, literature, sport, nature and wildlife are

1531
excellent. One cannot say the same about drama programmes, alas, to which I shall come in a minute, nor programmes about politics, economics, social life and social services. There is an overwhelming tendency in presenting those programmes to concentrate on bad news, even sometimes to the exclusion of good news. If the broadcasters or producers cannot find enough bad news, they inflate some trivial incident so as to turn it into a serious item of bad news.
The broadcasters also ignore or play down the good news about the economy which has done increasingly well in recent years. We do not hear enough about it; people are not told enough. We have done better than other countries in the European Union. That is a deplorable omission and I hope that it will be put right. Economic success must not remain untold.
Another problem to which some of us, including the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, have often drawn attention in past years is the showing in drama programmes of enormous amounts of criminal and sexual behaviour and the use of bad language which undoubtedly has a bad influence. I suggest that it is obviously one of the causes of the great amount of crime and sexual misbehaviour that goes on. The television authorities have been complacent about it. If I may say so with regret, the Broadcasting Standards Commission has so far been much too tolerant.
I am thankful that our splendid Secretary of State for National Heritage recently spoke out against the tolerance of crime and misbehaviour. She deserves all the support we can give her. Broadcasters try to defend some of it by saying that the nine o'clock watershed gives enough protection for children and young people. That is sheer nonsense. It is nonsense partly because some awful programmes are shown before nine o'clock. I am glad to say that I complained of one and the Broadcasting Standards Commission upheld my complaint. It has also been estimated that 53 per cent. of young people have their own television sets which they can turn on when they wish and that 80 per cent. of young people under 16 sit up and watch television.
I conclude with something better. I am glad to say that the financing of the World Service will be £5 million higher than at first intended by the Government. The service does great work for our country. Let us be thankful that it is being given enough money to do so. Long may that last.
English has almost become the international language, the lingua franca of the world. So we must make sure that we give the world, in the display of our own language, customs and behaviour, examples of which we can be proud and not ashamed.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I too am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for this debate. Although I pay warm tribute to the cultural and wildlife programmes and many others, I wish to concentrate on presentation of news and current affairs in television and radio. Radio 4 in particular is so highly regarded by its audience that it has a great responsibility
1532
both to get its facts right and to remember, when interviewing political figures in the entirely proper endeavour to inform the public, that the intrusive arrogance of the presenters only too often frustrates that. It may be good drama or even, in a perverse way, entertainment, but it is not informing the public objectively.
That usually admirable programme, "The Moral Maze", erred recently. I heard asserted last week by one of the participants—not one of the team—that Sinn Fein candidates could get elected but were not allowed by the British Government to take their seats at Westminster. Gerry Adams was indeed elected and became Provisional Sinn Fein MP for West Belfast in 1983. He lists himself in Who's Who as an MP. He did not sit at Westminster for the reason that he himself refused to take the oath. That is a point of fact and not challenged.
Too often Martin McGuinness has been allowed by interviewers to get away with lies and evasions which would never have been tolerated from Ministers or any public figure. There is a double standard here which is disturbing in an organisation normally both well informed and aggressive. In the past it has had an honourable reputation in reporting on Northern Ireland. Now, I fear, it seems ill-informed and ill-briefed. If the World Service is indeed expected—as I believe is proposed—to take some of its news from the domestic services, which will be an important issue. The country must watch it.
I deplore, too, the increasing tendency to use documentaries on eminent people to denigrate them on the pretext of taking a more "objective" look at their lives. The Channel 4 programme on Douglas Bader was an example. It elicited two admirable letters in The Times testifying to his courage, humanity and greatness. This was a man. It is demeaning for little men to try to destroy great ones through the media.
However, our chief concern must be to consider what we should do to prevent the media from making policy for the country according to their own agenda, which is usually a short-term agenda. Increasingly, Ministers seem more concerned to survive an interview with Jeremy Paxman or John Humphrys than to speak to the country through the House of Commons. Too many civil servants from the MoD to the NHS have to spend more time satisfying often wholly unrealistic commitments under the Citizen's Charter—mission statements, market forces and so forth—which now proliferate throughout the country. It is not right that every public body from Royal Commissions to hospitals should be judged by whether they answer the telephone on the fourth ring or whether they have succeeded in achieving a telling sound-bite on television. It is also disturbing, reading the two Civil Service White Papers, to find how much concern is shown there about the presentational skills of civil servants rather than their ability and duty to provide wise advice.
But that is not the fault of the media; it is the fault of government and of political leaders on both sides and, indeed, our fault too. Until they have the courage—as some, like my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, do—to do their jobs without allowing the

1533
media to dictate the agenda, the media will continue to perform the wrong role in a democratic society. It should illuminate events, not seek to influence them.
Everyone knows the definition of those who exercise power without responsibility. I say that with regret because I know many admirable journalists. But it is up to us all to defend the truth by rebutting inaccurate and biased reporting whenever it occurs. Too often we shrug and let it pass. Democracy is worth a little hard work.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, there are too many regulators and ombudsman-like bodies dealing with radio and television. The result is clear: the public interest is not represented in so powerful a way as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and many other speakers would desire.
In the past, when the BBC enjoyed a monopoly position, the governors were more able to fulfil their role as guardians of the public interest. The creation of commercial television meant that both the governors and the IBA were inevitably committed to the success of their organisation as against the other. The inevitable result was that the public interest was diluted. The governors were in a sense directors of the BBC.
In 1977 the Annan Commission noted that neither the governors nor the IBA were making satisfactory responses to public complaints. As a result of that commission the Broadcasting Complaints Commission was set up to deal with complaints of unfairness and infringement of privacy. I was chairman of that commission until two months ago. It is interesting that the Annan Commission in 1977 said that matters of taste and decency could be left entirely to the broadcasters. Yet, within a decade, as a result of public complaint, the Broadcasting Standards Council was set up. It is now to be combined—I supported the combination—with the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. Worthy though those bodies are, they are small and lack teeth and resources.
While I was chairman of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, it made a severe adjudication against a Carlton true-life film called "Beyond Reason". What did Carlton do? It immediately showed the film abroad and made a tidy profit out of it. The fact is that those bodies—the standards council and the complaints commission, even combined, are too weak to influence broadcasters. The governors of the BBC are too closely tied to the interests of the corporation, both its broadcasters and administrators, to best be guardians of the public interest. I suggest that the recent problems over the World Service give certain evidence for that. It is interesting that the Independent Television Commission, the successor of the IBA, as a result of a previous Broadcasting Act now no longer the broadcaster, illustrates the advantages of independence and detachment.
I suggest that the only way in which we can attempt to solve the problems we are discussing today is to set up a national broadcasting commission such as exists in Canada. It would deal with both public and commercial broadcasting and, unlike the Canadian model, could
1534
include an ombudsman role with regard to fairness and privacy as well as deal with taste and decency. It would be both independent and detached. It would not fulfil the role of a director of a broadcasting organisation and it would be very well placed to make some effort to regulate broadcasting in the new and complex digital age.
The picture that was described to us in a maiden speech demands a powerful independent and detached authority. I suggest that in so combining the governors, the ITC the Radio Authority and the complaints commission and standards council in one body, we might at least make a start at solving these problems. Otherwise this debate will go on year after year and we shall make the same complaints and get nowhere.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Ashburton: My Lords, the noble Lord has given us a very good opportunity to air what are extremely important, extremely complex and extremely delicate matters. First, let me say that I have not heard a better clutch of maiden speeches in your Lordships' House than we have enjoyed today. I also say quickly that I believe it is much too easy to say that the media have power when what they have is influence. There is a world of difference between the two words.
I am sorry that the debate is limited for time. Undoubtedly we could go on discussing this matter for much longer. Partly because of that and partly because I rarely watch television, I shall not attempt to address any of the issues that that occasionally frightening medium raises. Visual images are terrifyingly influential. I just say that Matthew Parris, in the Spectator of 20th April this year, focused with considerable wit on the implications of the way programmes are made. I commend his article to your Lordships. In fact, if I did not think that I might infringe copyright, I should have brought copies with me. The article was entitled "Those who work in television lie to each other, lie to the people who go on it and lie to the viewer". I would also recommend, but for the fact that I have mislaid it and cannot remember the author's name, a book by an American, entitled "Amusing ourselves to death". It is a polemical attack on the way in which mass visual communications have inevitably played a large part in reducing the level of comment and discussion of important matters to strings of entertaining sound bites.
The book reminded me forcefully of the time when a number of us in the City wished to try to get rather better comment and took television training. I remember sitting down with half a dozen others and our trainer saying, "I expect you'll be surprised to know that you've got it all wrong. Television is not a way of getting across your opinions. It is a way of entertaining people. Unless you entertain, you will not be on again and, indeed, if you don't entertain collectively, the producer of your programme will find his programme is off the air."
I shall not address the issue of concentration of ownership. Nor shall I comment on the issues raised by commerciality. All the press and most of TV have to reward their owners. It seems to me a waste of time

1535
to hanker after a system in which high minded, disinterested people run newspapers and television stations with the principal aim of improving society. I am convinced that within the present imperfect media set-up an acceptable degree of high minded, responsible reporting and comment is by no means out of reach of at least the press and the printed word. Nor shall I address the questions of taste and personal privacy, which we all feel are scandalously abused.
I should like to focus on the issues of accuracy and the separation of comment and news reporting. I believe that we are often—not always—not very well served on those two issues. I say this despite being a great fan of the printed press and as one who gets by far the greater part of his news and comment from it.
I know that it is easy as one gets older to look back and see better times. I know also, as we all do, how difficult it is to be objective in matters of this kind. But we must not be deterred by that difficulty from arriving at our own judgments. I myself have had plenty of personal experience of inaccuracy. If we had more time, I could quote examples at length. The debate about Europe is a clear and lamentable example going on right at this moment. Certainly, I get the impression from former journalists of my acquaintance that my views are definitely not confined to those outside their profession.
Do accuracy and the separation of news and comment really matter? I believe that they are vital because what is written and what is shown on TV definitely influence people. If it did not do so, advertising would be increasingly ineffective. It is not good enough for the press to shrug off criticism of inaccuracy by saying, "It will all be forgotten tomorrow". No doubt a lot of it is; but there is an awful lot that is not. One only has to listen to people talking to each other about something they have read or seen to realise that the press and TV have a legitimacy that they all too often do not deserve.
The fact is that those who remember things are the most important; they are the ones who are interested in the subject being covered and who are concerned with what is going on. For them to be misled is inexcusable. Nor is it good enough to say that journalists have to meet deadlines and that this precludes proper research or verification. If there is any doubt, then they should not publish. I know it is hard and may affect the success of one organ, in commercial terms, as against another. But it is right that they should not publish.
The adulteration of news with opinion is not new, but if the dissemination of facts is a pre-requisite for sensible discussion of the implications of those facts, then news and opinion have to be separated. The debate on Europe at the moment demonstrates that yet again. I know it is difficult; I know it is often caused by lack of time; but it is not good enough. The least we can do is draw attention to it and hope for improvement. Journalism is too important for it to become a series of ego trips for young people on the make.
The licence to publish, which is the tacit agreement between society and the news media, demands that the highest standards of accuracy are observed. I am disinclined to blame the owners of newspapers and
1536
inclined to believe that the responsibility must lie with the editors. Wherever responsibility lies, the press and TV are a vital part of the democratic society we know and they owe it to us always to act in a way that shows they deserve their position.
5.2 p.m.
The Earl of Cromer: My Lords, perhaps I may join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for so trenchantly initiating a debate which raises issues that go to the heart of government in an open society. First, I should declare a family interest for my kinsman, the noble Lord, Lord Rothermere, presides genially over Associated Newspapers.
It was exactly 30 years ago that I left these shores to live in the Far East. There I was gainfully employed as a journalist covering several Asian countries. It did not take me long to discover that in many countries in that part of the world both free reporting and real democracy are either banished or emasculated. Democracy and a free press are as inseparable as tyranny and censorship. Here a free press is part of the air we breathe, so much so that we are in danger of taking it for granted.
In the Far East I found mass circulation newspapers in totalitarian countries that purported to be the voice of the people but in fact permitted no breath of criticism of the ruling regime and no genuine freedom of expression to their readers.
In Britain we have real people's dailies; "tabloids" they are called. How often that word trips with a sneer off the tongue of the powerful and the privileged. To be sure, the tabloids are no respecters of personages. They can be brash, unruly and raucous. They have an insatiable appetite for scandal. They probe; they pry; they print things about important or notorious men and women which important or notorious men and women would rather they did not print.
But there are, these days, those who are not amused by the tabloid press. In recent years there have been growing demands from among the great and good for newspapers to be curbed. Their preference is for some sort of privacy law. Reports have been commissioned; Green Papers produced. An array of possible instruments of potential legal torture has been brandished with intended deterrent effect before the eyes of editors and journalists. But the Government—wisely, in my view—have refrained from committing themselves to statutory action.
I could be mistaken but I have not sensed any strong public demand for a privacy law. There is no evidence which I have seen to indicate a rising incidence of unwarrantable intrusion by newspapers in recent years into the private lives of ordinary people. If anything, the reverse. My guess is that one running story above all others generated a political head of steam for the enactment of a privacy law. I refer to press coverage—some of it undoubtedly deplorable—of the circumstances that led to the break-up of a royal marriage. With that in mind, I do understand why, in this Palace of Westminster, a privacy law has its proponents.
But we should be wary, very wary, of passing general laws which may derive emotive force from so special a circumstance. Disclosure is the life blood of a robust

1537
press. There is all the difference in the world between a press release and a newspaper story. Press releases are what those who write them want publicised; newspaper stories offer their readers a revealing glimpse of what those in charge of official information would rather keep confidential, secret, or (dare I say it?) private.
Powerful establishments—elected or not—will use every means at their disposal to manage the news. They love to brief—and loath leaks. Give those in positions of authority or power a choke chain to discipline the hounds of the press and as fast as they can find a judge to issue an injunction they will use it.
Enthusiasts for a privacy law seek to make it more palatable by pointing out that it would contain a public interest defence for newspapers. What a gold mine for lawyers that would be as they argue interminably over just where the line should be drawn in each case between the individual's right to privacy and the public's right to know. I am not persuaded that we should go down that statutory route. Newspapers are not above the law. But nor should they be subject to special laws. Self-regulation is still the best way for the British press, and for democracy.
With a more sharply focused code of conduct and under the shrewd and firm guidance of my noble friend Lord Wakeham I believe that the Press Complaints Commission is doing a good job. The more mindful editors are of censure from the PCC, the more confidence the general public can have in the regulatory value of that body.
There has been much talk of journalists "drinking in the last chance saloon". As one of our number who can hear the constitutional tumbrel rumbling outside this very Chamber, I must say, in conclusion, that I have very considerable feeling for them.
5.7 p.m
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, the media are keen to accuse politicians and others of telling lies, yet many members of the media are themselves masters of inaccuracy and often totally mislead their readers with complete disregard for the truth.
Whenever one goes to an event and reads about it afterwards, one cannot recognise it as being the same event. Film makers are happy to distort history to tell a good tale; interviewers will create the picture that they want and not what they find. For example, one lady was interviewed, Iwas told, due to her prowess in the field of cooking and asked to give a dinner party for the BBC to film. After dinner the guests were inveigled out of the house and the TV crew then upset all the bottles and glasses over the table in order to pretend that the party had been an orgy. That was totally dishonest reporting and luckily it was not allowed to show the film.
Another example nearer home was the presentation by "Cutting Edge" of the House of Lords. The director set out to prove her prejudice and, by careful selection, she succeeded; she quite deliberately and blatantly misled her audience.
The media picture themselves as the upholders of rectitude, but many members of the media have neither principles nor scruples. Many programmes seem to revel
1538
in how many four-letter words can be used in a fixed time. Can one wonder that the standard of morals, of manners and of speech have so deteriorated? Film and video have revelled in the presentation of sadistic violence, and there is a claim by TV that it does not influence people's actions. I can give two examples. "Money Train" pictured an inflammable liquid being sprayed into a ticket clerk's booth and set afire. The following day an identical incident took place in Brooklyn, resulting in the horrific death of a ticket clerk. In July 1996 it was reported in The Times that a 14 year-old schoolboy tried to cut off a woman's head with a nine-inch carving knife in Lincoln, consequent to watching a horror film, "The Predator", while under the effect of LSD.
There is not the slightest doubt that some people have their fantasies fuelled by violence and pornography and cease to be in control of themselves. They have to be punished for the subsequent crimes they commit, but the blame lies with the subversive media and the purveyors of violence who temporarily turn those people into zombie-monsters. Famous actors are now speaking out against Hollywood's obsession with the glorification of anti-heroes, with their greed, vulgarity and violence.
Then there is the whole question of intrusion into privacy. The private lives of public people are constantly exposed, even what they did 30 years ago. What on earth has it to do with anyone else what people have done in the past with their private lives as long as it does not affect or have a direct bearing on their official position? I hope we will not become like America where good men are deterred from standing for office because they fear the exposure of some indiscretion many years back in their lives.
Media intrusion destroys lives without any scruple, condemning as guilty without trial men who are left with their lives wrecked for the sake of increased circulation. It is sad that heroes are constantly debunked. It is a natural instinct of man to want to look up to a leader, whether it is dad at the head of the table or royalty at the head of the country. Every leader is human and has his faults, but the media do us no service by constantly trying to identify them. Let us be allowed to keep people in our minds as heroes for us to try to emulate. Perhaps we would then find it easier to behave better ourselves to our neighbours.
Of course the media have their good programmes and their good reporters, but there is a lot of scope for them to clean up their own act before they criticise others. The media have power without responsibility. They must exercise that power with care.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Chalfont for his persistence in keeping this important subject on the Order Paper for so long.
Having been the victim of media hounding—indeed, international media hounding—for a week, I just wish to make one point and give several examples to back up my plea for a greater degree of accuracy in the media. But before doing so I would like to expand on one of the points of my noble friend Lord Annan. I feel certain

1539
that the fear of media exposure is what keeps many intelligent and gifted people out of politics. That must be to the detriment of our country. I also completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton. The nine o'clock watershed, particularly in the age of video recorders, is a complete and utter farce, and I would urge the Minister to look once again at this most important aspect. It is also interesting to note during a debate in your Lordships' House on the media how remarkably empty the press box has been.
We are often told never to believe what we read in the papers but sadly I fear that the vast majority of people do believe exactly what they read. That is why I believe we must aim for a higher degree of accuracy and truth within the media. The examples I wish to give are as follows. Last week in the press an elderly Labour Peer who has served his country with distinction was criticised for having a 100 per cent. attendance record in your Lordships' House and yet had only voted in 33 per cent. of the Divisions. The public are unaware that Divisions often take place at night when, if he has any sense, the noble Lord in question is safely tucked up in his bed. But that was not made clear or implied in the article.
Secondly, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, in another article last week, was reported as being the heir to Lord Burleigh. It really should be simple for reporters to check their facts. Last Saturday, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, had been raised to the rank of a Duke in a broadsheet magazine. Surely these simple mistakes ought not to occur. But perhaps what I minded most of all about recently was a newspaper article on the Dukes of the United Kingdom. I feel certain that most of what was written was irrelevant, uninteresting and prefabricated. I know for sure that in one particular case an article about one Duke was simply not true and it could certainly have caused a great deal of undeserved distress. It is for these reasons that I believe we must all strive to have a much greater degree of accuracy in our media.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for bringing this debate to the attention of your Lordships today. Let me say from the outset that I believe strongly in free, democratic and responsible media. That is one of the great freedoms of our country.
The Press Complaints Commission was set up in 1991 and after 18 months Sir David Calcutt in his report concluded that press self-regulation under the Press Complaints Commission had not been effective.
I shall make three points. First, the code of practice, ratified by the Press Complaints Commission on 30th October this year, states in clause 1 that newspapers and periodicals should take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted material. Clause 3 states that newspapers, while free to be partisan, should distinguish clearly between comment, opinion and conjecture. While these are welcome codes
1540
of practice, it has to be emphasised that inaccurate reporting can mislead and undermine the perception of the public, which is a most serious matter.
If a more responsible attitude from the media is to be established, it will require a strengthening of the disciplinary powers of the Press Complaints Commission chairman, which should include the authority of dismissal of those responsible for frequent breaches of the code. In addition, a statutory press ombudsman should be appointed to whom the public can appeal. He should be given statutory powers to deal with the wording and prominence of apologies and authority to order payment of compensation and the imposition of fines. But are compensation and fines any real deterrent to the media? In cases of frequent and persistent breaches of the agreed code the ombudsman should have the power to impose limited bans on the publishing and broadcasting of the media.
My second point concerns clause 4 of the code of practice, which covers intrusion and inquiries into an individual's private life without his or her consent, including the use of long-lens photography. This clause is only justified when the facts show that the public interest is served. I cannot agree that the interests of the public take precedence over a right to privacy; and if the interests of the public are so significant, then the recognised agencies of the police, Customs and Security Service should be involved and not journalists.
I disagree with the Government's conclusion that there is not sufficient public consensus on which to base statutory intervention. There is little doubt in my mind that there is a strong feeling within the general public that the media abuse the rights of privacy. May I ask my noble friend from what evidence and on what basis the Government came to this conclusion? They have stated that, in principle, there is a case for the introduction of offences in relation to the intrusion on privacy. In this respect I believe that Her Majesty's Government should try harder to construct legislation which in practice would be sufficiently workable to be responsibly brought to the statute book.
I now come to my third and last point, the protection of military information in time of war and conflict. It is a most important subject, as without great care it can put at risk the lives of our servicemen and impose unnecessary stress on military commanders. To illustrate this point, during the Falklands campaign copy was filed through a ship's captain which read, "We are sailing in thick fog in the South Atlantic". The words "in thick fog" had to be deleted because there was only one area of fog in the whole of the South Atlantic and this would therefore have pinpointed the position of the fleet to the enemy. Likewise, there is a requirement to ensure that reporters on their own initiative do not use their satellite dishes reporting in real time to the media systems back in the United Kingdom. As General Cordingley said in the Gulf War, journalists should allow their copy to be seen by the military before transmission to correct factual errors and to stop security breaches.
In time of conflict and war, some form of censorship will be necessary and I should like to ask the Ministry of Defence, through my noble friend, what action has

