Lords Sitting of 5 May 1999

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

Transport: Local Authority Subsidies
Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions they have had with local authorities concerning subsidies for rail and bus services, following the recent Audit Commission report.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, no specific discussions have taken place. The report's recommendations are largely for action by local authorities; but departmental officials have regular meetings with local government representatives on a range of policy issues and stand ready to discuss any specific concerns they may wish to raise.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, has the Minister seen a recent Audit Commission report which points out that our local authorities are wasting hundreds of millions of pounds in subsidising bus and rail services, which are described as unreliable, inconvenient and a poor alternative to the motor car? Railtrack is making massive profits and receiving huge public subsidies yet it cannot properly maintain the Severn Tunnel, which is the main rail artery in and out of Wales. What are the Government doing about the situation? Surely it is time for action.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as to the general point about local authority subsidies, those concern mainly bus services; there is very little local authority direct subsidy of railways. We are encouraging local authorities to enter into closer partnerships with the operators. A number of local authorities have seen significant improvements to their bus services. There is still public resistance to using buses as often as would be useful to an integrated transport policy. Partnerships can deliver better bus services and, for the first time in some time, there has been a turnaround of late in the number of people using buses.
As far as concerns the Severn Tunnel, which I know is of concern to a number of your Lordships from the Principality and elsewhere, Railtrack is faced with the problem that maintenance has not been as effective as it should have been. Noble Lords will be aware that the Health and Safety Executive has insisted that the broken rails are maintained to a higher standard and that, as a result, the speed limit through the tunnel has been
676
reduced. The responsibility lies clearly with Railtrack. We hope that it can meet the maintenance standards required by the Health and Safety Executive.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the present travel pass system in London—like many other noble Lords, I must of course declare an interest—will continue under the Greater London Authority? Can he further assure the House that there will be sufficient powers in that Bill to ensure that a single borough withdrawing from the system will not cancel it? Does he agree that payment for the travel pass can never be valued accurately by the Audit Commission and that it provides a great social service and keeps people mobile in London?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I fully agree with the noble Baroness about the importance and benefits of the London scheme. The legislation currently passing through another place will provide for the continuation of the system within the new context. It is not just a question of pounds, shillings and pence; the travel pass makes an enormous difference to the mobility, well-being and quality of life of many millions of Londoners.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the problem of the Severn Rail Tunnel. Trains are now restricted to speeds of 20 miles an hour. We were told in a debate earlier in the year that Railtrack was laying new track through the tunnel. Presumably those tracks were relaid in the five weekends that the tunnel was closed. Now we are told there is a danger of derailment if trains exceed speeds of 20 miles an hour. Is not that totally unsatisfactory? What do the Government intend to do about it?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct; it is a totally unsatisfactory situation. During the past seven months there have been four broken rails in the tunnel, which may reflect the failure to replace the tracks every six years, which used to be the practice. The Health and Safety Executive has asked Railtrack to demonstrate that it is taking sufficient steps to manage the risk. That has required imposing a lower speed limit. Under the privatised railway system, it is the responsibility of Railtrack to put the matter right. It is the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that it does so.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, what is the Government's response to the statement from the Transport Select Committee in another place, which is not exactly overwhelmed with Conservative Members, that the plans to implement the transport White Paper, which has a lot to do with local authority subsidies for the next three years, are totally inadequate? The committee commented that the gap between the £333 billion pounds a year that is taken in taxes from road users and the £6 billion that is spent on transport undermines the political acceptability of the taxes. What do the Government have to say about that?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure that I follow the noble Lord's figures. It has been the case that

677
successive governments over decades have not agreed to the hypothecation of road fuel duty or vehicle excise duty. Nevertheless, the Government have shifted substantial resources into the improvement of public transport; we have changed the priorities in terms of road maintenance and better use of the trunk road network; and we are giving greater powers and resources to local authorities so that they can tackle their transport problems themselves. In general, the Select Committee in another place supported that strategy and wanted to see it delivered as rapidly as possible, as indeed do the Government.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, are not the Government tackling transport problems the wrong way round? Surely it would be better, first, to get together with local authorities and the private sector to concentrate on building an efficient public transport network. Then. with some justification, they could ask the motorist to leave his or her car at home.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards association with local authorities, we have established a whole new system of local transport planning which will, for the first time, provide local authorities and businesses within their areas with a five-year local transport plan. We have moved rapidly on that. As regards fuel duty, I remind the House that the policy on which we are building was introduced by the previous administration for very good reasons relating primarily to environmental considerations. It is very important that those environmental targets are met. The fuel duty is one of the measures that will ensure that they are met. The Government are putting other measures into place to ensure that we do our bit to restrict the pollution as well as the congestion caused by road traffic.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene in respect of local transport, to which he has just referred? May I ask his assistance in regard to the working group that is starting the Tisbury community bus service? This kind of project is of great importance to the nation, and particularly to the area of Tisbury. I declare an interest as a member of the working party. We are intending to take advantage of many of the substantive forms of assistance that the Government will provide. Will the Minister pay particular attention, in the Salisbury district, to the Tisbury community bus service?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am gratified that Tisbury is taking advantage of the rural grants. My noble friend Lord Carter reminds me that Tisbury is in Wiltshire, only just down the road from Shaftesbury, in Dorset, where I live. Therefore, I am grateful that the rural services are improving. All power to the elbow of the noble Earl and his working group.