1541
been taken to implement the recommendations contained in General Sir Hugh Beach's report in Command Paper 9112.
Overall, I am left with the feeling that press self-regulation will work only if a statutory ombudsman is appointed with the appropriate sanctions and strong deterrents to deal with the failure of the media to report accurately. Even tighter codes of practice need to be established for intrusions into privacy; and sensitive censorship will have to be agreed for times of war and tension. This will have to be carefully balanced with the important need for the public to be fully informed of the conduct of war operations.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I am extremely displeased with my noble friend Lord Cromer, who said everything that 1 wanted to say but a great deal better. However, I shall go on to lament that among the many noble Lords who have put down their names to speak in this debate we do not see the names of the noble Lords, Lord Stevens, Lord Rothermere, and Lord Hollick, nor those of the past editors of The Times and the Daily Telegraph, the noble Lords, Lord Rees-Mogg, and Lord Deedes, all gentlemen who may be expected to have the most particular interest and expertise in this subject. Nor, but for different reasons, do we see the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hussey. I fully understand his case: within the confines of the time allowed he would not have been able to give the subject the attention which he could undoubtedly give it.
The proprietors have never been good at explaining the vital importance of newspapers and television to the life of the country or at defending their products against the powerful attacks which are made upon them. It is thus left to lesser mortals, such as the old hack and noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, to whom we must be most grateful for today's debate, to do it for them. Indeed, 1 must declare an interest as a pensioner of the Daily Telegraph.
It is impossible to deny the excesses and aberrations of the media, particularly of the newspapers—excesses which are fostered to some extent by the journalists themselves. Nobody who has joined in the schools of journalistic excellence which gather, or rather used to gather, in such establishments as the Mucky Duck, the Stab in the Back or the Kings and Keys can doubt the delight with which they expose the activities of those who would rather not have their activities exposed.
It is only too easy to show how newspapers have printed items for which there can be little possible excuse for exposure in terms of morality, propriety or, for many people, interest. It has to be said, however, that the majority of the British public have not the sophistication of Members of your Lordships' House. The tabloid papers print what their readers want to see. The phrase "lowest common denominator" comes easily to mind. If the readers did not want to read what is printed, they would not buy such papers.
Throughout the debate on Monday on the Firearms (Amendment) Bill ran the thread of the media coverage of Dunblane, with particular reference to, the
1542
disgracefully hysterical attacks in the Sun and Daily Mirror on my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. But sadly—this is not intended as a pun—the regulation of newspapers is a matter of black and white and it is not, and should not be allowed to be, a question of allowing those sins that we have a mind to and banning those that we are not inclined to.
The code of conduct of the Press Complaints Commission, whose chairman, my noble friend Lord Wakeham, is also absent from the list of today's speakers—although he may still be recovering from being attacked by my wife in another forum yesterday—covers all that could be required. The code is, however, a fantasy unless the newspapers are prepared to accept the principle of effective self-regulation; and that, in the opinion of those who disapprove of the activities of the press, they have not shown themselves prepared adequately to do in spite of their affirmation to the contrary.
It is a matter of balance. Either newspapers may publish within the bounds of libel or they may not. The emasculation of the press in France and Belgium and in all countries where it is controlled and censored by government is the reason why corruption is able to flourish. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, delights in the privacy laws in France. Does he also delight in the crookeries that go on in such countries because of the inability of their media to expose them? Unless the press has the legal right and the will to expose the ills of our society, it must fail. Its duty is "to inform, to instruct, and to entertain" and of these "to inform" is the most important—to inform about all that is going on, not just what a certain body of society or the Government think that it should. It is ironic, however, that the most regrettable of the undesirable effects of censorship should have come from the newspapers themselves in the shape of Robert Maxwell who stopped anything appearing in his newspaper or, by threats of libel, in others. I hope that that was just one aberration.
I once wept on the shoulder of my right honourable friend Edward Heath when I was done up in Private Eye, to which reference has also been made. Mr. Heath just looked at me and said, "Once?". We all have to grin and bear it for the greater good.
5.26 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, this debate started with a very authoritative and knowledgeable speech by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, as one would expect. Since then we have had three fascinating maiden speeches and many varied contributions from all parts of the House.
Newspapers have always criticised the Government—'twas ever thus, and I hope that it will continue. We need a free press. Censorship would be fatal, except in time of war, as my noble friend Lord Vivian pointed out. However, in recent years one has sometimes wondered whether the newspapers have not accrued unto themselves an excessive amount of authority. Whole campaigns are conducted; politicians and public figures are hounded and private lives are invaded. I sometimes wonder who is governing the country, Parliament or the

1543
press. The press seems to be setting the agenda and Parliament seems to be completely mesmerised, if not paralysed, by it. I am afraid that it sometimes seems as if Parliament connives with the press.
If the press is to claim the moral high ground, it must realise that it has taken on a very great responsibility. I like to think that it will act accordingly, but I rather fear that that may represent a triumph of hope over expectation.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I intervene very briefly to call your Lordships' attention to one influence on the destructive role of the media in our democratic society. This is the influence of our cultural and media studies courses in higher education and perhaps elsewhere in our education system. Many of the graduates from those courses go on to work in our media. As far as I know, the vast majority of those courses are still in the grip of bias from the gender, race and class brigade who teach them.
I am not suggesting any attack on academic freedom, but your Lordships will be aware that there is no system of quality control as such in higher education, merely a system of quality assurance. So I feel sure that an unbiased public examination of the content of these courses would lead to their becoming more balanced academically. That, in turn, would lead to a gradual but valuable improvement in the quality and the views of those who work in our media.
5.28 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on having a former Times journalist's eye for a good story. If all noble Lords who had originally put down their names to speak in today's debate had done so and if we had all been given somewhat longer in which to speak—say, 10 minutes—the debate would have lasted six or eight hours.
We have heard three outstanding maiden speeches. I can advise the noble Lord, Lord Wrottesley, that he should not worry about describing himself as "an amateur" because he will quickly find that that is a badge of honour in this House.
I have three reasons for congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Chadlington. The first is the natural courtesy of this House. The second is that it really was a very good speech. Thirdly, congratulating the noble Lord is a good career move for me because he is the chairman of the company that employs me.
The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, was modest in not mentioning among his list of the world's great slogans "Labour isn't working". I was in the opposite bunker when that campaign was launched. It was like discovering that the other side had a new secret weapon. It changed in a qualitative way the relationship between politics and the media for others to follow, in much the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, my noble friend Lord Mayhew and Mr. Wedgwood Benn changed
1544
television politics in the late 1950s on behalf of the Labour Party. The 1979 Saatchi campaign was a quantum leap.
One matter that has not emerged in today's debate is that politicians are not entirely passive creatures in their relationship with the media. Over the past 40 years the relationship between politics and the media is one in which politicians have become technically more sophisticated. Politicians have become media trained and groomed. Expressions such as "spin doctor", "negative campaigning", "rapid rebuttle units" and "soundbites" have entered our language as politicians try to influence the media. Political parties devote massive resources to press relations. To understand that one has only to look at the new Labour Party media centre on Millbank.
The two main political parties in this country will probably spend about £50 million in the coming General Election campaign. A great part of that money will be spent in trying to influence and shape the media. We have come a long way since the time that Francis Williams sought to persuade Lord Attlee to put a news tape machine in 10 Downing Street on the grounds that it would give him the cricket scores. Twenty years later when I worked at Downing Street it was still referred to as the cricket machine.
Today, political leaders are obsessed with the media. At the same time, the media have become more intrusive into the private lives of great men. One wonders which Prime Ministers would have survived under today's media spotlight—certainly not Lloyd George or Churchill.
The media seek not just to report news but to shape it. The headline "It was the Sun that won it" is disturbing, not least because subsequent academic studies showed that indeed the Sun might have won it last time for the Conservatives. It is worrying that this time there are all the signs that other newspapers want to compete with the Sun, not in reporting and analysing the election campaign, but in influencing it. Will it be the Mirror that wins it as well as the Sun or whatever? Even the broadsheets have stopped reporting parliamentary speeches. True analysis is being increasingly replaced by polemics. This is true not just of the General Election. Others have referred to the reporting of European matters in the same vein.
It is not only in print that the responsibility to educate and inform has slipped into a backwater. Peak time television makes no attempt to report the parliamentary day other than in terms of soundbites and knockabout. There is pressure not only on commercial channels to move news and current affairs to the sidelines. One is told that viewers cannot concentrate on any issue for more than three minutes. Great problems are reduced to cartoon form. Every interview has to be a demonstration of interviewer machismo.
The result of all this manipulation by politicians and aggression by the media is that the public is both cynical and apathetic about the parliamentary and democratic process. Of course, the media have a duty to rake for muck and expose sleaze and to probe and to question. But it is no accident that at a time when politics and

1545
politicians are held in such low esteem by the public the public's view of the media is not much higher. I believe that there is a need for both politicians and the media to put their respective houses in order. There is a need for a freedom of information Act to open up our over-secretive government. There is also a need for stronger self-regulation to protect the individual from invasions of privacy. My party, like others, draws back from advocating a privacy law, but there are signs of a need to strengthen self-regulation. We look to the media to do that.
There is a need to protect both the print and broadcast media from the over-concentration of power and ownership. In that regard, one looks closely at the decision to be made by the Government about digital access and the growing power of Mr. Murdoch. I know very well that Mr. Murdoch has shown entrepreneurial courage in attaining his present position, but I believe that he has been amply rewarded for that already. There is now a need for control and responsibility.
That brings me to the role of the BBC. As the communications revolution gathers pace, it becomes more and more important that the BBC is retained as an iron pole of quality in our broadcasting system. I do not agree with many of the criticisms that have been made tonight of the BBC or the broadcasters. However, if one is spending £1.5 billion of public money, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and his colleagues have every right to question it and the BBC has every responsibility to answer their criticisms. But there is danger that there will be a Gresham's Law of broadcasting under which the trivial will force out the serious and the mission to entertain will swamp that to educate and inform. In those circumstances, it is essential to retain the BBC's capacity to fulfil its charter responsibilities.
I recently wrote to the Minister about the impending rise in the BBC licence fee. The Government have been reticent in this matter. I hope that that is because a great and successful battle is being waged within government to guarantee that, having given the BBC a charter to carry out its public service responsibilities, it is to be given the revenue and means to carry them out.
Relations between politicians and the media should never be comfortable and cosy. Both of us are essential to the workings of a democratic society but we fulfil different roles. To fulfil our respective roles requires mutual respect. That respect must be earned by both politicians and journalists. Perhaps I may quote the late Lord Bancroft. He said,
"Conviction politicians, yes. Conviction Civil Servants, no".
One may equally say, "Conviction journalists, no", when conviction gets in the way of truth and objectivity.
We must not get the situation out of balance. There were no good old days. It is 60 years since Baldwin spoke about the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages—power without responsibility. It was just over 40 years ago that Aneurin Bevan said that this country had the most prostituted press in the world. The idea that things have become worse may be somewhat erroneous. It is important to remember when discussing the tension between the media and politicians that recently in Serbia when people wanted to
1546
demonstrate their desire for freedom they lit candles outside the television station; and the last message from the radio station in Hungary in 1956 as the Soviet tanks rolled in was, "Don't forget us". We need good democrats to make democracy work, and it is the responsibility of both the politicians and the media to make sure that they are in good supply in our society.
5.40 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I, too, join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for putting down this debate for today. It is an issue that he has followed assiduously. We shared many a late night earlier this year on the Broadcasting Bill. It is said that timing is everything. This week the House Magazine has a major article on the media. That article, this debate and the announcement of the regulation of digital broadcasting which was made yesterday by the Government are all timely.
Members of this House are greatly obliged to the noble Lord for giving us the opportunity of today's debate. My noble friend Lord Donoughue very much regrets that he is not here today standing in the place in which I am standing. That is because the dreaded "lergy", the flu, has knocked him down. I extend his apologies to the House.
We have heard three maiden speeches, all from the same Benches. Two of the new noble Lords come from a similar discipline. I hope I am following the urging of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, in saying that the three speeches were on the button; they touched the spot. I look forward to hearing the contributions that all three noble Lords will make in this House in the coming years, particularly on the challenging issues of the convergence of the media, the super highway, the Internet, and all the global issues which are very much the issues of today.
The role of the print and broadcast media is central to any democracy. We are unanimous on that. The quality of that media can influence the workings of democracy in either a positive or a negative way. For the media to influence positively they have to be free, independent and carry responsibilities—the responsibility to inform, to explain, to report the fact and, yes, to entertain. Some noble Lords, as we have heard during the debate, do not feel that those responsibilities have been honoured fully by the media.
In this House, I am reminded almost every day that our nation is a hotch-potch of contradictions, of checks and balances, and of many imperfections. That was brought into sharp focus for me on Monday this week when I came to the House and tried to pick my way through a car park jammed with limousines bringing in speakers I had neither seen nor heard before in this Chamber, most of whom were here to oppose a Bill which the public so clearly want on the statute book. So no one is perfect. No one reflects perfectly the views of the wider world.
Do we really kid ourselves that we wish to return to the so-called golden age of reporting? If I had been born at the time of the abdication and had been a British

1547
citizen, I should have taken great exception to the fact that the rest of the world knew what was happening with the monarch while we in Britain did not know. That was the media of those days.
In his interesting contribution the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, said that he was surprised that there was no one here from the proprietors. I agree with him. It took me back to the old days when I knew the noble Lord—if he will forgive me—as Hugh Lawson, when he was on one side of the table as the employer and I was on the other as the trade unionist. With due respect to the noble Lord, in the debate we will get on with it, and I am sure that the outcome will be a good one.
We must acknowledge that the media do a good job. They do a good job more often than they do a bad job. The problem is that when they do a bad job they are extremely destructive. I accept—as a member of the Press Complaints Commission I am only too well aware of this—that often the press goes over the top, so to speak, with its reporting. Only 8 per cent. of the over 2,000 complaints that the PCC receives each year are about invasions of privacy.
What must also be worrying is that some people say that they do not complain because they are afraid that due to complaining they will be further harassed and will become even greater victims. None of us can condone that. I, like many others in the Chamber, have been a victim of media harassment and media misreporting. It is hurtful, but it is not sufficient reason to have statutory regulation of the press. It seems that when the dogs are in full cry anything goes—editors and press lords excepted of course, because they are in their own magic circle, unlike the rest of us.
It is wrong but it still happens that facts and comment are mixed up by the media. It is wrong but it still happens that what is in the public interest is too often mixed with what is of public interest. There I agree with the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, the chairman of the PCC—I know that he regrets that he cannot be here today—and the seven questions that he has put to the press for editors when they are dealing with issues which all too often they say are in the public interest.
Perhaps we should make this an annual event, because on 20th December last year there was a debate on cheque book journalism. One of the points made in that debate was that if witnesses are paid, court cases may be affected, and that the prosecution and the defence should know about it. That point is now part of the code of practice for any journalist in Britain who works under that code.
I believe that a democratic society needs a highly competitive press, warts and all, free of party or government domination, which uncovers those things which many people may be more comfortable not reading. Yet in recent times the worlds of the City, politics, local government, the police, and royalty and, yes, the Church, have had an uncomfortable spotlight put upon them. In most cases our indignant response has been that the media have gone too far. However, on further probing we found that the great merchant bank
1548
of Barings had been managed appallingly, to the loss of many ordinary people; we found that a Member of another place had managed to persuade that place and this place to amend a 300 year-old Act of Parliament to bring a libel action. Then he did not proceed because the Guardian had the guts to stand its ground. We then found that a Government Whip had lied—sorry, dissembled—to his colleagues in another place. We found that royalty had been briefing the media against one another, and, yes, there was to be a divorce, so the tabloids were, regretfully, right. We even found that inside that splendid cathedral at Lincoln, peace and harmony were not the rule. Against that background, it is important that we have a free but responsible press.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, referred to Belgium. Would we in this country have had the situation they had in Belgium? Would not a paedophile ring and the murder of young children have been exposed sooner in this country? I believe that they would. Those press reports on the children's homes, which have rightly caused a great deal of discomfort, have been pursued by the media. We need to have a free media who are not necessarily covered by statutory regulation.
Many noble Lords have, rightly, covered broadcasting. It is an area of which I feel we can be proud. Yes, there are lapses, but the lapses are far fewer than the occasions on which the broadcasters get it right. I greatly regret that the Government refused to accept the amendments from this side of the Chamber to give the ITC the right to establish a quality threshold when granting licences. I believe that we shall live to regret that.
I welcome the two major BBC initiatives—the statement of promises to viewers and listeners (over 200 of them) and the new producers' guidelines. That does not mean that I welcome everything that the broadcast media do. But it does mean that we have a balance. It is the checks and balances which are important in any democracy.
There has been a long established tradition in Britain of high standards because of the regulation that we have. There needs to be continuing and improving regulation. As the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, has said, it must improve because the alternative for the press is a compensation scheme, fines and the judiciary interfering with the press. None of us in this Chamber wants that.
I conclude with one point. A fair, balanced, impartial media are never more important than at the time of a general election. We are coming up to that soon—sooner than later, I hope. The media in Britain will be on trial, whether they are the press or the broadcast media. They have the responsibility to match the very best of standards and to ensure that they report fact and not fact mixed with comment, that they report the facts as they are and deal with the whole issue impartially. I finish by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for this debate.
5.50 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, I must begin my remarks by echoing the

1549
concluding remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and thanking the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who has triggered a wide-ranging and stimulating debate which I am sure will reverberate beyond the walls of this Chamber. Before responding to the comments that he and other noble Lords have made—I cannot respond verbally to everything that has been said but I shall write to those whose comments I do not touch upon! should like to underscore the remarks made by a number of your Lordships about our maiden speakers. First, my noble friend Lord Saatchi, the distinguished founder of the well-known advertising agency and patron of the arts, enjoined us all to keep it simple and did so himself. My noble friend Lord Chadlington pointed out the implications of the technological changes which are taking place and gave us the benefit of his experience, distinguished career and first-hand knowledge. My noble friend Lord Wrottesley showed us that there is no such thing as an amateur member of the public. We look forward to hearing more from each and all of them in the future.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, although they do not have a distinct collective legal personality, the press, as they were known before the advent of broadcasting, or the media, as they are now called, have a central role in the healthy functioning of a modern, western society, whose essential characteristics are freedom under the law, democracy, accountability, and transparency. The Fourth Estate is an integral element of such a society, lubricating the proper relationships between the citizen and the legislature, executive and judiciary. Indeed without it, these four could not interact properly.
It is, of course, the characteristic, par excellence, of the British constitution that there is a sensitive interrelationship between its essential components, maintained by a carefully crafted web of checks and balances. And of course these checks and balances—both statutory and administrative—apply in respect of the media and always have done. Since the earliest days it has been recognised that the press and broadcasters are different from the rest of the commercial world of which they are part. Not merely can the media be used as an instrument of political power or influence either by those within or without the formal political process, it is also in a democratic society an essential tool to provide information be it factual, opinion, or investigative, without which democracy itself breaks down. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ashburton, and reinforced by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, it needs to be identifiably distinct.
But if the media behave in a manner so they damage rather than contribute to the healthy working of our constitution and society then the rest of the system is entitled, indeed not merely entitled but compelled, to act to restore the balance.
It is also characteristic of a free society that even within these areas where under the general law there, is no general constraint on the exercise of freedom,
1550
that freedom must not be exercised in a way which unjustifiably hurts others. And this, of course, is as true for the media as for everyone else.
The media are indeed a remarkable sector because they have a unique place and status in contemporary Britain underscored by our accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. Their status accords the press and broadcasters great privileges, power and influence and in turn is dependent upon the exercise of great responsibility. As Kipling put it:
"The Pope may launch his Interdict,
The Union its decree,
But the bubble is blown and the bubble is pricked
by Us and such as We.
Remember the battle and stand aside
While Thrones and Powers confess
That King over all the children of pride
is the Press-the Press-the Press!".
We must not overlook one important distinction between the printed and broadcast forms of the media. Technologically, these distinctions will soon blur, but for now they are still clear and are reflected in the framework in which they operate. The print media have always, and rightly, valued their freedom to editorialise—to take a view on the issues of the day and to promote that view. The broadcast media, on the other hand, are required by statute to be impartial. Some noble Lords have questioned their performance in that regard but the obligation placed on them in this respect is unambiguous.
The reason for this is that broadcasters have a particular power to influence our opinions; their message comes into all our homes in a way in which print never did. For that reason, they are subject to a layer of regulation beyond the usual protection afforded the public by our general laws on libel, defamation, obscenity, confidence, fair trade and so forth. Programme makers are under an obligation to meet a series of programming requirements—for example, to be accurate and impartial and to "do no harm"—while the free-to-air public service broadcasters, which are the heart of our system and are part of the information infrastructure of contemporary society, are subject to even more rigorous positive programming requirements.
Undoubtedly, despite some of the problems we experience from time to time, the UK enjoys across the whole media a range and quality of information, entertainment and opinion admired all over the world.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has drawn attention to the contrast between the ideal and the actual role of the journalist in our society. Certainly, I agree with John Birt, quoted by the noble Lord, that:
"journalism is not an end in itself; it is a means to an end … we need to assert that journalism's highest purpose is to inform the citizenry."
Like the noble Lord, my noble friend Lady Park and others, I too find some examples of journalism—in its techniques too often cocksure and hectoring and in its content too often underinformed and researched—pretty depressing and degrading. There can be no doubt that too often journalism fails to achieve John Birt's aspiration, but as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said in his book On the Constitution:

1551
"It is not a pretty picture … Perhaps bad taste is the price we pay for freedom. If so, it may be worth paying. But it is, by any standards, a price which is disagreeably high".
In this country the press has not been subject to executive control in peacetime for three centuries. The print media enjoy freedom of expression, which means the freedom to cover or not to cover any aspect of life. They are subject to the general law in the same way as any other citizen. On top of this there is a voluntary code of practice which has been agreed by the newspaper industry and is interpreted by the Press Complaints Commission. It is an integral, albeit a self-regulating element of the framework society has set for the press, which regulates the means by which journalists obtain stories which they choose to follow, while simultaneously calling for high journalistic and professional standards, inherent in the behaviour demanded by the code of conduct.
My noble friend Lord Vivian raised the issue of the reporting of military activity and the possible consequences of so doing. I shall pass on his request to my noble friend Lord Howe in order to ensure that he receives the reply he seeks.
The responsibilities of the press as a whole are exercised via the actions and activities of proprietors, editors and journalists. They are responsible both jointly and severally for whether the press actually plays its proper part in society, as I have already mentioned. Certainly there is a wide divergence in the quality of its performance which cannot merely be explained away by subjective differences of taste.
As I have already mentioned, broadcasters are subject to much tighter rules than the press in respect of news reporting and impartiality. The BBC's responsibilities for impartiality and accuracy are now at the heart of its new Charter and Agreement, which noble Lords debated earlier this year. The revised Producer's Guidelines reflect this, and the Statement of Promises makes clear the corporation's commitment to its viewers. All commercial broadcasters—terrestrial, satellite and cable—have similar conditions written into their licences.
There are well-established rights of complaint and redress, whether through the BBC governors, the Independent Television Commission or the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. I believe that we have a well balanced structure in place, enabling this powerful medium to be properly regulated independent of government in the wider public interest with due respect for journalistic, editorial and artistic freedom.
I turn now to the treatment of violence. As my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out, this is an issue of particular concern to the Heritage Secretary and she has recently agreed an initiative with the BBC, ITC and BSC to give the public a more informed choice about what they view and assistance to parents in exercising proper parental control over their children's viewing. She will also, I know, be paying close attention to research which is being conducted on a number of fronts into television violence, its effects and the options for protecting vulnerable viewers.
1552
We must rationally examine the nature and extent of the problem, which is by no means clear at present. For example, the increase in general concern about violence coincides with a measured fall in the amount of violence actually shown on terrestrial television. We must look at the kinds of violence portrayed, the context in which it is shown and the different ends to which it is portrayed. For example, how should one compare the "Duchess of Malfi" or "Titus Andronicus" with the Bruno v. Tyson fight or "Cracker"? At the same time we must also look at public opinion: at how many and what sort of people view television violence; at how critically and in what context they view; at their reactions; at whether people complain about what they actually see themselves or merely about what they have read is to be shown. It is interesting, for example, that the European Commission in its recently published Green Paper on the protection of minors and human dignity in audiovisual services specifically comments:
"There is a wide gap between the Nordic countries which are tough on violent material, but easy going where sexually explicit material is concerned, and the Latin countries which are tough on sex but less so on violence".
Only when we examine the evidence fully, and analyse it properly, should we consider taking fundamental decisions of principle. It may be that there is a need for some other safeguard, whether technological like the V-chip, on which we have recently published a paper, or by some other means. I simply ask that we sift the evidence and give thought to the best way to proceed.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, referred to perverted forms of sex and obscene and offensive language on television. Although that topic was not mentioned specifically by many noble Lords, the principles underlying the noble Lord's concern about that issue were not far under the surface. I know that his concerns are shared by many viewers.
While violence is the issue named by viewers generally as that which causes most concern, it is on matters of taste and decency that most complaints to broadcasters are received. Self-evidently it is not possible for every programme fully to accommodate every viewers' personal preferences, but again there are guidance codes for broadcasters on the standards to be observed and these are enforced by the regulators. The regulator acted, for example, against "Brookside" for its portrayal of an incestuous relationship—not because this issue should not be dealt with, but because it was not handled responsibly. In particular, "family viewing" provisions are intended to ensure that programmes likely to be seen by children are acceptable, and I know that the regulators intend shortly to publicise and explain this policy.
That is clearly an area in which better advance information would allow viewers to avoid programmes which are likely to offend them, and to protect children from viewing unsuitable material, although one has to be aware, as my teenage nephew and niece reminded me recently, that the identification of unsuitability may be one of the greatest attractions to viewing and that on the whole they are more adept

1553
at unlocking the electronic key than their parents. Nevertheless, I look forward to seeing proposals for providing such information in the coming year.
I have already mentioned that the place of self-regulation in the framework of the arrangements within which the media function, and perhaps one of the most obvious areas where that applies, is in the area of privacy, a topic which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Vivian and the noble Lord, Lord Annan, in his sparkling and Olympian intervention. He expressed a different point of view from that expressed by my noble friend Lord Cromer.
We considered that in great detail over a considerable time and concluded, in July 1995, that a statutory commission or tribunal would be a disproportionate response to such abuses as had occurred; secondly, that intrusion offences, though right in principle, would be impossible to frame in a way that caught the mischief while allowing responsible investigative journalism to flourish; and, thirdly, that there was insufficient public consensus for a privacy tort. My noble friend Lord Vivian asked what evidence we had for that. That view was formed on the basis of the responses received to the consultation document of the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Scotland.
We welcomed improvements to self-regulation which had been agreed by the newspaper industry and the Press Complaints Commission under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Wakeham. At the same time, we seek further improvements in the performance of the press. It is undeniably a difficult area, compounded by the problems of those who court publicity in one area of their lives only to complain about its unwelcome consequences in another.
I do not deny that abuses still occur. Nonetheless, we believe potentially the best, but not necessarily the only, way of securing proper behaviour in this area is through a self-regulatory system which works. After all the capacity to run a successful newspaper must imply the ability to adhere to the code of practice.
The passing of the new Broadcasting Act earlier this year was a most significant development for the broadcast media. It is especially pleasing that many in the industry tell me without my asking that they are very glad that it began in this House, because they believe the debate here set a high standard and treated these issues in a matter and with the seriousness they properly merited. The changes the Act has made to our system of media ownership regulation were perhaps one of its most important aspects in the context of today's debate.
The balance we believe we have struck as regards media ownership is between the need to liberalise ownership regulations to meet the business requirements of a rapidly developing industry and the need to provide safeguards to maintain pluralism and diversity of voice on the other. I believe that we achieved that balance. It is interesting that a number of new alliances are being formed by various media firms.
1554
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, expressed a concern which has been expressed by a number of your Lordships on a number of occasions about the threat to the plurality and diversity of the new digital services made possible by the Broadcasting Act 1996 from one corporate entity, controlled by Mr. Rupert Murdoch, controlling the key technology for access to the encryption and delivery of services. As your Lordships' House is aware, the Minister for Science and Technology tabled regulations yesterday to implement the EC Advanced Television Standards Directive which will prevent any holder of the proprietary technology from acting as a monopoly gatekeeper to the digital age. Those regulations represent a fair balance between the return on investment for a first mover in digital conditional access technology and the wider interests of fair and effective competition in the digital broadcasting medium. The detail involved is extremely complicated and there will be an opportunity for your Lordships to have a full debate on the regulations in the new year.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to the BBC's licence fee. He may be interested to know that in another place this afternoon my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage made an announcement about the level of the TV licence fee. The annual licence fees from next April will be linked directly to the movement in the RPI and will be £91.50 for a colour licence, a £2 increase, and £30.50 for a black-and-white licence, which is a 50p increase.
The Government have decided also that cumulative changes in the licence fee for the five years commencing 1st April 1997 should continue to equate broadly with the RPI. However, the pattern of annual changes will not be uniform. Throughout the period the BBC needs to fund expenditure on new digital services. That will be offset in 1997-98 by receipts from the sale of the BBC's transmission system and in later years by increased efficiency savings and commercial income. Therefore, in 1998-99 there will be a real increase in the licence fees but in the years 2000 and 2001 there will be a real decrease. The five-year settlement will enable the BBC to pursue its plans for digital broadcasting and enhance its programme services.
We are living in revolutionary times for the media. The traditional distinction between newspapers and the broadcasters is breaking down thanks to new technology, and there is more to come shortly as my noble friend Lord Chadlington pointed out. Nevertheless, the importance of the media to our society and to our constitutional arrangements to which I referred in my opening remarks is unaffected.
What must we do? First we must recognise that further changes will occur. Secondly, we must not waste time and effort regretting them; they are I believe inevitable. We have in place a system of checks and balances, a combination of legislation and self-regulation which together provide a proper framework for this unique part of our constitutional and administrative arrangements, so important to the health of our government and public life. For this special

1555
framework to survive, both regulators and the regulated must exercise responsibility in the public interest on behalf of society as a whole.
As the revolution gathers momentum it is inevitable the mechanics necessary to achieve this balance will alter, while the fundamental principles underlying them will not. To get it right depends on us, the politicians, and the media thinking carefully, behaving responsibly, and acting decisively and with probity and wisdom, otherwise we shall find we are living in a world described by W.B. Yeats when:
"A Statesman is an easy man
He tells his lies by rote
A journalist makes up his lies
and takes you by the throat
So stay at home and drink your beer
and let the neighbours vote".
The British people and our great country will be the losers if that were to happen.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, it remains only for me to thank all speakers who took part in today's most interesting debate. I should also like to express my admiration for the way that all speakers, without exception, compressed interesting and stimulating ideas into the very limited time at their disposal. I congratulate them all in that respect. I must also thank the Minister for his characteristically thoughtful and courteous reply to the debate; indeed, it is a style and content that we have come to expect from him. I warmly thank him for his contribution.
It is worth saying that there were 16 speakers in today's debate, other than the three outstanding maiden speakers. I believe that there was a consensus, to put it in the form of words used by one of my noble friends, that it was the best clutch of maiden speeches that any of us can remember in this House. Finally, I should like to make one further point. From those 16 speakers there was, almost without exception, some degree of unease and criticism about the performance of the media. There was also a widespread view that regulation needs strengthening. Of course, not everyone agreed with that but most speakers seemed to have that thought in the back of their minds.
In that context, I hope that everyone will think very hard about the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, for some kind of overarching regulatory body which might be able to use its teeth in a way that some of the regulators seem reluctant to do at present. It has been suggested that this is largely a question of regulation, while others have said that it is a matter of self-regulation. I believe that it is probably a matter of a word which was not mentioned in today's debate—namely, leadership. If there were some leaders in the press with the highest of standards, I believe that we would perhaps go a long way towards solving the problem. However, that is not a matter for today. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Human Rights in China and Tibet
6.12 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury rose to call attention to the human rights situation in China and Tibet; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Chinese had a flourishing civilisation more than 4,000 years ago. They have produced some of the world's most brilliant scientists, artists, craftsmen, poets and philosophers. Everyone recognises and admires their genius, and, in addition to all their other achievements, China may become the biggest economy in the world some time during the 21st century. Yet, at the same time, China holds the record for the degree of control that she exercises over her people's lives, the harshness of their repression and the hostility to the slightest breath of criticism at home, or even abroad, as we see from the attempted blackmail of Disney, Murdoch and the BBC.
Beijing is ostensibly committed to the universality of human rights, but argues that a people's culture, history and political system determine the application of those individual rights in each country. That inconsistency was exposed when China hosted the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing last year. Sixteen people were executed in August to ensure order at the conference; visas were refused to a number of participants; the UN accreditation of some organisations was challenged; NGO workshops were monitored and disrupted; journalists were restricted; and some well-known Chinese dissidents were removed from Beijing to stop them contacting the delegates.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, in his thoughtful address to an Amnesty seminar in September, said that it was not helpful to dismiss the quarter-full glass. That China hosted the conference in Beijing at all was a good sign, and perhaps an indication of differences in the regime; but the hope that relatively liberal forces will prevail in the end is no reason for muting criticism of the deliberate and systematic violations of human rights today. One does not persuade a Communist dictatorship to adopt the principles of liberal democracy by minimising the case for reform.
The use of slave labour in the prisons; the unfair criminal justice system; the extensive use of capital punishment for relatively minor offences; violations of ILO conventions; arbitrary detention and imprisonment; the absence of freedom of speech and assembly; disregard of the elementary rights of women and children; and the non-existence of pluralism or of any form of democracy above the village level are all very serious grounds for complaint. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that Britain will continue to raise all those matters both bilaterally and at international meetings.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, will be dealing with freedom of religion. I shall say just a word or two of welcome for the visit made by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury to China in September, even though he was invited by the China Christian Council, an organ of the so-called Patriotic Church controlled by the state. He did speak about

1557
Chinese Christians who had been persecuted and gaoled, but he did not ask that free religious institutions, whether Christian or Moslem, be allowed to operate in China. I shall also leave the question of labour conditions to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, except to say that 60 per cent. of the world's toys are made in south Chinese factories, so that violations of the rights of workers there cannot be a matter of indifference to the millions of shoppers now buying their output to fill children's stockings.
We discussed the question of slave labour in prisons in April. It is clear that we cannot act alone, when there is now free movement of goods throughout the European Union; any new measures to prohibit the entry of goods made in the inhuman conditions of the Laogai would have to be taken by the EU. The Government declined to discuss the matter with our partners, on the grounds that European legislation would also fail because of the difficulty of proof, as in Britain. They rejected the proposal that the EU should explore a common approach with the Americans, based on the US Memorandum of Understanding with the Chinese, forbidding trade in goods made in the laogai, and the Statement of Co-operation which granted access by monitors to the prisons and labour camps where goods were being made. Inspections were halted in April 1995, but would not a joint approach by the Americans and the EU stand some chance of at least reviving them?
The policies of Europe and the US on slave labour ought, at any rate, to be harmonised. The Government turned down even that proposal on the grounds that China's application to join the World Trade Organisation would, in time, erode the basis for such action. Does that mean that China is to be admitted without qualification? Alternatively, could we not ask for inspection rights as a condition of her membership?
Amnesty International has identified 3,000 political prisoners since 1989—and that is the tip of the iceberg. Of course, China claims that there are none and challenges the work of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Beijing says that the group goes beyond its mandate in objecting to internal legislation and giving opinions on cases where sentences have been passed. The working group's mandate is coming up for renewal. Will it continue to evaluate the consistency of internal legislation with international standards? I know that we have taken up the cases of Wang Dan and Liu Ziaobo, two of the most prominent cases which arose during 1996. But will Ministers support and help to fund a comprehensive study by the working group of those cases and of the more general problem of how to bring the law into conformity with international standards?
China claims to accept the presumption of innocence, the limitation of detention without charge, and the right of defendants to be represented by a lawyer of their choice. The amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code on these matters come into effect at the beginning of 1997. The new code will refer to "the criminal suspect" instead of "the offender" and no person will be considered a criminal until he has been convicted by a People's Court. It remains to be seen whether those changes will make any difference to the 99 per cent. conviction rate. The defence lawyer still has the duty to bring forward evidence to prove the innocence of the
1558
accused, so the mind set of the prosecution culture has not changed. In cases where the defendant is acquitted, the court has a new power of adding a rider to the verdict that insufficient evidence was presented to establish guilt. One can imagine how damaging an entry of that kind would be in the dossier of a citizen in such a rigidly controlled state.
The period of detention without charge is increased from 10 to 14 days, or to a month plus a week in cases where the identity of the suspect cannot be determined. The justification for this provision is that administrative detention, which had been operated by the police outside the ordinary court system, is now brought within the criminal procedures. The new rules still permit the police to interrogate a suspect without the presence of a lawyer and when, after the first interrogation, the defendant is allowed to see a lawyer, the police sit in on the consultation.
Mark Baber, a British citizen who spent three years in Shanghai Municipal Prison, says that Chinese rhetoric about adherence to the rule of law is designed for outside consumption, and they have no intention of giving up the absolute power to deal with political and criminal offenders as they see fit. Mr. Baber was arrested in March 1991 and was not allowed to see the British consul for 10 days. In that time he was interrogated continuously for 40 hours, and at the end of that ordeal, after cutting his wrist to avert the threats of the police, he was blindfolded and interrogated still further, while having the wound stitched without anaesthetic. He was tied hand and foot to his hospital bed, and went on a hunger strike for 13 days. He was also threatened with death and underwent a mock execution to get him to co-operate. Mr. Baber said that his treatment was infinitely better than that accorded to the Chinese prisoners in Shanghai.
As Harry Wu says in his foreword to Kate Saunders' remarkable account of the Laogai Eighteen Layers of Hell,
"No totalitarian system can exist without a machinery of suppression to maintain its order".
Ms. Saunders estimates that 6 million to 8 million people are forced to undertake hard labour in camps throughout China, and millions more are held in detention centres, prisons and "re-education through labour" institutions. The intended deterrent effect of the system is reinforced by the large number of public executions, which the Communists use to intimidate people and to consolidate the perception of strong government. In 1995, Amnesty International documented 2,190 executions in China, compared with 3,000 for the whole world; and this is probably only a fraction of the actual total. This year there were over 1,000 executions in May and June alone, as part of the "Strike Hard" campaign.
The UN Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions has expressed concern about unfair trials and particularly the lack of safeguards for the protection of those facing capital punishment. He is dismayed at the increasing number of executions, including those carried out in public, and in view of what he calls the "alarming allegations" received, he reiterates his request to visit

1559
China, made in 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995, to none of which the Chinese authorities have replied. In fact none of the UN rapporteurs or working groups have received invitations to visit China, and nor has any human rights NGO, including Amnesty International. There are no independent human rights bodies in China itself, and when Yang Zhou and others tried to start a China human rights association, he was promptly imprisoned. Will the Government press China to accept monitoring, and will they suggest to Presidents Clinton and Chirac that when they visit China early next year they should ask China to co-operate with the UN rapporteurs and working groups? Will the European Union press for a resolution on China at the Human Rights Commission in April?
The Foreign Office says it continues to receive reports about Tibet, including the suppression of religious freedom, migration to the territory of Han people, arbitrary security measures and environmental damage. Mr. Hanley raised Tibet during his talks with Vice Premier Li Lanqing in November, although here again one has no idea what was said. One would hope that Ministers would tell the Chinese—as they do in correspondence with us—that Tibetans should have a greater say in running their own affairs, and that the best way of achieving that is through dialogue between the government and the Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama, without preconditions.
When the Dalai Lama was here in July, that was exactly what he asked for, and he repeated to the European Parliament in October,
"his willingness to enter into negotiations with the government of the PRC on an agenda that does not call for the separation and independence of Tibet".
When officials from the Chinese Embassy met the parliamentary Tibet group on 3rd December, they said that unless the Dalai Lama dropped his claim to independence, the authorities would not meet him. However, the Chinese must be perfectly well aware that he had indeed dropped the claim, to the annoyance of some people in Tibet. Will the Government ask the Chinese to clarify their policy, and to explain why they still refuse to meet the Dalai Lama now that he has satisfied these conditions? Will they ask the new Secretary General of the UN to see whether he can get the two parties together?
The human rights situation in Tibet is diabolical. Monks are being gaoled for refusing to toe the line in a "re-education drive" being conducted by Chinese propaganda teams. The seven year-old Panchen Lama—the world's youngest political prisoner—is still missing, and about 50 other people are still detained for their involvement in his selection. The authorities have admitted detaining the Fulbright scholar and musician, Ngawang Choepel, who disappeared in July 1995 when he visited Tibet to record the folk music of his people. The culture, religion and language of the Tibetan people are being marginalised, and the authorities are setting the seal on this process by encouraging Han immigration, as they have also done in Mongolia and East Turkistan. They want to homogenise China, leaving
1560
no cultural or political space for minority peoples, in a process for which Leo Kuper coined the term "ethnocide".
China wants to insulate herself from human rights values that have won universal acceptance, and at the same time to become a great economic power. These two aims may be compatible, and, conversely, taking the lid off a repressive system is not necessarily a recipe for improved performance. Yet every dictatorship ultimately collapses, and only societies that are based on the will of the people endure for ever. The rulers of China have always taken a long-term view, and the present incumbents may ponder on the direction their country must take, if it is to be stable, prosperous and united in the middle of the 21st century. In making that assessment, they will no doubt consider also whether it is wise to establish a new brand of authoritarianism with only a fossilised ideological basis. I believe that would be a disaster for the people of China and Tibet, and for the wider stability and harmony of the world order, and I believe it is our duty to say so. I beg to move for Papers.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on choosing such an important subject. The need to keep people fearful of government power has been constant in China since 1949. One way the practice of "education through killing" is done is by conducting public executions, often following grossly unfair and summary trials and as a result of political interference. Prisoners sentenced to death are frequently paraded in front of large crowds at "mass sentencing rallies". Chinese people put it another way, "Killing the chicken to scare the monkey".
Thanks to Amnesty International, we know there are three times as many executions in China as in the rest of the world. We know that the death penalty is used for 69 different offences, even, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, for relatively minor, non-violent ones, despite international human rights standards which state that the death penalty should be used only for the most serious offences. Judicial errors can occur in any legal system. However, the chance of error is much greater when there is no protection for the rights of the accused; when there is a heavy reliance on confessions; when the outcome of a trial is decided in advance; and when the appeal procedure is a mere formality.
We also know that executed prisoners' organs, usually kidneys, but also corneas and hearts, have been removed for transplants since 1979. A government document, first made public in 1990, permitted the removal of prisoners' organs and stipulated in detail that ambulances must not display hospital logos, that surgeons must not wear white uniforms when removing organs at the execution site, that guards must not be present until removal was completed, and that corpses should be promptly cremated following the removal of organs. It is believed that the organs of 9,000 of the estimated 10,000 prisoners executed in China every year are used in transplants.
It was against this background that Harry Wu, the American human rights campaigner, himself imprisoned in China for 19 years, returned secretly to visit some of