Amnesty International Document EUR 45/23/98
2.45 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will publish, or place in the Library, their response to the Amnesty International document EUR 45/23/98 UK Briefing for the UN Committee Against Torture.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Amnesty International document was not addressed to the Government. It was submitted direct to the UN Committee Against Torture for its oral examination regarding the United Kingdom's Third Periodic Report on the Convention. That examination took place on 16th November 1998, when the UK supplemented its written report with answers to the questions raised by the committee. Unfortunately, the UN has not yet published a record of the hearing. When it is available, the noble Lord will be able to see the detailed answers supplied to the committee. I understand that the committee complimented the UK on its Third Report and noted some positive developments since the previous report, including the introduction of the Human Rights Act and the Northern Ireland peace process.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply and pay tribute to his personal concern for prisons and prisoners. Will he accept that the Amnesty report illustrated clearly the wide-ranging dangers to the most vulnerable people in this country, whether they are in custody or at liberty? Will the noble Lord give some examples of current progress in providing better safeguards for such people?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's congratulations on behalf of my noble friend Lord Williams, who is abroad at present. He is the Prisons Minister and certainly deserves the noble Lord's tribute.
Perhaps I may give a single example, referred to in the Amnesty report; namely, that of Category A prisoners. Category A prisoners are now no longer held in separate prisons but in units in five dispersal prisons, where they have rights to education, employment, physical education and recreation, offending behaviour programmes and rights of association.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, did my noble friend observe in the Amnesty report the worrying number of deaths in police custody arising from asphyxia caused by inappropriate restraint techniques? Are the Government taking action to ensure that all forces receive regular training in techniques which are effective but are much safer? While my noble friend is reflecting on that, can he shed any light on the curious statistic from the Government's own research report that

679
someone arrested by the Metropolitan Police is over six times more likely to die in custody than someone arrested by a provincial force?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on the first question, regarding deaths in custody from asphyxia, in the study to which my noble friend refers, in only 8 per cent of the cases examined between 1990 and 1996 may another person's actions, which may include restraint leading to asphyxia, have been associated with the death. However, my noble friend is right. We need better figures on restraint. We have been carrying out a full review which will be available next year. There is a new training syllabus, and 80 senior investigating officers have been trained. On the issue of the higher proportion as regards the Metropolitan Police, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to write to him.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the delay in the publication of the transcript of this hearing an outcome of the decision of the United Nations not to publish any documents until they are translated into all working languages of the UN? Will the Government work for the reversal of that inane decision?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not aware that that is the reason for it. I understand that, although it is not unusual for UN documents to take some time to appear, this delay is due to pressure of work at the office of the High Commission where priority has been given to publication of the written findings of the committee.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, as this Question relates to torture, is the noble Lord aware that many noble Lords have been considerably gratified by the Government's announcement to increase the number of Kosovan refugees who come to this country?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe that I should respond to that, but I do with gratitude. I believe that the noble Lord expresses a view that is widely shared throughout the country.

National Attack Warning System
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made on bringing in the National Attack Warning System.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, the noble Baroness refers to the National Attack Warning System which the Home Office is developing in conjunction with the British Broadcasting Corporation. We are reviewing the system with the aim of achieving the most cost-effective implementation of the final elements by the end of the current financial year.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House I warmly welcome the noble Lord to the Dispatch
680
Box. A system was selected in 1995 and work began to develop the air warning attack system. Can the Minister explain why there appears to be tension between the Home Office, the MoD, the BBC and the ITC which is preventing that work coming to fruition? Is the money still in the budget? What is the priority now in the Home Office for this project?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. The system has been around for some time. The BBC was commissioned to begin work on the system in 1994, with a planned implementation date in 1998. The noble Baroness is probably much more aware than I am of the problems and delays that have arisen during the period between initiation of the project and the present. Having said that, I assure the noble Baroness that the whole project is still on course and the financial implications remain. It has been indicated that with a few minor tweaks to the system it is possible that the whole process will be rounded off by the end of this year.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, can my noble friend say how the system will work?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, the system has been developed by the British Broadcasting Corporation around existing transmission arrangements. In a time of tension the system provides, additionally, a back-up transmission of British Telecom and private wires to give resilience and uses remotely controlled switching equipment to connect the warning centre to dedicated transmitters instantaneously. This also gives the ability to use alternate paths to the transmitters in the event of damage to the network following an air attack. The system is based in the main on the BBC transmission of both television and radio, plus the British Telecom back-up in certain areas.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that whatever system is decided upon and however penetrating it may be it will not work properly unless people understand it? Therefore, what steps will the Government take to ensure that people do understand it?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the system needs to be fully understood. As it is a warning system, it is important that those involved—the nation generally—are forewarned and educated about the likelihood of an attack and how the system will work. It is important that the noble Lord's point is got across as effectively as possible. That is part of the build-up to the scheme. The indications are that once the system is in place there will be a process of education based mainly on television and radio to inform people of exactly what preparations are necessary to tune in to the system and how they should react once the system has been activated.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House what kind of attack this message will be about?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, the system will operate on the basis of a national emergency. We are not