1561
the hospitals engaged in transplants. He was accompanied by Sue Lloyd-Roberts, a BBC reporter, under the guise of seeking help for a relative in need of a kidney transplant. Wu first met Professor Yang, director of urology at West China University of Medical Sciences. All conversations during the investigation were either video-taped or audio-taped. Asked how long it takes to get a kidney, Yang replied,
"One to two months, because of the need for a match",
adding,
"the sooner kidneys are removed, the greater the chance of a successful operation … here we are close to donors … they come from brain dead people".
Prisoners selected to provide organs are given medical examinations. Blood samples are taken, without the prisoner being told why. Mrs. Jingping, head of the hospital's department of foreign affairs, said:
"We guarantee our donors are young and healthy, and that the organs are of excellent quality".
She made the offer that,
"in two to three weeks we can get a living kidney, a team of surgeons will be sent for removal and delivery at a fee of about £7,000 … We receive customers from all over the world".
A Mr. Li, who works at the People's Hospital, Zhengzhou City, had been involved in handling executed prisoners' organs for years. Li stated that in May 1994 he had been dispatched to nearby Anyang City to pick up a kidney from an executed prisoner. He cautioned that information about organ transplants,
"should be kept secret from foreigners … they all come from death row prisoners … we buy the corpses, everything is approved by the Government".
He explained how prisoners were executed as soon as their organs were needed.
"We arrange with executioners to shoot in the head so the prisoner dies instantly. Survival rate of organs is much higher … we drive the ambulance to the execution site. Once the prisoner is dead, legally, he no longer exists as a human being. Upon completion of necessary procedures by the police and the court, the body is ours. People at the court and the police are given gifts, such as taking them to dinner, giving them cigarettes, and special holidays. We need their help in lifting the corpse into the ambulance, and to guard the execution site longer than usual, so the ambulance is not in public view".
Mr. Gao, from south China, tells a similar story:
"Usually, in a large prison, there are 20 to 30 death row criminals. As soon as organs are needed, some prisoners will be escorted to the execution site. While carrying out an execution, the local police will keep the prisoner's family in their home. They are not allowed to pick up the bodies, which are immediately cremated. The family can only receive the ashes".
One can argue that executed prisoners and their families have no human rights. I disagree, particularly when they are shot specifically to provide organs "on demand" for a hard currency trade—and more particularly as China has signed seven United Nations human rights treaties.
6.33 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I shall address two topics in this debate, so well introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Astor, was very
1562
moving, as I am sure we all agree. I want to cover employment, and the reporting of what goes on in China and Tibet.
The World Development Movement, the Trades Union Congress, the Catholic Institute for International Relations and the Hong Kong Toy Coalition came together to urge companies to accept a safety code to be applied in toy factories. That initiative took place after 189 workers lost their lives in a factory fire and 469 were severely injured. There are very many examples of working conditions and safety standards that we should find horrific and totally unacceptable. Yet those factories provide the toys that will be given to many of our children this Christmas.
For example, a young girl of 17, a child herself, whom I shall call Sunata, went sick. The reason was that she had worked overnight for three days and nights and had only two hours' break each day. Normally this 17 year-old girl worked 11 hours a day, seven days a week. She slept in a small room with 11 others without any private toilet facilities. I said, "she did". I do not know what has happened to Sunata. But certainly there are many other young children like her who are in that situation. It needs to be brought to the attention of the British public, especially at this time of year.
The International Toy Association has agreed a safety code with the organisations I named on conditions in China. Some companies follow it assiduously. For example, the Early Learning Centre and Woolworths say that they regularly check working conditions in the factories in China that produce the toys that they are selling across their counters now to people who are buying them for Christmas presents. Unfortunately, they have not published the outcome of the monitoring that they have carried out. I urge them to do so.
Sainsbury's runs a number of pilot schemes to demonstrate the feasibility of the verification and monitoring of standards. We look forward to the outcome of that work, too. It is against that background that I regret to report to the House that the British Toy & Hobby Association states:
"It is simply not feasible to conduct independent monitoring".
I reject that view. I hope that it will change its ways and accept that it has a responsibility to ensure that the international code that has been agreed must be carried through—especially when we hear that every hour Mattel Toys, the company that produces the Barbie doll, which young girls go mad over, earned as much from UK sales of Barbie, that one type of doll, as it pays 27,000 toy workers in China.
Hasbro is a name that means nothing to me. However the Sindy doll and Action Man certainly do mean a lot to me; I see them lying around the house when I visit grandchildren. Hasbro spends more on advertising than all the wages of 7,000 Thai toy workers put together.
This issue is worth attention, not just because of human rights and the way that we treat children. It is big business: £1,640 million a year is spent on toys in Britain, half of that at Christmas. So this debate is timely.

1563
In a factory in China where the code is accepted, the manager was interviewed by one of the employees from the World Development Movement. He said quite openly of his workers: "You've got to whip them like donkeys to make them understand what we are telling them". I reject that. Companies bypass standards. After 120 days with a company, a worker qualifies to receive benefits. Thousands of young people, and mature people, are dismissed after working for 119 days and start back at work the day after. That does not represent compliance with an international standard.
The other issue I wish to touch upon is reporting. For the public to understand the situation, we must have impartial, free reporting. I am concerned that it appears that the BBC has downgraded the reporting that it brings to us from Tibet and China. Tibet is not open to the press. However, that did not stop the BBC reporting from its Hong Kong base, and hopefully from its Beijing base.
I would like to have something refuted by the BBC. It crosses my mind to ask whether it has downgraded its reporting because of the change in control in Hong Kong that faces us shortly. Is it because the BBC wants to sell its products in China and is afraid that the Chinese Government will intervene if it highlights the human rights atrocities which are taking place? We have just heard of them in the two previous contributions. Is it because the BBC wants to sell its own products in those countries? I have that concern. The Minister may not be able to answer the point in the debate this evening, but I hope that he will follow it up with the BBC. I look forward to the answer and to the comments from the British Toy & Hobby Association. If it reads the debate, as I hope it will, perhaps it will answer, as I believe it should.
6.40 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for giving us the opportunity for this debate on what is an important, difficult and sensitive issue. We have already heard two important contributions which show how complex and sensitive the issues are. I should like to share with your Lordships' House a concentration on religious freedom, especially in China.
The Church of England, along with other Churches in Britain and Ireland, maintains a continuous watching brief on the situation in China through the China Study Department of the Council of Churches for Britain and Ireland. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, indicated, the visit of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury to China in September 1994 was of considerable importance. The purpose of the visit was to encourage the China Christian Council and especially Bishop Ting, its president. The visit afforded the opportunity for private meetings with state officials to discuss policy issues and also, importantly for this debate, to raise human rights issues. Amnesty International provided briefing material and specific advice for the archbishop before his visit. I wish to take this opportunity of commending the work of Amnesty
1564
International, not least the publication No one is safe, which is an important and interesting contribution to our understanding of a complex issue.
The most reverend Primate used the opportunity of the visit to raise cases with the authorities on a face-to-face basis. One of them had something to do with an organisation called "The Jesus Family" which was not provided with recognition as a religious group. It was a policy of dialogue and raising issues face to face.
More recently, the World Council of Churches—I am a member of the central committee—made a high level visit to China, the report of which has just appeared. In spite of the difficulties, the Churches continue to make remarkable progress. The term was "an exponential rise" in membership. The delegation returned with a strong impression of dynamic development in which the possibilities for Christian worship—in spite of the mistrust and fears of foreign influence—are expanding.
An issue which has aroused comment and concern is the registration of places of worship. According to Bishop Ting, one of the reasons for the promulgation of Decree 144 entitled "Administration of Religious Activities of Aliens"—that gives the flavour—and Decree 145 on "Administration of Sites for Religious Activities" was the Chinese Government's,
"fear of domestic and foreign enemies".
That is a quotation from the report of the World Council of Churches. There was a fear of domestic and foreign enemies' clandestine use of religion to subvert the national interest. In Bishop Ting's opinion, the problem is not with the legislation but rather in the way it will be implemented at a local level.
The legislation centres around six criteria for eligibility to register as a place of worship. People need to show that it is a place of worship, that there is a trained leader and that it has a certain number of believers, a governing committee, a legal source of income and a name for the meeting place. Two years after its entry into force, there are indeed grounds for concern—more in some areas than others. For example, in the province of Zhejiang there appears to have been a positive way in which the implementation of the two decrees has taken place. There are good relationships with the Religious Affairs Bureau. In Henan, the situation is quite different. There the Churches feel vulnerable. They believe that the World Council of Churches' visit was state-managed by the Religious Affairs Bureau. There is a high level of mistrust.
In Beijing, the process has not yet even begun. There are still distressing reports of the arrest, mistreatment and imprisonment of both Roman Catholics and Protestants, not only among those who reject the registration and recognition of the official Church bodies allowed by the government.
The general human rights situation must be seen against the traditional fears that the Chinese people have of chaos and the collapse of dynasties. This is a great civilisation with deeply held traditions and a long memory. What we see happening in China is a massive economic transformation and a gradual expansion of the space for a civil society. The treatment of prisoners,

1565
the severity of sentences—which we have heard about—and the shortcomings in the justice system have been comprehensively documented by Amnesty International's report on China published this year. Our concern for human rights must be motivated by the desire to see the most positive development for the society as a whole as well as seeking the most effective methods for alleviation of the suffering of the prisoners of conscience. The issue of the right methods to achieve that is of great sensitivity.
What more can be said? At the time of the visit of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, one of the concerns was the issue of registration, to which I referred. At the end of his visit, as he was preparing to leave China, he said:
"This is an exciting country and we can expect further changes in the days ahead, not least in the growing contribution of the Church to the life of the nation. Although the Christian Church is still relatively small, it is for many people a sign of hope. The shadows exist, but the general picture is most encouraging. Without wishing to interfere with the internal affairs of China"
That may be the Archbishop's problem, as people have been concerned about it
"but reminding her of her international obligations"
And that surely is important
"Christians from abroad will wish to encourage a policy of tolerance which will allow the Christian faith and other faiths to be practised without restraint in every part of this great country".
It is clearly necessary to keep raising the issues of religious tolerance and to take up cases with government officials, as the Archbishop did. It is a policy of dialogue with the raising of issues. There will be continuing opportunities after the handover of Hong Kong which the Churches in Britain and Ireland affirm they will undertake. They will, in fact, ensure that they are undertaken.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on securing this important debate. China is very much on our minds at the moment because of the imminent handing back of Hong Kong. In the light of this, our concerns about human rights in China have a significance beyond its own borders.
I have chosen to focus on religious persecution in China, in particular that of Christians. Official reports state that there are about 10 million Christians in China, although an internal Communist Party document published in February this year put the figure at over 25 million. According to other sources, the true figure could be up to as many as 95 million. If the present revival continues, it is estimated that by the year 2030 35 per cent. of China will be Christian. This is an enormous number of people who remain on the fringes of society because the state seems to conceive of religion as a competing force with Communism and reiterates the need for patriotism in all religious activities.
The tentacles of the state have wrapped themselves firmly around the Church through a number of recent regulations. These have built upon the 1951 decision to establish the Three Self Patriotic Church, which aimed to
1566
get rid of the denominations and missionaries and establish state control over the Christian Church. In 1994 two new regulations were introduced which required every Church to register and effectively forbade foreign control of Churches and financial support from outside the country. In effect, religious activities that take place in unregistered buildings are considered illegal and those involved may be detained and punished. The fines for such activity are often over 900 yuan, which represent about three months' wages. In northern China, in March this year, five women belonging to house churches were arrested and severely beaten. Police officers used boiling water to force a confession.
On Christmas day, as I walk to church free and unmonitored, and as I sing not fearful that our voices may carry, I shall be thinking of the Christians in China as they attend their Christmas services, closely monitored by plainclothes security officers. That will occur not in the unofficial churches but the official Three Self Patriotic Church, where Christians will have had to buy tickets in advance, giving their names, addresses and other personal details knowing that recriminations may follow.
In the growing unregistered church, no services can officially be held and believers meet in fields, apartments and even caves to escape state control. When they are caught, they are often detained and heavily fined. The more unlucky ones have been beaten and even imprisoned. Some groups have watched as their places of worship were bulldozed before their very eyes.
I am particularly concerned to hear recent reports of a renewed crackdown on Christians under the auspices of three campaigns. As part of the "Anti-Criminal" campaign, Christians have been chosen as soft targets to fill the crime quotas required of local party cadres. Already susceptible to arrest on the thin grounds of counter-revolutionary activities, it is estimated that over 300 were arrested during the three-month period this year. Many have been beaten, three fatally. As part of the "Anti-Western" campaign, the Churches have been targeted, as Christianity is believed to be a Western religion that would not survive without the support of the West. Why else should the restrictions of 1994 aim to end foreign financial support, unless their ultimate aim was to break the Church? Finally, the Church has suffered under the "Spiritual Civilisation" campaign, in which Christianity is deemed to be at least an unhelpful superstitious influence.
I could give numerous accounts of detentions, beatings and human rights abuses of Christians, let alone those of other faiths of whom I have not had time to speak. When we remember the stories we have heard, we are reminded of the thousands more that we do not hear because China is so closed to the world. Registration is simply another gag on the Church and the freedom of all those in China whose right to religious freedom has been consistently and blatantly abused by the regime. I urge the international community to continue to speak out for those who have no voice in China and to keep up the pressure for access for human rights monitors to the whole of China.
6.52 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I warmly thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for this opportunity for debate. Anyone in this House who has heard the Dalai Lama speak of his country, as I did earlier this year, will have been impressed by his courage and integrity. Very few national leaders in this century have had his experience of continuous exile yet have been able to display such tolerance, and especially this year, when China has stepped up its vicious campaign against the monasteries. On the front page of Le Monde last week was a story from the reliable Tibet Information Network of a young nun, Ngawang Sangdrol, from Garu nunnery near Lhasa, whose sentence was doubled to 18 years for shouting "Free Tibet", having been in solitary confinement following other so-called offences, one of which was singing nationalist songs in prison. What we learn haphazardly in our media is multiplied a hundredfold by the stories of oppression which come daily over the Himalayas with the refugees.
Whatever the Chinese people themselves think—we must give them the benefit of the doubt, because they are gradually becoming more aware of the immorality of many of their Government's actions—we are witnessing in Tibet a form of gradual ethnic cleansing—the persecution of a race, a religion and a culture—which at times recalls some of the atrocities of the Cultural Revolution. In the face of that, the Dalai Lama's plea for dialogue and self-rule—not for independence, as the noble Lord pointed out—seems almost too modest to those of us who are lucky enough to live in a free society.
But, of course, it is the people not the governments who will make a difference in the long run. We cannot expect our Government, for example, to rock the boat in the run-up to the handover of Hong Kong, or even after that, while China's trade is becoming so important to our economy. We all know that it is primarily individuals and not governments who create moral codes and persuade governments to keep to them. Governments behave like governments. They do not possess the feelings or the powers of individuals. It is up to the British people to support the range of organisations which follow affairs in Tibet and to continue to keep up the pressure.
The same is true of the entry of the WTO (World Trade Organisation) into the child labour debate, which was greeted with squawks from our trade Minister and from governments in Asia. But the WTO was right to raise the issue and to publicise it. However, no one can expect member governments to do very much about it. They have already retreated behind the ILO.
The ILO has enough difficulty coaxing child labour legislation through those governments who have already ratified human rights and child rights conventions. In the end, it is a matter for individual companies and their clients, as the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, pointed out—the producers and consumers of toys, clothing and other products—to decide what people will buy and sell. Thanks to a responsible media coverage—which does exist, despite many comments in the previous debate—consumers are now becoming much more aware of the
1568
origins of goods and the conditions under which children, women and prisoners in China and other countries have to work. It is they who will change companies' attitudes, not governments.
Of course, I also well understand the fears that western countries such as the United States will use labour laws as an excuse for protection and that any legislation is bound to hit the trade of developing countries and poor families who depend on extra income. It is a dilemma. But, equally, when people are exploited, we cannot allow those arguments to become excuses for inaction. A lot can be done by NGOs to influence the public here and in the producing countries. Even in a closed society like China, there is a growing movement of independent non-governmental organisations linked to political opposition which will pick up ideas and challenge their own government's policies. I also believe that in the long run trade can be a great ambassador of human rights, better than most diplomacy. Although it seems hard, we have to persist in telling the truth about the conditions in China and Tibet and persuading the people that we are on their side.
There is, of course, an equally important human rights campaign in one of the world's poorest regions—the right to basic necessities, such as food, water, health and education. One British organisation in particular has managed to hold the line between human rights on the one hand and practical development on the other. For many years, Save the Children Fund has supported a programme in the Lhasa Valley which works alongside the local health, education and water authorities to bring improved drinking water supplies, health education and teacher training which benefit hundreds of primary school children in up to 80 schools. More than that, SCF, alongside Medecins sans Frontiêres and the Swiss Red Cross, have demonstrated how a voluntary organisation can become a vital channel of international aid. The British, Canadian and Australian Governments have all contributed to it.
Many of the large-scale government projects in Tibet have been held up because they clearly benefit the Chinese Government and the new Han Chinese settlers and entrepreneurs at the expense of Tibetans. That is why the work of non-governmental organisations is so essential. I hope that the Minister will comment on that, particularly in the light of the European Union's recent difficulties in getting a project off the ground in Tibet.
Such practical assistance is more than material aid. it is a token of the affection which Britain holds for Tibetan children and the Tibetan people. It is an invaluable link between two nations which, despite the problems going back to 1904 when we in Britain, with the help of the Ghurkas and Sikhs, entered and pillaged Tibet, have long enjoyed a strong friendship.
7 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on initiating this debate. One does not always have to agree with the noble Lord to recognise that he

1569
is a tireless campaigner for oppressed people of all nationalities, and in the case for which he has spoken today, I agree with him entirely.
I shall speak mainly on Tibet. The Chinese Government make a claim on Tibet based on history and the supposed fact that the present communist revolutionary government of China is the successor of the empire. The claim is dubious. The Foreign Office uses the term "suzerainty"—a medieval concept which in my view has no validity in the 20th century—as does the Chinese Embassy. One thing which the term does not imply is government by consent. It never did imply that. If we applied the Chinese claim to the government of Tibet—that is, that it has essentially been the sovereign power of Tibet since the 12th century—to our own country, that would entitle England to rule southern Ireland. I wonder what the Irish would think of that!
In 1950 the wholly peaceful country of Tibet was subjected to an unprovoked invasion by the People's Republic of China. It should be remembered that Tibet at that time threatened nobody; it had no aggressive designs on any of its neighbours. The only wish of the people of that country was to be left alone to enjoy their ancient religion and culture. Their religion is deep, complex and held by most Tibetans with total conviction.
Notwithstanding the fact that that ancient country had been in every real sense independent for the whole of the 20th century, the Chinese Government proceeded to enforce on the Tibetan people the wholly alien communist creed. With a violence and cruelty that has characterised communism in all its dealings with ordinary people, the culture and religion of Tibet has been subject to vicious persecution. My noble friend Lord Astor of Hever showed us something of how the Chinese people have to live. In Tibet monasteries have been destroyed and monks, nuns and people who are neither Tibetan in religion nor outlook have been imprisoned, tortured and murdered. The situation continues and the tyranny is unabated.
Added to all that and what has been mentioned by other noble Lords today is the attack on the person and integrity of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Those of your Lordships who have had the privilege of meeting the Dalai Lama on his periodic visits to this country must wonder whether the Chinese authorities are speaking of the man they met. In the past few years I have had the privilege of meeting the Dalai Lama and the Pope and I would say without any doubt that those two men—so different in appearance, temperament and in their beliefs—are the greatest men alive today. One should be extremely careful before one attacks either of them and I have not the least desire to do so.
But the Chinese authorities have no such inhibitions. Backed as they are by the power of a heavily armed and totalitarian state there is little need for them to argue with anybody. The source of power in Chairman Mao's belief was the "barrel of a gun". That is a simple creed which does not invite reasoned argument. Added to that, they are using the newly acquired commercial power of China to block any favourable mention of the Dalai Lama, even in this country and in the free world as a whole, as we have already heard.
1570
I understand that Disney may be having second thoughts about a film that it was making about the Dalai Lama. It was threatened by the Chinese authorities that, if it distributed the film, its business interests would be boycotted in China. I hope that it will not give in. But commercial companies are, of their nature, cowardly and I fear the worst. So the decree of the Government of China is effective even here, in that we may not be allowed to see anything of which they disapprove.
Finally, I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister one question which has already been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury; that is, what has become of the Panchen Lama? That little boy was nominated in proper form by the Dalai Lama, since when he has been kidnapped by the Chinese authorities. They refuse to say where they are holding him. I believe the world has a right to know what has become of that unfortunate child. For all we know he has been murdered, and until the Chinese Government come up with a clear and provable statement of where he is and what they are doing with him we shall suspect the worst—we know they are capable of the worst.
We know that the Chinese authorities have found another Panchen Lama. How a self-proclaimed atheist state can pretend to have found the reincarnation of the previous Panchen Lama boggles the imagination. Incidentally, one hopes that they will not treat this boy as badly as they treated the previous Panchen Lama. I saw the enthronement on television, a ceremony at which there seemed to be more Chinese generals than lamas present. All the generals clapped at the end, which was very peculiar. That communist-approved reincarnation is a grim farce which no one should take seriously. I just hope and pray that both boys will eventually be happy, one as the truly appointed Panchen Lama and the other as the ordinary boy he obviously is.
I would say that if China ever had a right to rule Tibet it forfeited that right by the cold-blooded cruelty and violence with which they have treated the Tibetan people over the past 46 years. Nothing can excuse what they have done. In my view Tibet has a right to independence and I hope that one day Her Majesty's Government will live up to the great traditions of this country and at least concede that. To do less is cowardice.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I feel a little diffident talking about China and Tibet since I have visited neither country. But I declare an interest in that I have a daughter deeply interested in Tibetan Buddhism who spent most of the past year in Dharamsala living among the exiled Tibetan community.
For many years I had a positive attitude towards the People's Republic of China and respected its achievements. But that attitude, like that of many others, became much more critical after the events of Tiananmen Square in June 1989. My understanding of the traumatic shifts in policy—the Great Leap Forward; the Cultural Revolution—was greatly helped by reading Jung Chang's triple biography/autobiography Wild Swans, and the harrowing accounts of life in the laogai

1571
by Zhang Xianling and Harry Wu filled out pictures for me. I should say at this point that Harry Wu has been the guest of the Parliamentary Human Rights Group, as have other human rights workers from China, including Dr. Zhang Xianling, about whom I shall say more later.
A good summary account of the whole range of human rights abuses in China is given by Amnesty International's recent well-written book, No One Is Safe, mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. The extent and nature of torture in China and other countries is also described by Amnesty International in its other publication this year, suitably entitled A Glimpse of Hell. There is plenty of evidence in both publications testifying to the widespread systematic abuse of human rights to which all noble Lords who have so far spoken have alluded. That should certainly not be tolerated in a permanent member of the Security Council; a signatory, by the fact that it is a member of the United Nations, to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, as the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said, several other United Nations human rights treaties and the Vienna Declaration on Human Rights in 1993.
A fundamental fault—this wholly backs up what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said—is that the judiciary is not independent and so the law can be used as a tool of repression. There is no presumption of innocence, as he said, and at present no guaranteed access to lawyers or defending counsel. We wait to see whether the change next year makes any difference. Arrest is arbitrary and trials are often unfair, with extensive use of the death penalty, which is carried out very quickly after a verdict has been reached. "Re-education through labour" in the laogai can be ordered even without a trial.
Two particular abuses, one of which has and one of which has not been mentioned by noble Lords, are, first, violations resulting from the one-child family policy and, secondly, the use, as the noble Lord, Lord Astor, described, of organs from executed prisoners for transplants. Unmarried women can be put under enormous pressure, sometimes amounting to physical threats and intimidation, to have an abortion if they become pregnant, as are married women if they have already achieved their "quota". Many pregnancies are concealed. Infanticide of girl babies still occurs. A large but unknown number of babies are abandoned and then taken to orphanages.
It is possible that conditions in those institutions have improved since Dr. Zhang Xianling's exposure last year of the very high mortality rates in those orphanages. I very much hope that things have improved but we do not know for certain because the statistics which were available are no longer published. Couples are not allowed to adopt abandoned children unless it can be proved that both parents are dead. If it was allowed the need for those institutions would greatly diminish. I do not want to imply that a population policy in China was not necessary—of course it was—and, in keeping numbers down, it has worked, except in certain ethnic minority areas. But I feel that an equal success—perhaps an even greater success—could have been achieved with
1572
a more humane approach. However, there are some welcome signs that the rigid application of the one-child family policy is now being relaxed.
To add a little to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Astor, it could be held that, in a country with a high rate of executions of relatively young and fit people it would be a waste not to use their organs for transplantation if the prisoner or a relative agrees. However, Amnesty International says that organs rarely come from executed prisoners after consultation with their families, although that is the law in China. In some cases it is felt that the imposition and timing of the death penalty may be influenced by the need for organs for transplantation, a point which was much more fully demonstrated by the noble Lord, Lord Astor. Those noble Lords who watched the recent television drama "A Fragile Heart" will know what a bitterly resented practice that is in China and that at least a large part of the medical profession in China are aware of it. That is one of many reasons why Amnesty International advocates the early ending of the death penalty in China.
I have left very little time to talk about Tibet. It has been well covered by other speakers but I should like to point out that the Dalai Lama has said that he no longer insists on complete independence for Tibet. He is prepared to enter negotiations with a free agenda on the basis of a suitable degree of autonomy and the restoration of religious, political and cultural freedom. Incidentally, that is refused by the Chinese Government.
Many might feel that because China is so vast and economically so important, especially now that most favoured nation status has been granted, it can ignore criticism of its human rights record. However, China is sensitive to criticism despite its denials and bluster. Chinese human rights workers plead for maximum publicity in the Western media of the true situation in China. That, I suggest, and a possible change of attitude by the Chinese Government after Deng Xiaoping's departure, is the best guarantee of progress in the future. I hope that in diplomatic contacts and at the United Nations the Government will challenge China whenever there is evidence that it is violating the principles to which it is a signatory.
7.15 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for introducing this debate. Since we last debated the subject two things have happened. The Dalai Lama has indeed visited us—he visited us last July—and a delegation from the Chinese Embassy also visited us on 3rd December. The purpose of that visit was to correct the information supplied to us by the Dalai Lama. The Chinese wished to tell us of the true state of affairs of Tibet in their eyes. That visit persuaded me that the Tibetan relationship is more complicated than I had earlier supposed. I can only address it now with clarity if I look at history as well as human rights.
People who say that Tibet has always been independent of China are misinformed. If I may put a gloss on what my noble friend Lord Belhaven has just said, Tibet was independent until about 850 AD. It was

1573
then overrun, as was everywhere else, by Genghis Khan and the Mongol hoards. Then, as the Mongol power declined, Chinese power grew. By the 13th century Tibet was a part of China. And that dependence lasted for 600 years, until the 19th century. Then the Chinese Empire collapsed, and other nations circled vulture-like over the rotting corpse of it and we each picked up a part of its territory. The Russians got some, as did the Japanese, the French, the Germans and the British.
We gained a sphere of influence stretching westward from Shanghai 1,000 miles up the Yangtze Valley and we gained also Tibet which we declared autonomous. In 1904 we invaded Tibet, as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said, under Younghusband, and the Dalai Lama fled. Interestingly enough, he fled to China. Then there followed the famous treaty between ourselves and the Tibetans, recognising its independence. That is the treaty the Tibetans quote when they talk of our special relationship and our responsibility to them. However, in 1906 we made another clandestine treaty with China recognising its suzerainty over Tibet. That we made without Tibetan agreement, which is a shameful piece of British history.
In 1911 we attempted tripartite talks with both China and Tibet, recognising Tibet as autonomous but under Chinese suzerainty. The Chinese would not ratify this, so we just brushed that aside and said that Tibet was independent. So it was to remain for the next 40 years. Tibet did have her own culture, her own language, her own religion and her own troops. There were border skirmishes between those troops and the Chinese troops and she banished all Chinese from her territory. But now we come to the awful events of the 1950s, and it is no longer possible to separate history out from human rights because that is the start, in my mind, of the true rape of Tibet.
The Chinese, when they saw us, claimed to have liberated Tibet from a brutal regime of slavery and torture. But of course the slavery and torture that they themselves inflicted was far worse, particularly from 1959 onwards when they imposed their own military dictatorship and set about destroying monasteries, religion and the entire civilisation.
Just two weeks back, when the First Secretary of the Chinese Embassy addressed the all-party parliamentary Tibet group, he told us how the Chinese had modernised Tibet: they had built schools and hospitals; there was no imprisonment except for criminals; and there was positively no torture. He gave us books which illustrated the brutality of the old regime. There is a page illustrating the old instruments of torture. Strangely, they are pretty well exactly the same as the modern Chinese instruments of torture which have been demonstrated to us by Tibetan monks.
Just suppose that we give the Chinese the benefit of the doubt and concede that the old regime was worse than the present one, how do we explain, for instance, the mass exodus of Tibetans to India in the 1950s? Why, for instance, did they find it necessary to form an entire government in exile? Why, indeed, did the Dalai Lama flee to Dharamsala in 1959? Surely that happened
1574
because the whole Tibetan religion and culture had been to such an extent that no one in Tibet was even allowed to own a picture of the Dalai Lama.
Chinese atrocities against Tibetans have been mentioned many times in this House and again this evening, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Regarding the Dalai Lama's position as spiritual head, the First Secretary, to my surprise, told us that he is the spiritual head and that he can visit Tibet at any time. Indeed, he was rather surprised that he had not been there. However, the First Secretary told us also that Dalai Lamas in general were no more than Chinese placemen, chosen by drawing lots from a golden urn in Beijing. Actually, it is conceded that the present Dalai Lama was not so chosen. Instead, China sent a delegate, Mr. Wu Zhonxin, to Tibet in 1940 when the Dalai Lama was only six years old. The delegate exempted him from the lottery process, but all other Lamas—both Dalai and Panchen—are chosen by the Chinese. They have been for hundreds of years, so the Chinese assure us, and so they also assured my noble friend Lord Belhaven.
That flies in the face of all that we have learnt regarding holy men having visions and studying reflections in a sacred lake; of the old Dalai Lama dreaming of the physical appearance of the new one; and of searches throughout the land for the child that is the reincarnation of the true Tibetan God. It is an awesome and mystical process. It is far removed from the Chinese golden urn which more resembles, I submit, a glorified tombola.
So how do we progress? I suggest that we must clear the muddy waters by disregarding everything that happened before 1951. It is complicated; it is open to several interpretations; and the British are not blameless. If we can limit our arguments to human rights issues of the past 40 years, we will at least see the wood for the trees. We may achieve that measure of cultural independence for Tibet that we all seek. We may end the persecution and torture of monks. We may even tear away the mask of Chinese liberation to reveal the true face of Chinese subjugation.
The Chinese First Secretary gave me a book called The Social History of Tibet. In it, I found the following:
"In 1954 the 14th Dalai Lama presented Chairman Mao with the Wheel of Dharma inscribed with this message:
'When attending the First National Peoples' Congress as Tibetan delegate I, the Dalai Lama, offered respectfully, according to the Tibetan Politico Religious Convention, this golden wheel of Dharma to Chairman Mao, great leader of all nationalities of China, to express our best wishes"'.
What a load of nonsense. May it please the Chinese never to inflict such an indignity on his Holiness again.
We must continue to press the Chinese on every occasion to recognise simply that the Tibetans are as different from the Chinese as chalk is from cheese. We must press them to respect their culture and we must press them to give Tibet autonomy and to grant Tibetans their freedom.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, we all agree that the only leverage that well intentioned governments have in

1575
relation to China at present is in the realm of public relations. It is vital to continue to keep the facts in front of the eyes of the world. We owe a great debt to those organisations which are committed to that and which are doing the job extremely well.
I should like, with your Lordships' indulgence, to limit my remarks to the rather specialised question of the confusion in the minds of not only peoples, but also of governments, about the status of Tibet in relation to China. It may sound a very dry-as-dust aspect—perhaps it is—but it is important because in international fora the policies of governments and what governments say is to a great extent determined by their view on status. Perhaps I should apologise now because I shall probably be unable to remain until the end of the debate due to a long-standing engagement.
As the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven, told us, we put the word "suzerainty" into international circulation. It places on us a certain responsibility to make it quite clear in all fora that we can, such as the United Nations Assembly or Human Rights Commission, that the use of that word in the past has in no way qualified the British Government's continuously held view that the Tibetan people have the right, and have always had the right, of self-government and self-determination, as demanded by successive United Nations resolutions. With respect to the useful survey which the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, gave us—he did not come to this point in the chapter—the British position on the status of Tibet was defined by Anthony Eden as Foreign Secretary in 1943 when he said that Britain was prepared—I emphasise the word "prepared"—to recognise Chinese suzerainty over Tibet provided—again, I emphasise the word "provided"—that Tibet was treated as autonomous. The accepted meaning of "autonomy" is total internal self-government. The Chinese Government never accepted that proviso.
It has remained, of course, the view of successive British Governments that the Tibetan people have the right to govern themselves, as they always did until the Chinese invasion of 1950. That invasion is etched in my mind with particular force because I happened to have the responsibility in New Delhi on the day or so after the invasion of trying to find out from the Government of India what position they were going to take over that invasion.
Other western governments have tended to regard the United Kingdom as having the deepest and most authoritative knowledge of the issue of Tibet's status because of our close ties and responsibilities in the past. They did not question our use of the word "suzerainty"—to which, however, we have never been committed—as applying to Tibet because of the Chinese failure to accept our proviso. I need hardly say to your Lordships that the Chinese interpretation under the communist government of the meaning of the word "autonomy" is very different from that of any free government.
1576
In conclusion, perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the view that Sir Algernon Rumbold put on record in The Times in 1993. He was acknowledged as the best informed senior official on Tibetan affairs in Whitehall for many years. He wrote:
"Confusion remains about the history of Tibet's status. The Foreign Office appear to base their policy on China's claim that 'Tibet has always been part of China'. This is geographically, racially, culturally and politically false. Historically Chinese Governments exercised some influence in Tibet only occasionally and for brief periods.
There is also continuing muddle about suzerainty. We regarded Tibet as de facto independent. But we were ready to recognise China's suzerainty on the understanding that the Chinese accepted Tibet's autonomy …
As no Chinese Government accepted Tibet's autonomy … the British Government never accepted China's 'special position—.
7.30 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for introducing this interesting debate from which I have already learned a great deal. For clarification, I assume that we are not talking about the 15,000 bears held in small cages quite inhumanely and without any rights, as I read in this morning's papers, but about man's inhumanity to man.
I make three points. The first relates to a topic that I do not believe has been mentioned: birth control policy. It is right and proper that a country like China should have such a policy, and I heartily approve of it. But one must remember that there is no method of birth control that is completely successful. Breaches of that policy when extra children are born should not make the parents subject to sanctions and heavy fines. In China, if a couple are unable to pay the fine, their home may be demolished. If they are state employees they may be dismissed from their jobs. Family planning groups are likely to visit such couples in the middle of the night to increase the intimidation.
I give an example from Amnesty International. A single woman who adopted her brother's child because he had too many children was detained several times. On one occasion she was held for seven days in an attempt to force her brother and his wife to pay more fines. She was taken to the county government office and locked in a basement room with 12 or 13 other people, both women and men. She was reportedly blindfolded, stripped naked and, with her hands tied behind her back, beaten with an electric baton. Several of those detained with her were suspended above the ground and beaten; some were detained for several weeks. That is a breach of human rights, and the method by which birth control policy is administered is a matter of international concern.
One old Chinese practice I have not read about recently is that whereby, if the one child that is permitted is a female, it can be left outside the home either to die or to be picked up by someone else. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can say whether that practice continues.
My noble friend Lord Ashbourne spoke about the persecution of Christians. In the second half of November of this year approximately 80 underground

1577
Roman Catholics around the city of Linchuan were arrested without warrant, beaten and gaoled. Their crime was their loyalty and obedience to the Pope and their refusal to join the official church created by the communist government to replace the previous official Roman Catholic Church. An enormous number of other Christians suffer the same persecution because of their loyalty and obedience to the person of Jesus Christ himself.
There are many other examples of suffering caused to the underground Roman Catholic Church. Near Hebei, eight Roman Catholic nuns were recently arrested and gaoled while on a religious retreat. Hundreds of other Catholics have been arrested and fined. Frequently, they are told in no uncertain terms that unless their children renounce Catholicism they will be dismissed from schools. That is an intolerable situation.
I refer to the unease of the Chinese Government. This goes right to the top. A high party official in Beijing recently muttered,
"If God had the face of a 70 year-old man, we wouldn't care if he was back: hut he has the face of millions of 20 year-olds, so we are very worried".
The Chinese Government worry about the enormous spread of Christianity throughout China. The point was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne. This is a cause of great worry. Local party cadres are often given arrest quotas for their areas. Christians are soft targets if the quota needs to be filled. Police have dished out rough justice, believing that they have carte blanche in their methods so long as they get results. Consequently, many arrested Christians have been severely beaten. One Bible distributor in Hunan province was hung upside down and beaten with iron pipes. A local Christian leader said,
"Right now the police think they can do whatever they like, and many of them are giving in to bloodlust and abusing prisoners".
These are breaches of human rights of which the world needs to take note. I hope that the Government will continue to press for a cessation of breaches of human rights and for monitors to be admitted. It is very important that that is done while at the same time we aim to improve our relations with China. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will provide us with comfort on those points.
7.36 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I should like to speak about one particular facet of the very wide area covered by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I refer to the aspects of population and reproductive health. I do not aim to give a rounded view on human rights generally in China. I compliment the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on the way in which he introduced the debate. I believe that he has given the Minister who is to reply an extremely difficult task in covering a very wide range of subjects, in spite of the latter's prodigious skills at the Dispatch Box.
For over 10 years I have been vice-chairman of the all-party group on population, development and reproductive health. Over the years I have been aware of the enormous issues, problems and dilemmas raised
1578
by the very size of China's population. The figure of 1.2 billion is almost incomprehensible. We should be aware not only of the size of the population but the potential for future increase.
We have all heard about cases of coercion and abuse. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, have touched on this matter this evening. Part of the matter to be assessed is the prevalence and extent of the practices that we criticise. The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, quite properly gave an example quoted by Amnesty International, but it must be put into the context of an extraordinary population of 1.2 billion. We must try to understand what is and what is not officially allowed and assess what is happening.
No one I have met in the population field in this country supports coercion. In her absence today, perhaps I may say that I am aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, and the ODA have been scrupulous in reiterating their opposition to coercion. Both I and the all-party group on population have condemned instances of coercion, forced abortion and abuses within China and I am no apologist for that country. Those actions can never be justified. However, I am aware of the huge and almost unimaginable size of the population, the massive inertia in social conditioning and traditions of the past, for example relating to the status of women.
I was glad to hear the right reverend Prelate taking a more historical perspective in his speech. At one point he talked about long traditions. We can and, in my opinion, should attempt to have a continuing dialogue, but should also acknowledge the scale and difficulty of what we are trying to contribute to.
One of the main points that I am addressing today is the support that we give to two organisations that work in China: the United Nations Fund for Population Activities and the International Planned Parenthood Federation. The UNFPA organised the highly successful international Cairo conference in 1994 on population and development. China was a party to and influenced the final communiqué from that conference, containing principles and a programme of action for the future.
I understand that the UNFPA is currently negotiating a new programme of support for China, based on the principles of human rights upheld in the Cairo declaration; in other words, the UNFPA is not just throwing money into China but is considering fully the basis upon which its, in my opinion valuable, support is to be given.
The IPPF has also been working in China for many years. Again, we are right to examine what is being done on our behalf and with our financial support. Recently we have been fortunate to have an up-to-date, independent report, which was commissioned by the ODA, on the China Family Planning Association. Because I agree largely with its analysis, perhaps I may quote at some length the Written Answer of Dr. LI am Fox, in another place, to the chairman of our all-party population group, Mr. Geoffrey Clifton Brown on 21st November. The Written Answer states:
"The China Family Planning Association is one of the many affiliates with whom IPPF works and we have been keen to know more about the difference IPPF, and CFPA, have been able to make to reproductive choice in China. The Overseas Development