681
considering local arrangements, but a national system. In the event of an air attack—it is recognised that we would have knowledge of its likelihood—the whole nation will need to be informed. It is to be hoped that when the system is in operation it will provide that kind of information and warning.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, if the warning system is activated because of an air attack, what is the population meant to do? What do the Government suggest that people should do?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, the system has been designed to ensure that warning of an attack is given throughout the land. In the event of the system being attacked and becoming unworkable, it would be very difficult for it to operate on the basis presently envisaged. The system is designed with safeguards. If it is partially disabled following an air attack—that is about as much as it can be—the rest of the system will still function on the basis that warnings and post-warnings will be given throughout the nation or to those parts not affected by the attack.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, it is my understanding that this system was intended not only to warn of the attacks of which the Minister speaks, but also major civil emergencies of one kind or another. Is that still the case?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, the answer to that is a qualified "yes", on the basis that the system is designed to be a national attack warning system. I envisage very few civil scenarios which will require a national warning system. I can think of occasions when, for example, floods may affect particular areas and therefore warnings need to be given. On a national basis in peacetime, I find it very difficult to envisage the need for such a system. In the event of it being necessary to use it on the basis suggested, I believe that this could be achieved by means of the well-rehearsed systems that already exist under parts of the scheme. In answer to the noble Lord's question of whether the system can be used in civil or peacetime circumstances, I find great difficulty in envisaging such circumstances. Having said that, the system exists. If the noble Lord can think of circumstances in which it may be used, I am sure that the system can be applied them.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, does the Minister accept the particular urgency to get this system operational given that it is the essential organisation to co-ordinate many different government departments and agencies?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, it is hoped that the system is now well on the way. As I indicated previously, a little more work needs to be done in the lead-up to some of the outlying transmitters. It is envisaged that that will be done by the end of the year. We hope that the whole system will be ready then.

Air Carrier Liability Order 1998
3 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their reaction to the judgment in the High Court of Justice on 21st April in Regina v. Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions ex parte International Air Transport Association.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government welcome the judgment given by the honourable Mr. Justice Jowitt since he expressed "complete confidence" in the validity of the Council Regulation 2027/97. He declined to refer the question of its validity to the European Court of Justice and he dismissed IATA's request for judicial review.
Furthermore, since the judgment made no order as to the validity of the Air Carrier Liability Order 1998, that order remains in force.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. How could it be that the commission could propose, and the Government agree, to a regulation which was found to be incompatible with the prior treaty commitments of member states under the Warsaw Convention? Now that the judge has concluded that the European Council regulation is held in suspense, what therefore is the status of the Air Carrier Liability Order 1998 that was pushed through both Houses despite strong and reasoned protest from all sides and when we were the only country in the whole of the European Union to make non-compliance a criminal offence, which was a real case of gold plating?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I indicated, our interpretation of the judgment is that the Air Carrier Liability Order remains in force. The judge did not rule otherwise. The European Union has been completely united on this matter. The regulation was passed unanimously and it is being applied in each of the member states. It is true that we have implemented it in terms of a criminal sanction and that other states have different methods. Nevertheless, we are all committed in the European Union to ensuring that this measure of consumer protection for airline passengers is achieved.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, in that case can the Minister explain to the House his concept of the judge's decision that the EU regulation should be set aside? There appears to be some conflict here. Going a little further, can the Minister tell the House how many other members of the EU have implemented the regulations and whether any of them have done so in the way which we have adopted by adjusting their own laws? Further, can he say what is going on within IATA in the Passenger Services Conference which was trying to deal with the subject of waiving carriers' rights and limited liability on a fully international basis?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we and IATA have ostensibly the same end in mind; namely, that we

683
require airlines to provide full compensation to passengers and that the degree of liability should be conveyed to them when they purchase their tickets. Therefore, we regret that IATA felt it necessary to take this step against the implementation by the United Kingdom of the EU regulation. As I said, other member states in the EU have dealt with the implementation in a different way, mainly through administrative actions. Most of them are in the process of transposing them. It is correct to say that uniquely we have used a criminal sanction. That was largely because we believed that an administrative sanction, such as the withdrawal of landing rights, would have been disproportionate.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved. That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank and the Viscount Falkland set down for today shall each be limited to two and a half hours. —(Lord Carter.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Council of Europe
3.4 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank rose to call attention to the 50th Anniversary of the Council of Europe; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this debate might well have been held in government time. I say that not to complain, but to define what I see to be the nature of the occasion. This is essentially a parliamentary debate to match the ceremonies that many of us attended this morning and the event which is to take place from six o'clock this evening. Indeed, we might have found more time for the debate had it not been for the knowledge that many noble Lords wish to be elsewhere to continue the celebrations at the close of this debate.