1579
Administration therefore recently commissioned a review of the role of IPPF in China and its work with the CFPA. A copy of the consultants' report has been placed in the Library".
That is, the Library of another place. The Written Answer continues:
"We regard this examination, led on ODA's behalf by a highly respected and authoritative expert in the population field, as an informed, balanced and realistic assessment. It concludes that IPPF has been able to play an effective and invaluable role in influencing CFPA in the development of the kind of activities and role that we would expect of a non-governmental organisation. However, we should recognise that there is still clearly a long way to go".
That last sentence shows how balanced the report is. It acknowledges that progress is slow and painstaking. It does not lead us to expect some sudden transformation.
My final sentence is:
"We accept the review's conclusion that the influence of IPPF has been a force for positive change, and that the continued involvement of IPPF in China will be beneficial in helping CFPA further. These conclusions support our long-held view that it is better that organisations such as IPPF should be engaged and working to influence from within, and is the course that we believe most likely to produce the outcomes that we all seek".— [Official Report, Commons, 21/11/96; col.671.]
That final sentence sums up the position of many of us in the field. That recommendation of continuing to work and influence the Chinese from within and by dialogue, applies equally to the UNFPA. I hope that the Government will continue to support that process by those two organisations.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, we cannot conclude this debate without considering the defence that is put forward by the People's Republic of China of its human rights record. It says that it has climbed three big mountains of its history: aggressive imperialism of the nature touched upon by the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey; oppressive feudalism from its past; and bureaucrat-capitalism. It argues that the rights to life and liberty and security of person, which are outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are meaningless without the prime right—the right to subsistence.
In a paper published in November 1991, Human Rights in China, the Chinese Government contended that, although standards of living were rising, China was still a developing country with limited resources and a huge population, where social turmoil could threaten that right to subsistence. To assert the primacy of the right to subsistence to which all other rights are subordinate, is for it an expression of the sovereignty of the Chinese people.
There is a temptation for many people to ask whether it may be right: whether we have anything to do with China; why should we interfere? Do we not have enough on our plate? To people who have that self-doubt are added the mercantile voices, "Don't do anything to upset China; don't do anything to affect our competitive position in that country; don't make the position of Hong Kong even more vulnerable than it is". I hope that we hear nothing of that sort from the Minister tonight.
1580
I am wholly persuaded to the contrary. China must understand that we shall publicise and continue to criticise violations of human rights wherever they may take place. Torture, as an instrument of oppression, is no less objectionable when it is practised in an undeveloped country than it is in an advanced democracy. Political views, political systems, are meaningless and immaterial. What matters is that torture takes place.
China must be called to account for a number of reasons. First, as some noble Lords have already said, it seeks to play a leading role in the affairs of the UN as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council; secondly, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, pointed out, China is a state party to seven UN treaties, it has crucially failed to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That is the very instrument upon which the Hong Kong Bill of Rights is based.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of some of the provisions: Article 14 guarantees the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal, established by law; Article 17 protects privacy, family and home; Article 18 declares the right of every person to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, to which so many noble Lords have referred tonight; Article 6 protects the right to life; and Article 7 forbids torture. Why does not China ratify that convention?
Beyond that, China blocks criticism in the UN by procedural methods. Where a state seeks to strut the stage of world affairs, it cannot pick and choose those standards of international behaviour which it will obey and those which it will not. It cannot cloak itself in the robe of sovereignty to avoid international responsibilities. It cannot moan about past imperialism when it practises a tyrannical imperium over Tibet.
Human rights are universal. They do not depend upon race, creed, the state of economic development, or the number of citizens who are involved. But our right to intervene derives, above all, from the fact that it is a state that denies to its own citizens the right to criticise its institutions and its legal system. It cannot complain if others step in and speak for them. My noble friend Lord Avebury referred to Wang Dan, the history student who was arrested in June 1989 and spent three and a half years in prison for counter revolutionary propaganda and incitement after the Tiananmen Square incident. He was released early in 1993, just as President Clinton was considering the renewal of the most favoured nation status. He was rearrested in May 1995. What was his offence? It was obtaining a scholarship for a correspondence course at Berkeley, publishing anti-government criticism abroad and raising money for dissidents. He was held incommunicado for 17 months and sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment. On 11 th November, only last month, his appeal was dismissed at a hearing from which foreign observers and journalists were excluded. Neither he nor his counsel were permitted to address the court during a 10-minute hearing. We have a responsibility to speak for him now because he can no longer speak for himself. These are

1581
our days; these are our times; these are people of our generation who are in China. Today we are the bearers of that torch.
Perhaps I may focus in particular upon the horror of public executions in China. I have already referred to Article 6 of the ICCPR, which provides that sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes. When the Cultural Revolution abolished law there were only some 750 lawyers left for a population of 1.2 billion. The first five statutes of criminal law that were reintroduced in 1979 and 1980 were reintroduced in order to deal with the Gang of Four. They have increased to 200-odd. The death penalty was originally enacted for 21 offences but that has now increased to an estimated 68 offences.
During the first half of 1995 Amnesty International monitored executions for crimes from murder and manslaughter to prostitution, pornography, hooliganism, corruption, fraud, profiteering, tax evasion and dealing in antique relics. In 1995 it recorded more than 2,000 executions. Whether the death penalty is imposed for less serious crimes is quite arbitrary. If the petty criminal is there at the wrong time the bullet bears his name.
On 28th April this year a nationwide anti-crime campaign was launched. It was termed the "Yan-da", or "strike hard", campaign. Between then and 27th June, Amnesty recorded 1,014 confirmed death sentences, over 800 of which were immediately executed. In all probability there were many more than that.
The 1983 legislation, which has been introduced as part of this particular campaign, provides for summary trials and executions. Prisoners can be tried without warning, without being given a copy of the charges and without notification to their lawyers. Instead of the Supreme Court deciding to ratify a death penalty, it can now be confirmed by that summary procedure in a provincial court. Jilian Radio, monitored by the BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, described a case in May of this year when a man was executed by a firing squad only seven days after the commission of the offence. That is trial, appeal and so on within that period of time.
On 17th June, the President of Beijing High People's Court was reported in the Beijing Legal Daily as stating that those to be sentenced to death in the campaign were not only those guilty of the most serious crimes but also those whose crimes "seriously endanger public order", such as repeat offenders. No doubt in this House we shall be considering that matter at some later time. The Chief Justice in Beijing referred with pride specifically to a petty thief executed for stealing the equivalent of £120 because his gang had committed 14 such crimes in public places over a period of three months. What is the quality of the evidence upon which those convictions are based? The culture in China is of torture to obtain a confession. Practitioners in Hong Kong are only too wearily familiar with the allegations which are made of misbehaviour and which are investigated at length.
It is hard to believe that just across the border from Hong Kong, in Shenzen and in two other cities in Guangdong province, 62 people were executed six weeks ago on 30th October at mass public rallies. The
1582
noble Lord, Lord Astor, referred to them. They were exhibited on stages with boards around their necks stating the nature of their crimes, harangued and then shot.
We cannot simply wring our hands in despair. China is anxious for trade, for investment and for assistance in development. The British Government have a duty, together with other UN member states, to pressurise China to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and abide by it; to grant UN human rights officials unrestricted access to monitor trials and prisons; to end confessions extracted by torture; and to cease the obscenity of public executions for less than serious crime.
As for ourselves, we should ensure that asylum seekers are not returned to China and that their claims are fairly and justly assessed. We have an expectation that our Government should demonstrate to the international community that they will retain for Britain in a way consistent with its traditions their approach to the granting of asylum. We cannot hide behind sovereignty a mean-spirited avoidance of our own obligations. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Avebury for bringing this fascinating and important topic to your Lordships' attention.
7.56 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is some time since we debated the topic and I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for introducing it. Unfortunately, I do not believe that we can record a great deal of progress since our last discussion despite the fact that there have been some positive changes to the law in China. The problem is that legal change is no guarantee of respect for human rights. Political intervention by the Chinese Government when it suits happens from time to time. There have been what used to be called "show trials" designed to deter dissent, as in the recent case of Wang Dan, to whom other speakers have referred, the former student leader who was both arbitrarily and illegally detained for 17 months without charge and recently sentenced to 11 years for doing what would be allowed in any civilised country; that is, standing up and criticising his government.
We should be concerned about human rights in China more than in any other country simply because one-fifth of the world's population lives there. But we should also be concerned about it because of the growing importance of China as a world power. Other speakers have mentioned its permanent membership of the Security Council. Of course, China wants recognition as a key member of the international community and because of that it is acutely sensitive about human rights. It attempts to block both criticism and scrutiny of its record. It has from time to time tried to silence Amnesty International and other critics. It is important that all countries, including the UK, wishing to increase trade with China, should not see that as a reason for backing down from continuing to exert pressure on its human rights record. We must remember that it is also in China's interests that it should increase its trade with us and other members of the European Union.

1583
We should also remind ourselves that the abuse of laws by officials, the manipulation of courts by politicians and widespread corruption are not conducive to a business environment in which trade will flourish. Nor in the long run will political repression do very much for the maintenance of a successful market economy.
Before saying something about the rather awful catalogue of human rights violations in China, perhaps I may ask the Minister when the Government last criticised China's human rights record. Moreover, does the Minister believe that quiet diplomacy has achieved any significant improvements?
A number of aspects of human rights have been raised in the debate which are a cause for concern: the denial of basic political freedom to criticise the government; religious repression and the repression of ethnic minorities; the use of barbaric treatment of offenders, including torture and detention without trial; excessive use of capital punishment; the maltreatment of children in orphanages; the use of organ transplants; and the use of child labour. I do not have time to cover all those matters but I wish to pick out one or two of them.
Sadly, it is not possible in China today to call for democratic reform without risking arrest or being held without charge and eventually being sentenced to terms in prison or labour camps. And yet formally the Chinese constitution guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of association. Regrettably, in practice, the position is rather different.
From time to time the Chinese Government seem to suffer from what I can only describe as paranoia which leads them to ignore their own laws and to lock up people simply for signing letters which call for political and social reform. Amnesty International has documented many such cases although I do not have time to deal with them. Regrettably, as other noble Lords have said, there are still many political prisoners in China today.
The right reverend Prelate, the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, have said something about religious persecution. There is meant to be tolerance towards religious minorities in China. There are, I believe, five officially recognised religions and there has been a quite significant religious revival over the past 15 or so years. However, members of groups which are not officially recognised by the authorities are often harassed and sometimes even detained. From time to time crackdowns take place against people who are simply trying peacefully to exercise their right of freedom of religion.
Ethnic minorities have been badly treated in China. In a recent case, ethnic Mongol intellectuals tried to set up groups to promote human rights in their region. They were charged with forming counter-revolutionary organisations and of leaking state secrets. It all has a rather nasty Stalinist ring about it.
1584
Similar treatment has been handed out to young ethnic Uigurmen. Young people of only 18 or 19 in that minority group have been sent to prison for as long as 10 or 15 years accused of setting up what the authorities call counter-revolutionary organisations.
All three groups—political dissenters and ethnic and religious minorities—have also been subjected to very harsh treatment which would be intolerable in any system that paid more than lip service to freedom of expression. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, torture is apparently not uncommon. There was the recent example of Chen Longde, a prisoner of conscience, who, having been tortured, kicked, and hit with an electric baton, attempted to commit suicide.
I understand that as long ago as 1988 China ratified the convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that. Too many trials take place without proper charges being put and without an opportunity for a proper defence to be conducted.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to the excessive use of capital punishment in China—capital punishment for crimes which in most other countries would be dealt with by terms of imprisonment. An Amnesty International report not only indicated that more than 2,000 people were executed in 1995 but also referred to the fact that on what the Chinese Government called anti-drugs day last June as many as 679 people were sentenced to death on one day alone.
No other country comes anywhere near that statistic. I believe that Saudi Arabia and Nigeria which, with China, account for 85 per cent. of executions in the world today, carried out only approximately 100 and 200 executions respectively in 1995.
As my noble friend Lord Rea said, it is not only convicted criminals who die at the hands of the state in China. Handicapped children and orphaned and abandoned girls are also dying in unacceptable numbers as a result of maltreatment in orphanages. The rather grim catalogue of human rights violations does not seem to have led to sufficient condemnation of China by the international community. Does the Minister accept that that is the case?
I began with China because it perhaps makes it easier to understand the situation in Tibet. But having described the Chinese situation, I do not in any way wish to give the impression that that excuses the treatment meted out to Tibet by the Chinese Government. We have seen countless examples of religious and cultural repression there. There are frequent petty denials of Tibetan autonomy; for example, the fairly recent refusal by the Chinese authorities to allow the Tibetans to display pictures of the Dalai Lama. Other noble Lords have referred to the extraordinary way in which the Chinese have behaved in relation to the Panchen Lama.
It is rather perplexing that the Chinese resort to such crude tactics. I cannot believe that they are so unsophisticated that they believe that such tactics will work in Tibet. Indeed, hostility towards China remains

1585
undiminished there after the destruction of more than 1,000 monasteries over the past 40 years and the killing of, it is estimated, more than one million Tibetans during that period.
I do not go quite as far as the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven, who called for the independence of Tibet. Nor do I wish to become involved in arguments about the definition of suzerainty. However, there is surely a need to remind the Chinese that repression of that proud people is not consistent with their autonomy. Again, perhaps I may ask the Minister to tell the House when the UK Government last took up the matter with the Chinese. Perhaps the Minister will comment on why the President of the Board of Trade failed to raise the matter with the Chinese authorities when he was in Beijing earlier this year.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will indicate that the Government and the international community intend to press the Chinese Government not just for improvements in their human rights record but also for a greater willingness to allow them to be monitored. Of course we want to trade with China and, of course, we accept that China is an important and powerful member of the international community. However, what the Chinese Government must understand is that, if they wish to take their full place as a respected and accepted member of that community, they must stop violating the human rights of their citizens.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to those already expressed by other speakers to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for raising the question of the human rights situation in China, particularly in Tibet, and providing us with the opportunity to debate the matter. It has enabled me to set out our policies and allows the wider world to know the view of your Lordships' House on the matter.
I should like to start with some general comments. Obviously we are deeply concerened about reports of human rights violations wherever they may occur. We believe that human rights are universal and apply to everyone equally. They are not just western standards; they apply to all countries and regions. All governments have a moral and legal obligation to their citizens to protect these rights. That concept is enshrined in the United Nations Charter under Articles 55 and 56. At the Vienna World Conference on Human Rights, China accepted the universality of human rights and the legitimacy of international debate.
The subject of human rights is no longer viewed as it was by some in the past as a form of interference in a country's domestic affairs. The United Kingdom has rightly taken a leading role in the promotion of international standards in this area. We believe that the best way to do so is through a process of constructive engagement at every level. We pursue that approach bilaterally with countries whose human rights performance concern us, and also in international fora, such as the United Nations, where we work closely with European Union partners and other like-minded governments.
1586
I should now like to concentrate on the specific area under focus in this debate. I shall divide my comments into two parts: first, I shall deal with China; and, secondly, I shall deal with Tibet. Recent events in China have once again focused international attention on the human rights situation in the country. We have followed these events with concern, in particular the continuing arrest and imprisonment of dissidents and increased regulation over religious practice.
We believe that the best way to approach the question of human rights in China is through a process of constructive engagement with the Chinese authorities, along the lines that I mentioned earlier. On the basis of our experience, we believe that that is in fact the most effective way of getting results. We regularly raise the issue of human rights in China, both at bilateral and at multilateral levels.
My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary discussed this question in depth in meetings with senior Chinese leaders during his visit to China in January. The Foreign Secretary also raised the issue with Foreign Minister Qian Qichen during their meeting in The Hague in April. Most recently my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Mr. Hanley, discussed the human rights situation in China with Vice-Foreign Minister Wang Yingfan during his visit to China in September and with Vice-Premier Li Lanqing in London last month, on 5th November.
Mr. Hanley raised the specific issues of freedom of speech and the detention of individuals on the basis of their political and religious views. In that context, he referred specifically to the case of Wang Dan and the situation in Tibet. He urged the Chinese authorities to make progress on such issues and encouraged China to accede to the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. We were particularly deeply concerned to hear about Wang Dan's imprisonment and the failure of his appeal on 18th November. We have made statements both bilaterally and with the European Union calling on the Chinese to show clemency and to allow Wang Dan's early release.
My noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon led a human rights mission to China in late 1992. As well as presenting a list of cases of concern to the Chinese authorities, the delegation held meetings with officials from legal, security, Communist Party, religious and academic organisations and met representatives of national minority groups. The delegation's report made a number of practical recommendations concerning such issues as safeguards on the use of compulsory labour in prisons, more sparing use of the death penalty, the early abolition of all forms of administrative detention and clarification of regulations on registration of religious sites. It is with regret that the Chinese authorities have failed to take forward exchanges within the framework of my noble and learned friend's mission, but we are continuing to urge them to make progress on the issues raised by it.

1587
We also work with European Union partners and other countries to raise the issue of human rights in China. The EU and the United States have in recent years jointly sponsored a resolution on the situation of human rights in China at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. We also support EU human rights exchanges with China and participate in EU representations to the Chinese authorities on such issues as the imprisonment of dissidents, as we did most recently in the case of Wang Dan.
In our exchanges with the Chinese authorities, both bilaterally and with our EU partners, we have urged the Chinese Government to take real steps to improve the human rights situation in China, including Tibet. As I mentioned, we have encouraged China to accede to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. China is already a party to a number of international human rights instruments such as the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (ratified by them in 1988) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. We have encouraged China to open further its system to the outside world. In November/December 1994 the UN Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance visited China at the invitation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs International Organisations Department. The UN Special Rapporteurs on Torture and on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Execution have also reported on China, although it is a matter of real regret that they have not been invited to visit the country. We continue to encourage China to take measures to improve human rights related legislation in accordance with international standards and to adopt measures to ensure the right to freedom of expression and association.
While the human rights situation in China remains an issue of deep concern, China has made progress in a number of fields. As has been mentioned, in the legal sphere there has been progress in the introduction of new criminal legislation. On 1st January 1997, a revision of the "Criminal Procedure Law" will come into force which should offer defendants improved protection. Measures include earlier access to legal representation; an expanded role for lawyers during a trial; and an assumption of innocence until proven guilty. Other new legislation includes a lawyer's law, a law on prisons and a judge's law. While we recognise that there are shortcomings with these new laws—some significant—and there is still more to be done in this area, we welcome these developments as a step in the right direction.
The new legislation comes at a time when the Chinese leadership is placing a greater emphasis on the importance of the "rule of law" and it should have the effect of more clearly codifying legal practice in China. We have encouraged exchanges which promote co-operation in this field: one important example is the Young Lawyers Training Scheme, supported by the Bar Council and the Law Society, which gives Chinese lawyers the opportunity to come to Britain to study and to gain practical experience of our legal system.
1588
Participants in the scheme have expressed their enthusiasm at being given this chance. The Great Britain-China Centre is promoting similar programmes, including one in relation to prison management. Among our EU partners we understand that the Raoul Wallenberg Institute in Sweden has signed an agreement with the Judicial Research Institute of China to promote co-operation in the field of human rights and humanitarian law. However, we recognise that Chinese practice still needs considerable improvement and we shall be watching carefully to see how the new rules are applied in practice.
We also welcome and encourage co-operation to improve the care of orphans and disabled children in China. We have welcomed an announcement by UNICEF that it had reached an agreement with the Chinese Government to start a programme to assist the orphanages most at risk and to help improve rehabilitation programmes for physically disabled children. As well as contributing to UNICEF, the Overseas Development Administration has also given assistance to British non-governmental organisations working in China. One is run by the Save the Children Fund for refurbishing a kindergarten in Anhui Province which supports both able and mentally and physically disabled children. We have also provided support to Health Unlimited for a training programme for mother and child health workers.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, raised the question of torture. Reports of the use of torture are a cause of particular concern. We condemn the practice wherever it takes place and raise our concerns with the Chinese bilaterally through the European Union and at multilateral fora. At the 52nd United Nations Commission on Human Rights, the EU called on China to co-operate with the Special Rapporteur on Torture. We shall continue to look to China to fulfil its obligations as a party to the UN Convention Against Torture.
The question of religion and freedom of worship was raised. Again, this is a basic human right. Reports of the harassment and detention of individuals on the basis of their religious beliefs in China, including Tibet, are a cause of concern. We continue to urge the Chinese authorities to look upon religious freedom as fulfilling a basic human need and not as a threat. Equally, cases of the ill-treatment of minority groups, including religious believers in ethnic communities, are also of concern to us. We have stressed to the authorities the need to respect the distinct cultural, religious and ethnic identity of minority groups, obviously including the Tibetans.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether we shall urge Presidents Clinton and Chirac to pay greater attention to human rights in China. As the noble Lord will know, we maintain regular contact with the United States and France on a range of international issues. They and other countries within the European Union and elsewhere share our concern about the human rights situation. A number of noble Lords—I think particularly of my noble friend Lord Brentford, the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea—spoke about population policies. We recognise the Chinese Government's concern about the spiralling Chinese