At the time when we were considering what we might put on the Order Paper today, I had representations not only from my noble friend Lord Russell-Johnston whom we welcome today not only as a Member of this House, but as president of the Assembly of the Council of Europe, but also from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, who will be contributing to this debate along with representations from the Conservative and Cross-Benches. I see this as essentially a Cross-Bench occasion. Although I hesitate to use a rather ugly phrase taken from marketing, I see this debate as an opportunity to "show case" the question of the contribution of the Council of Europe over the past 50 years and perhaps, as some noble Lords may choose to do, reflect on its future. I am sure that the Minister will be glad to know that I have no questions to ask of her and no awkward statements to make, which she may feel it necessary to disown.
I am particularly pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, in his place. Noble Lords may not know that he was substituting, if I may put it that way, for Herbert Morrison, the leader of the United Kingdom delegation at the first assembly in 1949. He has been associated with the development of European policies since that time. I am also very glad to note that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, intends to contribute to this debate. Although he may not remember, exactly 50 years ago to the day on 5th May 1949, he was also speaking in this Chamber. He was not speaking then on the matter of this debate, but on civil aviation. He has taken a close interest in European affairs since that time.
This is an occasion for personal memories as well as reflecting on the purpose, role, achievements and future of the European Council. I admit to making something of a sentimental journey of my own. Just over 30 years ago when I was the Parliamentary Secretary at the Foreign Office doing the job now done by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, I suddenly found myself leading the United Kingdom delegation to the assembly of the Council of Europe. Indeed, I believe that I was the first Minister to do so since the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, in 1949. My position was anomalous. I was unpopular because the leadership of the delegation had essentially become a Back-Bench role and a rather prized one. In the aftermath of De Gaulle's second veto in December 1966, the Government, of which I was a Member, thought of ways of showing their continued European commitment. They did not wish to be seen retiring out of pique. So I was launched at Strasbourg not as a secret weapon but as perhaps a rather tiny symbol of the Government's direction and interest.
I went there convinced that there would be many opportunities to speak about a cause in which I strongly believed, but when I arrived there I found that the leading questions were where to take the French delegation to lunch; how much was to be spent on it given the tight-fisted attitude of the Treasury; what should be chosen for the menu and how long a speech I should make on the importance of Franco-British relations.
Apart from that, what I remember of that time was that I kept Robert Maxwell off the delegation. I refused to have him despite the representations of the Chief Whip. I also remember the kindness of Sir Alec Douglas-Home as he then was. He had been Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative representatives to the assembly. He was infinitely more senior than me. Those who have been junior Ministers will well remember the occasions when, arriving at a meeting perhaps looking a little less scruffy than junior Ministers do in the present Government, and accompanied by senior civil servants, the delegation being met would leap forward to shake the hansd of the civil servants while the junior Minister stood by not quite knowing how to assert his authority. My relationship was with Sir Alec Douglas-Home at that time, but he always took immense care to be many paces behind me; and if anyone looked in his direction he always pointed them sharply in mine. So I remember with great appreciation his consideration at that time. The third aspect

685
I remember was the quality of the asparagus in season. I enjoyed my time as leader but I did not change the course of history one little bit.
Others from the United Kingdom have in their way done so. I refer to my noble friend Lord Russell-Johnston, now President of the Assembly; and Sir Geoffrey de Freitas, remembered by a number of noble Lords, was the president in my time, as, briefly, was Lord Finsberg seven years ago. John Edwards, a Treasury Minister in the Attlee Government, became President of the Assembly in 1959 and died in office, but he was held in great regard by all our partners in the Council of Europe for his commitment to his purposes. Indeed—I think that it is still the case—a road in Strasbourg was named after him, the only one of which I know. He was the Labour Member for Brighouse and Spenborough and deserves a reference on this occasion.
In many different ways, UK delegates of all parties have contributed to the assembly and made a major and constructive contribution to its affairs. We have to remember in particular the contribution made by Duncan Sandys at the birth of the Council of Europe; and indeed at the Hague Congress which preceded it the year before. We remember also the contribution—it was referred to this morning—of Sir Peter Smithers formerly the Conservative Member of Parliament for Winchester who became Secretary-General of the Council.
Looking back at those times—it is worth reading about them—at The Hague Congress in 1948, to which I referred, we find that most of the arguments pre-figured discussion about European unity and Britain's part in it. At the beginning the French wanted to call the new institution the European Union. That was rejected I think largely at the United Kingdom's insistence, in favour of—I have to say that it is bland and innocuous despite its record since—the Council of Europe.
Harold Macmillan referred to the assembly as a European parliament in embryo. That did not please Ernest Bevin. He hardly more than acquiesced in its establishment fearing that it would become a platform for federalists and opposition parties, to both of which he was greatly opposed.
Issues which have echoed down the years have included the following: what can Europe do for itself? What do we want the United States to do for Europe? It is a dilemma which we have seen during the troubled and tragic events in former Yugoslavia. We have considered whether new European institutions should have a defence dimension. The Council of Europe has none. All too often British governments have shown a persistent scepticism about whether Western Europe was capable of taking another step forward towards economic and political union, and a belief in standing aside until the unexpected happened. Policy has often been "better be late than bold".
We also recognised—they are real issues—the problem that being a member of the Commonwealth confronted us with in the early years; our special relationship with the United States; and arguments about Britain and the open seas. Those arguments are in the bound debates of those times, in minutes of meetings
686
and in Foreign Office papers. We also see at that time the debate about sovereignty. It is not the great overlooked issue that critics of Britain's participation in a more united Europe claim. Indeed, the declaration of the Hague Congress said that the nations of Europe,
"must agree to merge certain of their sovereign rights".
That was an issue in debates in 1948–49. It was an issue at the time of application for membership of the European Economic Community. It was an issue, as I remember well, in the long debates in another place in 1971–72 about Britain's successful application; and it was an issue during the referendum. Whatever view one takes of it, the question of sovereignty has not been hidden, ignored or denied. It has been an issue upon which we in this country in particular have had to make up our minds.
However, the most characteristic, most abiding achievement of the Council of Europe—its centrepiece—has been the European Convention on Human Rights. It sprang from Article 3 of the statute with its reference to the principles of the rule of law and enjoyment by all persons within their jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms. If I have had anxieties over the years, they have been only about the desire of the European assembly to be inclusive, to welcome enlargement. It has not always been as rigorous as it should have been in applying those principles when considering applicant states. There have also been problems—we have to recognise that—for Greece, one of the founding members of the Council of Europe. We were too slow to expel it at the time of the colonels; and, in some respects, that applies to Turkey also. That having been said, the convention is the important, central achievement, and a remarkable one indeed, of the Council of Europe down the years.
After the establishment of the Council on 5th May, on 6th May a leader in The Times said of the assembly that it was at once the most daring and most dubious part of the plan. It said:
"The Assembly itself, and indeed the whole Council of Europe, is frankly an experiment. It may provide an expression of unity, as its advocates hope, or it may reveal the many differences which still divide the nations of Europe…It is at present a roomy ship, holding comfortably [both] federalists and functionists, west Europeans and east Europeans, democrats of many shades, and sailing no man knows whither…If the Council of Europe succeeds in reconciling France to Germany and Germany to France, this alone will justify its creation. If it does more and provides the foundations for a true European union, no one would be better pleased than those who are now, for good reasons, most sceptical".
I wonder what The Times will say tomorrow, if it says anything. I hope that it will say that the Council of Europe has worn remarkably well. Perhaps it might say, in the language of which only The Times is master, that the Council of Europe is the quiet and somewhat self-effacing elder brother of what is now the European Union. Whatever The Times may say, and whatever history may eventually record, the Council of Europe was a product of a hope and idealism of Europe in the immediate post-war world. As Kosovo—to mention only one example—shows, there is still much, indeed too much, left for it still to do. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.18 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for introducing the Motion, and for having the debate in his party's time. The House may wish to take note of his complaints about the lack of government time, but I cannot help noticing that there seems considerably more interest in the debate on the Council of Europe than in the following debate. I was somewhat astonished by his comments about the scruffiness of government Ministers. Looking at Members on our Front Bench and other Front Benches, it was an amazing comment.
Nevertheless. I suppose I have been chosen to follow the noble Lord because I have been asked to be the chairman of the 50th anniversary celebrations in the United Kingdom. We have organised a number of events over the past few weeks. In those events we have tried to pick up the various themes to which the noble Lord referred in his speech and to talk about the strengths of the Council of Europe.
When I came into the House from lunch at the Foreign Office and saw the list of speakers for today's debate, I was struck by the huge amount of experience of the Council of Europe among Members of this House. I refer both to noble Lords who have gained that experience through the House of Lords and to those who gained it while Members of the other place. It is an institution in which I, as a relatively new member of the Council of Europe, find a distinct parallel. Both institutions derive their authority through a moral authority rather than a literal legislative authority. As a Member of the House of Lords going to the Council of Europe, I immediately found myself at home because the debates there are in many ways of a very similar tenor to those in this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, spoke about the various official events which happened this morning and which are happening at the moment. In addition, there will be a reception at St. James's Palace this evening. They have attracted a huge amount of interest. Eight Foreign Ministers will have attended the events of yesterday and today, as well as 300 parliamentarians and ambassadors. It is a tribute that they all felt it important to be here in London to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Council of Europe.