1589
population. However, we consider that family planning should be based on voluntary and informed choice. We are deeply concerned about reports of the use of coercive Chinese family planning practices.
The two international bodies involved in family planning in China are the International Planned Parent Federation and the United Nations Population Fund, as has been described. Both those organisations strongly hack the principle, reaffirmed by the International Conference on Population in Cairo in 1994, that coercion has no place in family planning programmes and that all couples should be able to plan their families on the basis of free and informed choice. In recent years they have been among the most outspoken international critics of coercion.
We provide no direct assistance on family planning in China, but as part of this country's multilateral assistance we give core contributions to the IPPF and UNFPA. We know that these organisations have a positive impact on reproductive health policy and practices in China. To withdraw support would serve no useful purpose. Indeed, it might reduce the pressure on China to adopt more enlightened policies. Both the IPPF and the UNFPA strongly oppose all forms of coercion in this area. The UNFPA's assistance to China has included the introduction of safer contraceptives and projects to improve mother and child healthcare. The IPPF provides technical and financial assistance to the family planning association of China, especially for information and educational work. Both organisations use their involvement in China and their international status to encourage China to adopt more enlightened family planning policies.
My noble friend Lord Brentford talked about the possible exposure of baby girls. There is clear evidence of imbalance in numbers between male and female babies. However, I understand that sentiment in China's big cities is beginning to change. Baby girls are sometimes preferred to boys because they are thought to cause less trouble. Traditional attitudes are more prevalent in the countryside where people place more emphasis on the need for strong arms to guide the plough. International non-governmental organisations in China are running programmes to promote respect for girl children. We welcome this and will continue to encourage them.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to conditions in prisons in China. We are still deeply concerned about conditions in prisons, particularly for those detained for political or religious beliefs. Estimates of the number of prisoners concerned vary by a factor of 10 and reliable data are hard to obtain. However, legal procedures and prison conditions were studied in depth by the delegation led by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe which visited China in 1992. We continue to urge Chinese authorities to take action of the sort recommended by the delegation.
A number of noble Lords—I think particularly of the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—referred to imports of prison-made goods and the exploitation of labour in the manufacture of toys. The United Kingdom is firmly committed to
1590
international action to combat exploitative and abusive labour practices. The United Kingdom supports the work of the International Labour Organisation which tackles these issues.
Reference was made to Operation Strikehard. I believe that was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and possibly the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. We and our European Union partners have made very clear to the Chinese authorities our concern about the widespread use of the death penalty in China and the disregard of international legal safeguards. Under China's current anti-crime campaign, Operation Strikehard, the number of executions is growing, as is the list of crimes punishable by death. The Irish Presidency made a statement to the United Nations General Assembly on 18th November which again raised our concerns about this and other human rights issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, made some chilling remarks about prison organ transplants. Reports of the use of prisoners for organ transplants are a matter of deep concern. The report of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, following his mission in 1992, recommended the formulation of a code of conduct prohibiting the use of organs from executed prisoners for transplant surgery. We have repeatedly urged the Chinese authorities to take up the recommendations of my noble and learned friend, and we shall continue to do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol and my noble friend Lord Ashbourne also raised the question of religious freedom. Freedom of worship is a basic human right and reports of the harassment and detention of individuals on the basis of their religious belief in China, including Tibet, is a cause of great worry. We continue to urge the Chinese authorities to look on religious freedom as fulfilling a basic human need, and not as a threat. As I have already mentioned, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance visited China in 1994, and in his report he raised a number of concerns, including restrictions on Christians and Buddhists to practise their religion openly. We look to the Chinese authorities to address the concerns expressed in the special rapporteur's report.
I now wish to turn to the matters raised in connection with Tibet. The question of Tibet is one of great importance. We certainly share the concerns of the House, expressed this evening and on other occasions, over reports of human rights abuses in that region. The importance of status was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. He elaborated points made by my noble friends Lord Mersey and Lord Belhaven about that matter. Successive British Governments have regarded Tibet as autonomous while recognising the special position of China there. That continues to be the Government's view. Tibet has never been internationally recognised as independent. But we believe that the Tibetans should have a greater say in running their own affairs in Tibet, and have urged the Chinese authorities to respect the distinct cultural, religious and ethnic identity of the Tibetans. In our view the best way forward for Tibet is through dialogue

1591
between the Chinese Government and the Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama, without any preconditions imposed. When the Secretary of State met the Dalai Lama in July, he expressed the hope that this dialogue could be established.
We shall continue to use every appropriate opportunity to raise Tibetan concerns with the Chinese authorities. This includes our concern for the safety of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the boy selected by the Dalai Lama as the Panchen Lama, and for the former abbot of Tashilunpho Monastery, Chadrel Rinpoche, who led the search committee for the reincarnation of the Panchen Lama.
A recent statement by the Chinese ambassador to the United Nations, during a meeting of the United Nations committee on the rights of the child, gave limited information about Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, but we are anxious to know more than we do now and we have since raised our concerns with the Chinese authorities in Peking and London, and are considering with our European Union partners what further action to take.
The question of religious freedom in Tibet was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. We are deeply concerned about reports of destruction of religious buildings and limits set on numbers of Tibetan Buddhist monks. Religion is central to Tibetan culture and ethnic identity and we shall continue to urge the Chinese authorities to respect that identity.
In conclusion, the human rights situation in China, including Tibet, will remain an important issue for us and in our relations with the Chinese authorities. China, as a geographically vast, developing nation of over 1.2 billion people, is undergoing major social and economic change. These changes will lead to increased domestic pressures for human rights reforms, such as we are seeing in the legal sphere. We do not believe that a policy of isolating China, particularly at this time of change, would help to achieve the sort of progress that I am sure all noble Lords here this evening would wish to see. On the contrary, we believe that isolation could lead to further human rights violations.
Having said that, it is important that China recognises continuing international anxieties, particularly in respect of fundamental political, ethnic and religious freedoms. We shall continue to urge the Chinese authorities and the Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama, to enter into a dialogue without preconditions at the earliest opportunity. The best way to achieve progress is through constructive dialogue and through support programmes, both governmental and non-governmental, of the kinds I described earlier. We will continue to use such contacts to urge the Chinese authorities to take steps to improve the human rights situation in the country, including China's early accession to the international covenants. But we shall not shirk the need to criticise Chinese policies and actions if and when events warrant it.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I extend warmest thanks to all noble Lords who have taken part but particularly
1592
to the noble Lord the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, who sat through the previous proceedings and who have had rather a long stint on the Bench. I also extend thanks to the right reverend Prelate.
The debate has been useful. It has exposed the wide variety of concerns about human rights that noble Lords feel in relation to the situation in China and Tibet. I hope that the Chinese authorities will take note of the views expressed by so many noble Lords on public executions, excessive use of capital punishment, religious intolerance, compulsory population control, repression in Tibet, and a vast number of other issues such as that of the orphanages. What struck me most forcibly was that the Minister referred a number of times to the recommendations made by his noble and learned friend Lord Howe following his mission to China in 1992, which I re-read shortly before the debate. It hit me that many of the recommendations made by the noble and learned Lord had not been acted upon, and the Minister reinforced that impression.
I wonder whether we can give further consideration to the question of access which is, after all, vitally important. As the Minister said, the one rapporteur who has been there is the UN Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance. I do not believe that any of the recommendations he made in 1994 have been acted upon either. When so many pressures have been brought to bear on China to do what it is committed to do by its international obligations and there has been no result from all those contacts and the repeated raising of such matters by Ministers at every level, then we have to do something else.
A number of useful and constructive suggestions were made this evening. There should of course be better reporting. Consumer power, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, could be important, especially in the case of the goods that are made using labour subjected to intolerable conditions. The countering of threats against Disney, the BBC and other agents who report on what is said in China is vitally important. The Minister did not deal with the question that arose in relation to the BBC during the debate. I hope that he may see fit to write to those who mentioned it and place a copy of the letter in the Library.
If the Chinese read this debate, they can be under no illusion that your Lordships and the British people as a whole take the question of human rights in China and Tibet immensely seriously. They want to see China take her rightful place in the world community and assume the role of leadership to which it is fully entitled by its distinguished history and its size in terms of geography and population. China can do that only if it conforms to international rules which guide the rest of the world. I hope that the House will have made a small contribution towards ensuring that that takes place. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Obscenity Bill [H.L.]
8.34 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill is concerned with one issue only: how to define the word "obscenity", which reads across to no less than 10 other statutes, possibly more. The word "obscene" has its origins in Latin and literally means "off stage". It was applied, for instance, to the murder of Agamemnon by his wife Clytemnestra in Aeschylus, and to the blinding of Gloucester in Shakespeare's play "King Lear". It was thought that those acts were too violent for an audience to watch in any sort of detail. The word has slightly changed its meaning in modern times. It now stands for almost anything of a rather questionable character. I am concerned tonight with its definition in the Obscene Publications Acts 1959 and 1964, which give the word its latest and most obscure definition.
I preface my remarks by explaining how I became involved in this issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, whom I am sorry not to see in her place, was approached by a working group seeking some kind of parliamentary status. Owing to her many activities she was unable to take that on, but she asked me to stand in for her on this occasion. The working group included some good names: Mr. Charles Colchester, the chief executive of Christian Action Research and Education (CARE), and the Reverend Dr. Clifford Hill for the Centre for Contemporary Ministry. Their names will recur from time to time. They were both known to me. However, I had to remember that I am a member of the all-party committee of both Houses, the Family and Child Protection Group. I therefore approached its chairman, Dame Jill Knight, MP, and asked if I might act for her in responding to the request by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. She was agreeable.
I therefore set about providing what might be termed ammunition and rations for the working party: providing it with a secretariat, a room in which to meet and so on. In due course it came up with the report, Violence and Pornography in the Media, which was the subject of a press conference on 25th July. It was accepted on behalf of the all-party committee. I have placed several copies in the Library and given a number of copies to my friends. So much for the history of the matter.
During the course of its sittings, the working party attended an exposition by Superintendent Michael Hoskins of the Metropolitan Police service, I Area Clubs and Vice Unit. We were given a sighting of the sort of pornography we are talking about and for which we need to legislate. I was frankly horrified at the disgusting character of what we saw. I shall not offend your Lordships' imagination by describing it in poetic detail, but it convinced me of the need for a change in the law.
I accordingly sought words with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who very kindly put me in touch with those at the Home Office who deal with the matter. I acquainted them with the fact that, unless the Government took some action, I should take action on
1594
my own. I said that they must include it in the Queen's Speech or I should introduce a Bill myself. In the debate on the loyal Address I told the House that since the matter was not included I should do the job myself. I have been working on it ever since.
The report of the working party showed, through an opinion poll, that the public is increasingly disturbed by the amount of violence and pornography on television. Only a week ago, after the Secretary of State for National Heritage talked to broadcasters about the portrayal of violence in the media, the Prime Minister raised the difficult question that faces all of us when in another place he said:
"There is a difficult balance to keep in ensuring that we have free and open media and that they maintain the standards that are appropriate for society generally and for children".
That is what we are talking about tonight. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on his earlier debate today on the role of the media. I am concerned about the media and the need to maintain standards for society generally. I believe that the current law on obscenity fails to do that.
I come now to the crux of the matter: definitions. Those who study linguistics recognise various classes of definition. There are lexical definitions in which we explain words by means of other words, as in a dictionary. Obviously the process of defining words by means of other words cannot go on indefinitely, so we come to the next set of definitions which are known as "ostensive" definitions, from the Latin word ostendere, to show. "This is a walking stick". That is how we teach children their mother tongue. "That is a pussycat", and so on. There are other contextual methods of defining words, but the lexical and ostensive kinds are all that I shall refer to this evening.
The current law defines obscenity lexically by linking it to two other words: namely, "corruption" and "depravity". This is a gift to defence counsel. He only has to turn to the jury and say: "Well, members of the Jury, you have read the material. Do you feel corrupted and depraved by it? I am not asking whether you feel disgusted and revolted. That is another matter altogether. But does it make you feel you want to go on seeing more of it?" Without leaving the box, the jury say, "No, of course not. It is disgusting and revolting. But that is not the same as corrupting and depraving", so there is an acquittal.
In the course of a debate in January 1980, 16 years ago, I was persuaded by my very old and dear friend the late Lord Nugent of Guildford to take part in a debate. I suggested that we should try an ostensive definition of obscenity by listing all sexual activities and perversions thereof. The items on the list would be the definition of obscenity.
In drafting a Bill of this kind, one has to be careful not to fall foul of a principle of construction which goes by the name of a Latin tag: citatio unius exclusio alterius. If you cite one action you exclude another. If you include one named action, you exclude any others that are not in the list. For example, if, when referring to a list of animals, they are all members of one species, you can name the species and thereby cover all its

1595
members. But if, to give emphasis to one particular breed within the species you cite just one member, then you exclude all the others.
My preliminary drafts accordingly ran into the difficulty of citing all the sexual perversions there could possibly be and ran into difficulties with the length of the list. I could, of course, have quoted the index of Krafft-Ebbings' Psycopathologia Sexualis, but that is no way to draft a statute. So I ask your Lordships to agree to a small number of independent groups of sexual activity, without giving examples.
I turn to Clause 1(2) of my Bill which lists them:
"(a) human sexual activity or acts of force or restraint associated with such activity;
"(b) human genital organs or human urinary or excretory functions".
I did not think those words up, they come from the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 which permitted the setting up of sex shops and sex cinemas. So for the purpose of the Bill I am merely borrowing words from another Act. There can be nothing very wrong about that. The same local government Act specifies that a licence under the sex shop act is not a defence for any other offence for which a person might be prosecuted. By citing the words in the present Obscene Publications (Amendment) Act, I exclude all the products of all sex shops because they can no longer be used in a defence. So this is not invention by me, I am exploiting words in another Act.
Clause 1(2) of my Bill continues the list:
"(c) any act which would be a sexual offence if carried out in practice".
That is most important. Noble Lords will find a list of sexual offences in another statute, the criminal proceedings Act 1991, in which the words "sexual offences" are included. Again, I am using another Act of Parliament to define obscenity in the context of this Bill. Lastly, Clause 1(2) lists:
"(d) mutilation or torture of, or other acts of gross violence towards, humans or animals".
Perhaps I may say a few words about "sexual activity". It would be for the jury to decide whether a particular act was a sexual activity. For example, with kissing, a cheek to cheek kissing between parents and children would obviously not be a sexual activity. With a prolonged open-mouthed kiss as a prelude to copulation, it would be for the jury to decide yes or no. I shall not try to put it into an Act of Parliament.
But deciding on whether an activity falls into the list is not the end of the matter. For the material to be deemed to be obscene, it must be portrayed,
"in a manner which a reasonable person would regard as grossly offensive".
So the jury would have to consider that too. The words I have chosen for the test of obscenity are not arbitrary.
Turning to the qualification,
"In a manner which a reasonable person would regard as grossly offensive",
I am sure that noble Lords will recognise that it is a piece of legal formalism which occurs in Act after Act. A student would know that the eminent Member of the
1596
other place, Mr. A. P. Herbert, wrote some highly amusing articles in Punch on the characteristics of the reasonable person. Of course, that must be left to the jury.
That concludes what I have to say about the Bill. I wish to thank all those who have supported and helped me in its drafting and who are here tonight. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
8.47 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, first I wish to offer strong support to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. It would be an impertinence to refer to the intellectual quality of the Bill, bearing in mind that the noble Earl has been for many years the chancellor of a famous university. I was going to say that he had been chancellor of a university longer than anyone alive. However, he tells me in all modesty that the Duke of Edinburgh surpasses him, which is hardly fair competition. In any ordinary sense he must be thought to hold the record for being chancellor of a university.
The noble Earl's great-grandfather was Lord Chancellor for longer than anyone else. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, may have been Lord Chancellor for longer in this century, but the record overall still belongs to the noble Earl's great-grandfather. So he is just the kind of eminent man who ought to lead the renewed struggle against obscenity.
I know that the noble Earl agrees with me that there is one name which should never be forgotten in this connection: Mary Whitehouse, the Boadicea of the whole effort over the past 30 years. I spoke to her tonight. She has not been in good health lately; I am afraid that she is laid up at home. However, she is as indomitable as ever and wants a message to come to us that no more effective step could be taken to help to halt what she calls the moral decay and to find an effective law against pornography. I do not know that she has studied the details of the noble Earl's proposals, but she is with him, heart and soul.
I have a rather senile record in this field. In 1971 I opened the first debate on pornography in this House with words which still seem to me to sum up the matter. A diet of filth, I said, corrupts a nation. I set up a committee which included eminent people such as the noble Lord, Lord Coggan, who was then Archbishop of York but later became Archbishop of Canterbury, Malcolm Muggeridge, Peregrine Worsthorne, Kingsley Amis, Cliff Richard and all kinds of wonderful people. Some of us at least investigated and poked our noises into the most horrible places: the dirty shows in Soho, and worse. Some of us, including myself, went to Copenhagen and the centre of pornography. I at least walked out of two sex shows—the kind of shows to which the noble Earl referred in his speech. I remember that at the end of that period a taxi driver asked me, "Excuse me, sir, I can never remember your name. I know you are "Lord Porn" but have you got another name?" That was the kind of reputation I achieved in that period.

1597
In later years I am afraid that I come under the description referred to by Lloyd George who said that the best introduction to a speech he could remember was made by Senator Bryan of America:
"Some will say that I have run my course; some will say that I have not fought the fight; but no one can say that I have not kept the faith."
In my humble way I can say that that is true, and I have the pleasure of being an acolyte of the noble Earl this evening.
In those days, it was quite difficult. Mary Whitehouse and I, for example, went to the Cambridge Union. A dead cat was lowered on top of Mary. She had a bad time in various parts of the world. She was, of course, indomitable as ever. Although, as I said, things are much better now, not so long ago her life was threatened. She was pinned down in her house under guard because of some terrible threats. So it has not been all fun and games for opponents of pornography.
It is much easier these days. In recent years Mary Whitehouse has won many debates at universities; I too have won several. On the whole, the enlightened young people of today are much more intelligent than they were 25 years ago, in particular young women. The feminists of today are anti-pornography. They see it as the horrifying exploitation of women. Today at university one can win a debate with only the support of young ladies.
There has been another big change over the years; namely, the emergence of violence. Violence is vastly more severe in this country today. Violent crime has much increased. When we produced our report in 1972, only one chapter was given to violence. Producing a similar volume today one would have to devote half of it to violence. That has turned many people against pornography who were quite ready to snigger at a bit of sexual licence.
On the other hand, as the noble Earl indicated and as, no doubt, others will mention at much greater length, technological developments have given pornographers a new opportunity of which they are making use. We have to try to cope with that. Mary Whitehouse agrees that new and much more stringent measures must be taken to cope with pornography. I agree entirely and I support the noble Earl.
It is, of course, difficult to know exactly what to do. It will always be difficult to find exactly the right course. It is perfectly true that it is very hard to prove before a jury—certainly a jury that is not biased in one's favour—that any particular piece of pornography can deprave or corrupt. Therefore, one has to find something else. The noble Earl selected certain aspects of pornography which can be tackled so long as they are found objectionable to a reasonable person. That will always remain a difficult area. What is a reasonable person?
I have brought with me to the House a newspaper which I am sure most noble Lords have never heard of. It is called the Sport. I should not like to ask for it in the Library; my motives might be misunderstood. There is, however, a daily paper on sale called the Sport. It is what I call a pornographic rag. It may well come under
1598
the particular classification indicated by the noble Earl Certainly, as a paper, I would regard it as highly objectionable. But all sorts of things are highly objectionable. I find much of the tabloid press—and some of the rest of the press too—highly objectionable. Much of it is very unpleasant. It is cruel and inaccurate about prominent people: the Royal Family, politicians of various parties and well-known prisoners. One can find many things objectionable and one cannot ban them all by law. However, the noble Earl has selected certain forms of activity which could be tackled in that way. I, for one, strongly support him.
8.55 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his introduction. The issues with which he is concerned in this Bill are shared by many people certainly within the Church of England. In the General Synod, which will meet in York in July this coming year, Mrs. Margaret Brown has a private member's Motion, which will certainly be debated, under the heading of "Sex, Violence and Blasphemy in the Media". I believe that other people share that growing concern.
The Board of Social Responsibility in the Church of England would agree with the Pornography and Violence Research Trust that there is a worrying level of violence and sadism as well as sexual pornography in videos, computer material and late night satellite television. That material is largely promoted by, as my brief says, greed—but to begin with I should like to use the word "profit" and allow the word "greed" to follow, for a video costing 97p to make sells for £12 or more. One can see there the profit levels. The Pornography and Violence Research Trust is also correct to argue that it is impossible to prove causal links between watching certain depictions and the commission of imitative acts. That simply cannot be proved. What can be discussed is that some elements of popular culture are heavily saturated with images of sadism and cruelty. Violence becomes acceptable. At the same time, it is easy to forget that it is fantasy. It is neither literature nor paintings nor drawings but acting by real people, who then extend the limits of what is acceptable into everyday life.
The strategy used by novelists—or even a painting by Turner—is that those acts are placed in a moral context. There is comment by the character involved, by the author or by the depiction of other characters showing emotion—for example, women searching for their dead and weeping on the battlefield of Waterloo, which is Turner's picture in the Tate. But a film depicting a violent rape ultimately enjoyed by a woman crosses the boundaries for it portrays it as something of an acceptable action, though it is one which I believe we would all want to condemn.
The main religious communities of our world—especially in this, our own country—of Islam, Judaism and Christianity would all agree that obscenity is defined by it being an assault upon human values. It is the deliberate attempt to distort human dignity and personality, which we believe are God-given gifts. For Christians, the value of relationship and reason