The committee of which I had the privilege to be chairman arranged a number of events to celebrate the achievements of the Council of Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, referred to the centrepiece of those achievements, which is the European Convention on Human Rights. We had a conference the week before last in which we talked about the incorporation and how rights are coming home to British public life. We had a huge amount of interest from the police, health authorities, local authorities and public utilities, which recognised the immense importance of the immediate application of the incorporation of the convention into British law.
The other events which my committee organised were various cultural events. The cultural role of the Council of Europe is often forgotten in terms of celebrating the diversity of culture within its member states. We took
688
over four youth groups. To ensure that we were properly celebrating and representing the cultural diversity of the United Kingdom, we had some drummers from Northern Ireland as well as some Irish dancers from Hampshire. That event was a great success.
However, perhaps the greatest success was the youth parliament which we held last Friday, to which we sent 18 youth delegates. The youth delegates turned up and were presented with a wodge of papers asking them to debate education, the importance of health, and democracy in the next century. They were not Interested in that. The only thing that they wanted to debate was Kosovo. They insisted on having a debate on Kosovo in the morning. Not only that, but they went against the recommendations of the secretariat and insisted on voting on the result of the debate. It so happens that there was a substantial majority in favour of the NATO intervention in Kosovo.
However, I do not think that that is the important point. What I think is important is that all the speakers in the debate on Friday made the point that Yugoslavia is surrounded by member states of the Council of Europe and that the only future for Yugoslavia is within the family of the Council of Europe. They did everything that they could to encourage a resolution of that crisis. Indeed, two young delegates from Kosovo took part in the debate.
One of my committee's responsibilities was to publicise the role of the Council of Europe. I have to say that that was by far my most difficult role. There was not a lot of interest in the institution itself; it does not generate publicity. Therefore, everything that we did had to be in the context of achievements.
I have recently written articles for the Council of Europe about the abolition of the death penalty and the incorporation into our law of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The next 50 years of the Council of Europe will he its most important. I believe that the Council of Europe must be an institution which grows in its own right and which is not just seen as a waiting room of NATO or the European Union. We can make it grow in its own right only by attaching proper importance to its achievements both today and for the next 50 years.
3.25 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I, too, add my thanks to those of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for introducing the debate. On this 50th anniversary, amid all the very proper references to the Parliamentary Assembly, perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, referred to this morning by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and, indeed, by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe.
Set up as the Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities in 1957, it became a congress in 1994. The congress, like its predecessors. brings together local and regional authorities from all the member states. Unlike the former standing conference, the congress is organised into two chambers, one

689
representing local authorities and one representing regional authorities. It also meets together as one in plenary session.
My own involvement was as a member, and latterly, as political fortunes waxed or waned depending on your point of view in the United Kingdom, a substitute member of the United Kingdom delegation. It was an involvement which I greatly valued. The organisation of the standing conference was, in my view, preferable to that of the congress in a number of ways. However, I particularly have in mind the division into the two chambers which, in the opinion of a number of members, rather than strengthening the organisation weakened the whole.
It is interesting to note that the Committee of Regions of the European Union rejected such a split, despite early moves by some regional representatives at the beginning of its existence.
My own role was a small one, but United Kingdom members from local government and our delegation made significant contributions to the work of the Council of Europe through the conference and the congress. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, who is not in her place, chaired the education committee of the standing conference with great distinction and, indeed, put enormous effort into the interests of Albania at the time of that country's admission to the Council of Europe. Sir Gordon Pirie of Westminster and Mr. John Morgan of Test Valley were distinguished presidents of the standing conference.
When I joined the delegation, there were those, of course, who asked "Why do you want to do that?". It was a question which I suggest would not have been asked by anyone who was present at the time when the emerging democracies from central and eastern Europe started to join, first as observers and then as members.
The congress gave much practical help and guidance in the establishment and organisation of local democracy in those countries. The enthusiasm and pleasure which the new members brought to participation in the affairs of the congress, as they enjoyed their new-found political freedom, served as a reminder to all of us of how easy it is to take personal and political freedom for granted.
The rate of change was considerable. I recall sitting next to the mayor of a Bulgarian city just after his country's admission, who gave me his business card. It set out his business, his municipal offices and the membership of his local rotary club. It was a pen picture of what would be the norm in Western Europe but which would have been unthinkable just a few months before that meeting in his own country.
I suggest that there is an ongoing role for the Council of Europe and, I am sure, for the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities to ensure that democracy and freedom are the norm in the countries of Europe. To advance the common and shared hopes of the free nations of Europe, the Council of Europe would have to be invented if it did not exist.
690
As with so many European matters, the commitment of the United Kingdom to the ideals of the Council of Europe and the practical implementation of those ideals is vital. It is all very much in our interests and we should pursue it with enthusiasm and not reluctance. The work of the congress, in helping the new democracies develop free and democratic local government, will continue and ensuring the maintenance of such free and democratic local government in the member states will remain a task vital to the work of the Council of Europe into the 21st century.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I believe that I have the least knowledge and experience of the Council of Europe of any Member of your Lordships' House who will be contributing to today's debate. However, I wish to bring greetings from the European Select Committee of your Lordships' House to the Council of Europe on its birthday.
I am most grateful to my noble friend for introducing the debate. It comes at an appropriate moment. I believe that the Council of Europe deserves more attention from your Lordships' House than it receives. I shall return to that in a few moments.
Although its role is quite different from the European Union, it is seen as a much gentler and less threatening body. That may he good on some occasions although it may make it seem rather porridge-like on others. Nevertheless, as my noble friend pointed out, the work it has done in relation to human rights has been inestimable and something of which it can be proud and which we should support. It produces some extremely valuable reports but I fear that many of them gather dust in your Lordships' Library and are rarely brought to the Floor of the House.
One of the good things it has done is to extend the boundaries of Europe towards the true boundaries of Europe. Again, I agree with my noble friend that it was perhaps rather precipitate in inviting some countries into membership whose record on human rights is not as great as it should be. But, on balance, I believe that that has been an incentive for many of those countries to improve those human rights records.
Members of this Chamber have a very good record of attendance and contribution to the Council of Europe over many years. A goodly number of noble Lords speaking today have been or still are members. I know that my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie would have spoken had he not been fighting off the nationalist hordes in the north of this great country. I suspect that perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, is doing the same because although his name is on the list, I do not see him in his place.
I wish to mention my late lamented friend, Lord Ross of Newport, who was a member of the Council for many years, and the late lamented Lord Finsberg, whose work has already been mentioned. Those people make a contribution which is not widely recognised. I believe that there should be more praise for them. My only contact has occurred when I have had the good fortune to stand in for the noble and learned Lord the Lord

691
Chancellor at Speakers conferences. I have found it extremely valuable to meet people from countries outside the European Union but still within Europe with whom I do not normally have contact in my role as chairman of your Lordships' Select Committee.
As I said, it is a pity that the work of the Council of Europe is not more widely appreciated in your Lordships' House. It has been put to me in the past by various noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Newall, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Lord, Lord Pon. sonby of Shulbrede—that perhaps the European Select Committee might somehow take up a role in the direction of the Council of Europe. That would be difficult because the role of scrutiny of legislation which your Lordships undertake is rather different from what is necessary in relation to the Council of Europe. But I suggest—and I have done so to noble Lords—that perhaps the British delegation from your Lordships' House should, from time to time, table the sort of Motion we have before us today on specific subjects relating to particular reports which have been published so that this House has a proper opportunity to debate the reports and get to know better the results of the activities of the Council of Europe.
I look forward very much to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston. I congratulate him on the success he has now achieved because I know the amount of work he has contributed and the passion with which he has supported the European ideal over many years. He is a little younger than I; nevertheless, he is doing well.
We must look to the future. We must consider what will happen to the second pillar of the European Union and its relationship with the Western European Union on defence matters. We need to tackle and consider a number of problems in relation to the expansion of the European Union in conjunction with the Council of Europe. But this is a day for celebration, and it is a day to say to the Council of Europe, "Well done".
3.38 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for initiating a debate which is entirely appropriate on an occasion such as this. We are in his debt for an extremely interesting trip down memory lane. But the Council of Europe is a very different body, in terms of its membership, from that to which the noble Lord made significant reference.
Perhaps I may speak on a personal note for a few moments. I have been a representative in the Parliamentary Assembly for 12 years. I was chairman of its committee on legal affairs and human rights for a four-year period between 1991 and 1995, during which period the accession of the emerging countries began. I am currently chairman of the ad hoc committee which has been created to make recommendations as to the appointment of the judges to the new full-time Court of Human Rights.
Therefore, the Council of Europe is a body for which I have considerable affection. I was present in the hemi-cycle on that day approximately 10 years ago
692
when Gorbachev made his celebrated declaration that the Council of Europe would become a European common home. It was less true at the time, but it is; so patently true today as to be worth just a mention. Those emerging countries cannot link to the EU; they cannot really link to NATO; they can barely link to the Western European Union; and they are unhappy about the OSCE. Where do they find themselves; where do they go; where do they have their European link? They have it within the Council of Europe. So to that extent today, the Council of Europe is a political necessity for those emerging countries.
I pay tribute as others have—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, did so just a few moments ago—to the presidency of the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston. It is a new presidency, but it is already a distinguished presidency because those noble Lords who know him, as I do, will recognise that his is a unique personality.
Mention has been made, and properly so, of the decisive role which the European Convention on Human Rights plays in the affairs of the Council of Europe. It is, I suppose, the council's linchpin. There are, however, considerable differences between it and, for example, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The most important difference is that here the individual citizen can bring an action against his or her own country if he or she feels that one of his or her fundamental rights has been infringed, making the convention, in my view, very much more than just an empty token.
The Council of Europe has constantly striven to reunite Europe as a whole. That remained an impossible dream until the collapse of the Berlin Wall. The political transformation which occurred as a consequence of that event meant that the Council of Europe was immediately put in what might be called a test situation. The Council acted immediately to establish itself as an East-West forum for Europe and to help the central and eastern European countries along the difficult path to the rule of law. It did so by engaging in close co-operation. Nevertheless, the enlargement process is no easy road. Prospective members' respect for the rule of law, constitutional reality and understanding of democracy stood severe tests during the accession procedures. I was very much part of them, and therefore I know what was taking place.