1599
constitute the image of God in humanity and the Christian tradition has always emphasised the importance of moral freedom if people are to grow toward maturity: moral freedom—growth toward maturity. However, there are times when that freedom needs to be restricted by legislation.
The crucial questions are how to control that and how to draw the line between artistic creativity and pornography. At the present time, the 1959 Act is in place. There are many—I include myself among them—who would argue that it is perhaps not sufficient. It defines obscenity as material which has a "tendency to deprave and corrupt" those likely to see, hear or read it.
That legislation is not used by the Crown Prosecution Service. We have checked that with a recently retired senior solicitor in the Metropolitan Police. It is believed to be too subjective and there are therefore declining numbers of prosecutions and an unwillingness to convict. However, despite the way I would wish to commend the issue, I wonder whether the proposed Bill takes us any further. The definition,
"Sexual activity … which a reasonable person would regard as grossly offensive",
many believe to be a lawyer's paradise. Who defines what or who is reasonable or offensive? We are back where the problem really resides; that is, facing the issue of answering a subjective question.
It gives me great pain to say that. I believe, along with many other noble Lords in this House, that pornography is a serious matter. It corrupts nations and is not something of which we can be proud. Perhaps therefore we should try to find some other ways forward. One may be to encourage the Government to proscribe further late night television programmes beamed in from the Continent by satellite. I was surprised to discover that the 1990 Broadcasting Act, Sections 177 and 178, proscribes publication of pornography by satellite or Internet, but only where they originate in the United Kingdom. The receiving of satellite or computer pornography is not an offence, except for child pornography. If it can be an offence to publish child pornography, why cannot that provision be further extended, used and implemented? There are elements which the Government are able to initiate and take further which will help to deal with the problem. They may not solve it, but they may take the situation one stage further.
The second way forward is to define specifically certain actions as pornographic, and the noble Earl pointed out to us the difficulties of trying to do that. It will indeed be extremely tricky. It will require concrete illustrations of torture and sexual violence.
The third way forward is industry self-regulation. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in the first debate we had this afternoon, indicated that within terms of the media that was perhaps the best way forward. Whether or not we can rely on that self-regulation is another matter. But if knives can be proscribed—with again the problems of definition—cannot the industry try to police itself better?
1600
Let me come to one of the problems we face in any legislation; that is, the balance between retaining creativity and artistic self-expression as a vital part of human activity and community life and deciding where the line is drawn in regard to pornography. There have been great artistic portrayals of violence, cruelty and sexual relationships—Goya's "Disasters of War"—Lawrence's novels and, on stage, as has been indicated already, the blinding of Gloucester in "King Lear". All elicit either pity, in the case of violence, or deep emotion in the case of sexuality. They appeal to our shared humanity. They enlarge our sympathy and show that what happened to those people may happen to others, including ourselves. We need that in order to be a civilised society, for it holds up a mirror to our own activities and our own perceptions of what is happening. Furthermore, the Holocaust shows the dangers of totalitarianism and censorship of the press. Trying to draw the line that does not destroy artistic self-expression and creativity and yet rightly deals with pornography and obscenity is still an issue to which we have not yet found an answer.
What do we commend? I regret to say that I do not believe the present Bill will do. We need a wider debate on these issues. In the short term, the Government could use the legislation that is already in place in such a way that we could limit the way in which pornography is disseminated, and the development of obscenity could at least be curbed. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example.
Eutel satellite channels make pornography available to the United Kingdom viewers between the hours of 1 1pm and 3am. It is interesting to note the time—in the dark of the night. Three hard-core porn channels can be accessed on two Eutel satellites. Non-subscribers can receive 15 minutes unencrypted viewing. Sometimes the further material is also unencrypted. Two of the channels sell decoders and cards widely through shops and advertise them as well.
In the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Article 12(a) stipulates that television advertising shall not prejudice respect for human dignity; and Article 16 states that television advertising shall not cause moral or physical detriment to minors. Nowhere does it say that the advertising channel is exempt from commercial advertising and there are therefore already in place certain elements which will allow us to take steps if we are willing to apply the law as it already stands and the conventions to which we have committed ourselves.
There is no doubt that obscenity is a serious matter and one which we must address. I hope your Lordships are under no illusion that there is any acceptance, weak or otherwise, of the growing cancer of obscenity which is to be found in parts of the media, and certainly through satellites and the Internet. We do not believe that this Bill is the right way forward. We need a better way, but in the meantime we need to apply the law which is already in place.
9.6 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, for introducing this Bill. I am also grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for his reminder of the history behind this long-running subject; and the right reverend Prelate gave us a great deal to think about in all that he said. I go a long way with him on a number of points but not on everything.
Pornography is a subject which some people wish to encourage and others to discourage. My belief is that it should be discouraged. Psychotherapists suggest that it affects a number of people in four different ongoing stages. First, an individual may become addicted to pornography; secondly, the addiction may escalate so that the person needs harder material; thirdly, the individual becomes desensitised, which appears to mean that he can no longer tell the difference between what is right and what is wrong in his actions; and, finally, he needs to act out his fantasies—it is usually men—on real women, possibly passing over the barrier into criminal practice.
Perhaps I may illustrate this with the example of a certain Mr. Ted Bundy, an American serial killer, who admitted murdering more than two dozen women. He was put to death in America in January 1989. He explained how repeated exposure to pornographic and violent material led to desensitisation to the point where he could brutally murder women and children. He explained how he had started off using soft pornography as a young teenager, moved on to harder material, and then more extreme pornography until that could not satisfy his sexual desires. He then started to act out what he saw in pornography in real life and committed a serious sexual assault. In a final interview just before his execution he said:
"Listen, I'm no social scientist and I haven't done a survey … but I have lived in prison for a long time now. And I've met a lot of men who were motivated to commit violence just like me. And without exception every one of them was deeply involved in pornography—without question, without exception—deeply influenced and consumed by an addiction to pornography".
The current test under the present law is, as several noble Lords have said, whether it tends to deprave and corrupt persons likely to read it. Over the years I have heard a number of people say that a smart defence lawyer will butter up the jury, tell them what mature and sensible people they are and then ask them, "Were you depraved and corrupted by what you have seen or what you have read? Of course you were not". It takes a very brave and bold juryman to say, "Yes, sir, I was depraved and corrupted by what I saw", because that will be seen as a sign of weakness. The test has not worked for years. Prosecutors are finding themselves in more and more difficult situations and prosecutions are becoming fewer.
I believe that the present law is bad and ineffective. Therefore, there are only two options left. One is to abolish it and the other is to change it. I am certain that the country does not want to see the Obscene Publications Act abolished. Therefore, the only option is to change it. The right reverend Prelate has asked for discussion. This has been discussed up and down the country for years. I fully agree that a change in the law is extremely difficult. What is the right course to adopt?
1602
The present Bill gives a twofold test, which is one way to tackle the problem. First, there is the content of the material and, secondly, whether it is grossly offensive to a reasonable man. I can certainly envisage quite a number of acts which fall foul of the content test but which the reasonable man would not consider to be grossly offensive. I do not believe it would be grossly offensive to see someone taking a shower or to watch a person painting someone who was wearing no clothes. I do not see any problem in that. When I first heard a discussion of the topic the police were arguing for a list of items that should be proscribed. While I accept the view that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, gave that that would be bound to lead to exceptions, I personally would probably prefer that. However, the important thing is for us to attempt some change in this extremely difficult field and see whether it works. I would greatly prefer the Bill, and therefore support it, rather than continue with the law as it stands.
I conclude by referring to the 1990 Home Office study on this subject. It is the duty of Parliament to protect the public from the risks and dangers of obscenity just as parliament is taking action currently to protect people under the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. I shall not pass any judgment on that or discuss it at the moment, but it illustrates the fact that Parliament has a duty to act. Perhaps I may read the final paragraph of the Home Office study on pornography. It states:
"At the end of the day, it is difficult to believe that a society can really afford to embrace pornography with welcoming arms since this may serve to legitimise those attitudes which pornography itself may reinforce. The question must be considered to be wider than just prohibition or other forms of control alone, but how to promote those attitudes and values which undermine pornography's potential influence".
The first step in dealing with the problem is for Parliament to pass legislation that will be effective in endorsing what the public requires and in prohibiting what the public considers to be grossly offensive. The second stage is the promotion of positive attitudes and values around the country. We discussed that issue last week in our debate on the role of the family. I believe that there is a job here for the media. If I had had the fortitude of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, who has spoken in all three debates this afternoon, I should have mentioned that point earlier. Turning to the two right reverend Prelates who are present, perhaps I may say that there is a role here for the Church also, as well as for educators and the media, in promoting those positive attitudes and values which can undermine the potential influence of pornography.
Having said that, I believe that the ball must start here in Parliament, which must provide a law that is enforceable. For that reason, I support the Bill, even if we decide to amend it in Committee.
9.14 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships long, but I wish to start by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, for introducing this Bill. We have known for many years that the Obscene Publications Act 1959 has been causing concern among law enforcement agencies, so I pay tribute to the noble Earl for introducing this Bill to amend the current outdated test

1603
of a tendency "to deprave and corrupt" with a more readily understandable and objective test. This should make it easier to convict those producing or distributing some of the worst types of pornography, which are not being judged obscene under the current law. I also commend the work that he did over the summer by chairing the working group of the All-Party Parliamentary Family and Child Protection Group.
I am concerned about the media portrayal of children, women and men and the sexual relationship. I believe that the sexual relationship between a man and a woman was given by God for pleasure and for strengthening that relationship. So often the portrayal of sexual relationships in pornography seems to have the opposite effect. I feel concerned about the sort of relationships and treatment of women, in particular, that we are promoting by allowing some of the more extreme material to be judged as legally available.
I am sure that those members of the general public questioned earlier in the year in the survey commissioned by the All-Party Parliamentary Family and Child Protection Group will also be supporting the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, tonight. When asked if they believed that the use of pornography is harmless and has no serious effect on those who have a taste for it, 60 per cent. disagreed. This House has the privilege tonight of sending a signal to society that this sort of material is not acceptable.
I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, on ensuring that the important subject of violence is not left out of this Bill by its inclusion in the list and I am sure that that will be appreciated by many people around the country. It surely follows logically from all the initiatives that are going on to tackle violence on the screen that the most extreme,
"mutilation or torture of, or other acts of gross violence towards, humans or animals",
should be regarded as obscene, if the violence is portrayed,
"in a manner which a reasonable person would regard as grossly offensive".
Last week, the Director of the British Board of Film Classification said that the board is doing all that it can to deal with violence and that the current content of films stems from the Hollywood culture of violence. I hope this House will say tonight that enough is enough.
We have heard too much recently about child pornography and the Internet. In strengthening the law on obscenity in this Bill, it will be easier to convict in cases where violent and/or pornographic material is available on the Internet. I am pleased to note that this Bill will deal with child pornography when it is in the form of sexually explicit stories, which, I understand, can be obtained on the Internet also.
This Bill comes at a very important time, and I urge Members of this House from all sides to support the noble Earl in bringing in a much-needed reform.
9.18 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, when speaking about a Private Member's Bill, as always I preface my remarks by saying that in this matter I speak for myself, not for my party. Indeed, I expect that there will be as wide a range of views on this issue in my party as there is in all parties and among those with no party affiliation. I have immediate evidence of that from the views of my noble friend Lord Longford, with whose views, like, I am afraid, the views of a number of noble Lords who have already spoken, I disagree. However, I assure your Lordships that the fact that I come to a different conclusion from some of those who have spoken does not mean that I treat the matter any less seriously than they do. It is incumbent on all of us to look at the present state of the law and to consider seriously whether it is defective in any way either because it is too restrictive or not sufficiently restrictive, to consider the alternative solutions proposed by the noble Earl in his Bill and to look at a realistic way forward to achieve the objectives that all of us believe are desirable.
I am at one with a number of noble Lords who have spoken in agreeing that the Obscene Publications Act 1959 does not work as originally intended. Many of those who have to implement that Act have come to that conclusion, and it is difficult to dissent from it. The particular phrase used in the 1959 Act, which was extended in the 1964 Act, is "a tendency to deprave and corrupt". That phrase was not new in 1959. It first featured in our law in 1868. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, made the important point that there was a difference between that and being shocked and disgusted. I believe that Mr. Justice Stable in the Philanderer case in 1956 was the first to make that point strongly to the jury.
One can agree that it is very difficult to persuade juries that they themselves have been depraved and corrupted by the material that is before the courts. In 1962 in Clayton v. Halsey it was ruled, and became law, that no amount of exposure to pornography could corrupt a policeman. When the chairman of the Arts Council established a working party on the operation of the Act in 1968-69—which, incidentally, came to the unanimous view that the law was too restrictive—one of the people questioned was the then Suffragan Bishop of Woolwich, now the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. He was the only person that the working party could find who said that he had been depraved by reading or seeing pornography. Quite rightly, they did not believe him. All of us who know him know that that is not true.
The difficulty about the 1959 law is that it makes it a punishable offence to induce things that are not in themselves criminal. There is an alternative to the obscenity rule and that is the indecency rule. That is important for the transmission under the Post Offices Act of material which the noble Earl might well consider to be obscene. The point of raising the question of indecency is not because that matter features in the Bill but that it raises criteria that are important in understanding the issue with which we are dealing. The quality of indecency is readily inferred from the

1605
defendant's motive of sexual gratification. When looking at issues of indecency the two matters that must be taken into account are the intention of the perpetrator of the alleged indecent act and the setting in which it takes place. Clearly, some physical actions that are entirely appropriate in a doctor's surgery would not be appropriate on a London bus. That applies much more widely. Unless the definition of obscenity or indecency that we use takes into account intention or setting, it will be a defective definition.
It is a myth to believe that there can be a recognised standard of public opinion to which we can appeal. Public opinion has changed greatly over the years. One of the problems faced by supporters of the 1959 Act is that juries have increasingly been unwilling to convict not only because of the difficulties of definition in the Act but perhaps also because public opinion itself has changed over the years. Those who have conducted research into violent and sexual material on television, films and videos have found increasingly over the years that people are becoming—in my view, rightly—more intolerant of violence but less intolerant of the depiction of sexual activity. That, whether we like it or not, is a fact of public opinion, and such things change.
I come now to my second point, which is the wording of the Bill. I am afraid that the noble Earl's attempt to use an ostensive definition, instead of the definition used in the 1959 Act, is doomed to failure, but it is not doomed to failure just because of any defect in the ostensive definition itself. I would say on that point only that the definition includes acts which are themselves legal, and, indeed, in terms of human sexual activity some of us would say desirable, and lump them together with acts which are illegal acts of violence or torture. Because the Act is concerned with articles, which includes words as well as pictures, it is difficult to apply those ostensive definitions equally to words and to pictures. They are clearly designed for pictures rather than words, and it would be a matter of opinion whether they applied to words.
Then of course the attempt to rely upon ostensive definitions falls because the noble Earl is forced to use words such as "reasonable person". Who is a reasonable person? The 1959 Act says that it is someone who is likely to see the material or read it. Surely that is much more likely to be an effective definition than a "reasonable person", which could be anyone. And then "grossly offensive": what is "grossly offensive"? That will change over the years. Juries will be required to make judgments which it is inappropriate for them to make.
Again, in Clause 2, the noble Earl uses the phrase:
"fully justified as being for the good of the public as a whole".
One thing we know about the public on these matters is that there is no "public as a whole". There are lots of different publics with different views and different levels of sensitivity. I am sorry: I appreciate the sincerity of the noble Earl and those who have spoken in support of the Bill, but it will not work.
Perhaps I may for one minute turn to what I think is valuable and what I think should be preserved. In saying that these proposed changes are undesirable,
1606
we should not lose sight of the desirability—indeed, the essential availability—of classification and, in certain circumstances, censorship, particularly in the broadcasting of film, video and computer-generated material. Our criteria for those should be the protection of the vulnerable—in particular, of women and children—both in the audience and as participants in the acts which are displayed. If we concentrate upon those matters, I believe that that is a more effective way forward.
I am afraid that it is not enough to rely upon illegal acts, because illegal acts, after all, have changed in the law. The Criminal Justice Act 1994 did for the first time legalise heterosexual anal intercourse. Are we going to change our views on censorship entirely as a result of that change in the law? No, let us stick to what we know works—the protection of the vulnerable. Let us not be diverted into the issues unfortunately but well meaningly raised in the Bill.
9.29 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the noble Earl for bringing this subject before your Lordships this evening. The opportunity this Bill provides to debate this important issue is welcome. The debate has been most interesting. The issue of obscenity, and the extent of the controls which it is appropriate for society to exercise over the availability of certain sorts of material, is clearly a difficult and a sensitive one. The subject raises issues of morality and public decency; it touches on the relationship between the interests of the individual and those of society at large; and it involves complex questions of the role and effectiveness of the criminal law in a changing society.
The noble Earl has brought all these issues before your Lordships by virtue of the Bill which he has introduced. With characteristic clarity and conviction he has explained his concerns about the present situation and why he believes that changes to the law are needed.
Many of us in our private capacities may lament that anyone in our society should want to have available some of the material that is now regularly sold in our local newsagents and generally available in other ways; for example, by mail order. But that is not necessarily the same as concluding that the law should prohibit the availability of such material. The criminal law exists to prevent harm, to protect individual citizens and society itself from damaging behaviour and influences. Its function is not to impose the preferences of one section of society upon others unless there is clear evidence that damage may otherwise be caused.
The law relevant to this issue is the Obscene Publications Act 1959. At its heart is the proposition that material is obscene if it causes harm—that is to say, if its effect, if taken as a whole, is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt those persons who are likely to see, read or hear it. This test has been with us for a considerable time. Indeed, it was first formulated as common law in the 19th century and it has been the subject of debate whenever concerns have been

1607
expressed in this area. The fact that it has remained unchanged may testify to its strength: it certainly reflects the difficulty in finding anything better.
It is a flexible test, pointing the court to the balance which must be struck between penalising material which may have harmful effects on its audience and avoiding prohibition of genuinely artistic or scholarly material. There have been repeated attempts to find a different approach and the Government have kept the issue under continuing review. The fact that we have done so is an acknowledgement that the present position is not wholly satisfactory, and this is an issue which we ourselves are also concerned to address. This Bill provides opportunity to further that debate. Nevertheless, we have not yet been able to find a better alternative.
The Act is not moribund. In 1995 there were 356 prosecutions and 259 convictions, although there is concern that the nature of the material which falls below the threshold for prosecution has been growing steadily worse. And we have kept the law up to date with subsequent changes, particularly in regard to child pornography where our controls are among the toughest in the world. Nevertheless, the noble Earl has argued this evening that the law is ineffective. He believes that it has become impossible for the courts to apply the test in the 1959 Act and he argues that it is impossible to say with any certainty what will fall foul of its provisions.
We shall be listening extremely carefully to the debate in the hope that it will signal the way forward. Nevertheless, I have to tell your Lordships that we are not convinced that this Bill is right, for the following reasons. It would introduce a new general test of obscenity, supplemented by a widely drawn list of activities to be deemed, subject to the test, prima facie "obscene". This general test focuses on what is grossly offensive to reasonable people. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that that is where the difficulty lies. The term "gross offensiveness", for example, is no clearer in meaning than the "deprave and corrupt" test, and the Government's view is that juries would fall back upon their own judgment in deciding what was or was not obscene.
The test of gross offensiveness is not based on any consideration of harm to society and, as such, could leave the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. "Harm" may be a justification for restricting freedom of speech; "offensive" may well not be. People may find many things "grossly offensive", including political opinions or even revisionist views of history.
The noble Earl has suggested that the test of the "reasonable person" is the key to resolving this problem. He has drawn attention to the frequent use of that test in the criminal law, not least in the Protection from Harassment Bill. But I believe that we are dealing with two very different situations. In his or her usual guise in the criminal law, the reasonable person could be anyone. We invite the courts to consider what any rational person would think in the circumstances. Whoever we chose,
1608
whether conservative or radical in their political or moral views, would come to the same conclusion. But it is a very different "reasonable person" whom we are asking to solve our problems in this case. The personal moral code of the individual concerned could fundamentally affect the judgment reached. I do not believe that this key test at the heart of the noble Earl's Bill would provide the courts with the certainty which they must have for the proposed legislation to work.
The Bill would also amend the current "public good" defence. Under Section 4 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959, it is a defence to the charge of publishing an obscene article if it is proved in court that its publication is justified as being for the public good on the ground that it is in the interests of science, literature, art or learning, or of other objects of general concern.
The noble Earl's Bill would amend this defence by substituting the words,
"fully justified as being for the good of the public as a whole"
for,
"justified as being for the public good".
This may not appear a major change, but it could have very significant effects. There is a possibility, for example, that it could make illegal some articles that are aimed at a minority group such as the safe sex leaflets aimed at young homosexuals. Those leaflets are explicit and expressed in a way which no doubt many people would find shocking. However, there is a clear need for public health reasons to provide this group with a safe sex message in a manner likely to attract their attention. The Bill might put that in jeopardy.
The right reverend Prelate mentioned the need for greater control to be exercised over pornographic TV and satellite broadcasts. The Government have used their powers in regard to three such foreign channels by making proscription orders against them. It is a criminal offence to supply smartcards, to advertise and to promote such channels.
I have outlined a number of reasons why the Government cannot support the terms of the Bill although, in keeping with the traditions of the House, we shall not oppose its Second Reading this evening. However, we welcome the opportunity which the noble Earl's Bill has provided to address a real problem about which we are concerned. We are open-minded and open to suggestions as to the way forward and hope that the Bill will act as a catalyst in bringing wise counsel to bear on this difficult issue. We shall certainly follow up any possible ways forward which may emerge from the debate.
9.36 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, first, I thank all those who have taken part in the debate. I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate had to leave but he had a train to catch. I shall reply by letter to his remarks after I have studied them in Hansard.

1609
I thank the noble Viscount, the noble Earl, and the noble Lord for their contributions. I remind your Lordships that there will be a Committee stage. If the Government do not actively oppose the Bill, I shall try to arrange a Committee stage where we can flog out those matters by means of amendments.
I am a trifle disappointed by the Government's reaction. They agree that the present situation is unsatisfactory but—I quote a familiar phrase—they seem eager to wound but afraid to strike. I wonder what it is they are afraid of. Do they think that the Bill in its present form would make matters worse?
1610
Are they concerned about the load on the criminal courts which will occur if pornography is prosecuted more intensively? Do I detect a sort of vague numinous presence of what I might call the Great Whore of Grub Street as specified by my noble friend in the previous debate this evening, brooding over our proceedings and threatening everyone with her disapproval? I do not know about that, but I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before ten o'clock.