The membership bids of the Ukraine, Russia and Croatia were, and remain, particularly controversial because of serious misgivings about the rule of law and the standard of democracy in those countries. Many of the newest members have yet to attain the high standards which the older democracies would consider to be the basic minimum. Those countries must therefore be monitored, and they are being monitored. We hope that co-operation with those emerging: countries will result in their being brought to a position of true democracy. There is some way yet to go.
To highlight the difficulties is important; to point out the framework within which the Council of Europe operates is also important. Unlike the situation in the European Union, where executive decisions acquire the immediate force of law in all member states and as a

693
consequence attract media attention, Council of Europe treaties, as has already been mentioned, must first be incorporated by each individual member state into its national law. This is a slow process and does not lend itself to very much media scrutiny. Yet, allied to an effective monitoring procedure, this surely is the way forward for the Council of Europe into the 21st century.
I add one caveat especially for the Minister's benefit. The creation of the new full-time court vastly increases the expenditure of the Council of Europe. It is inevitable. We now have more than 120 judges in full-time residence in Strasbourg. Zero growth is predicted in budgetary terms, not only for this year, but also for next year. It is a situation which needs to be addressed.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I offer no depth of history or, I suspect, of understanding when it comes to the Council of Europe. I offer merely the first impressions of a new boy in his first year as a member of the Council.
My principal impression is that the Council of Europe is an organisation of immense importance and immense worth, and one to which we should give our unrestricted and unremitting support. An organisation dedicated to the promotion of democracy, the rule of law and human rights; one which members join voluntarily and where they are willing to submit themselves to open and very courteous, but often critical, debate; one where they are prepared to subject themselves to criticism and to accept it; and an organisation in which members work towards improving things in their own countries, and towards promulgating the same values in other countries is of immense worth to us all. At a cost every year of a couple of hours or so of the war in Kosovo, we are achieving a great deal more than that war ever looks likely to achieve in the many months that it may last.
But the Council of Europe is not without its faults. The first thing that struck me about the Council was that it is suffering from a severe case of mission drift. What is an organisation whose home is in human rights, justice and the rule of law doing producing reports on European transport policy, the Russian economy, the information society and xenotransplantation? What is it doing producing the wonderful publication that I am holding, The Council of Europe with Sue and Max, and putting words into the mouth of Gus, the "know-all" hamster, who says that the Council of Europe aims,
"to solve the main problems of our times (drugs, Aids, racism, violence, etc)"?
The organisation has lost its way. It is trying to solve all the problems of the world, when the problems at its core are much the most important and ones on which it should be focusing its entire existence. I applaud the decision of the Council of Ministers to curb the organisation's budget. I see no other way in which it can be brought to focus on what it should be doing. A committee of wise men was set up to plot the organisation's future. It produced an empty and fatuous report which is of little value in deciding where the Council goes in the future. The only way is for the
694
Council of Ministers to take its responsibilities seriously and put a severe budgetary restriction on the Council until it is doing what it should be doing and not spending a great deal of money doing things which are of little value and which it certainly has no business doing.
There is another aspect of the Council that requires serious attention, and I suspect that it is a matter for those of us who are members. It should not indulge in horsetrading to produce verdicts and results. It is of immense importance that if, for instance, we are to censure Turkey for its human rights record, the Turks do not feel that we, the British, voted against them because we had done a deal with Greece that we would so vote on condition that Greece supported us in our arguments about Gibraltar. It must be an organisation in which decisions are taken on their individual merits, openly and in true individual faith.
The current election for Secretary-General is riddled with horsetrading. The word among members is all about deals being done and who is supporting what, for what benefit. That is not the way in which the organisation should be run. We should be putting a great deal of effort into making sure that that sort of spirit is not promulgated in the Council.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, like others of your Lordships, I thank my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank for initiating the debate and congratulate my noble friend Lord Russell-Johnston on the distinction with which he carries out his task.
I hope it will not be felt that my comments in any way spoil the birthday party. It is often forgotten that when the European Economic Community was founded in 1957 many regarded it as being a distinctly second-best instrument to bring Europe together. It was chosen because a number of other attempts had not led far enough, if indeed anywhere. Some never progressed beyond design. A number of foreign policy schemes, promoted in particular by successive French governments, never assumed institutional form. There was the European Defence Community—ill-fated, the wrong idea at the wrong time and one that came to nothing.
Some attempts at bringing Europe together disappointed the founders. The European Coal and Steel Community was intended to build on the industries of the future, but it soon turned out to be an institution presiding over the decline of major industries of the past. Some institutions changed almost out of recognition. The Western European Union is the prime example, originally founded by the wartime allies to prevent any revival, let alone military revival, of Germany. Subsequently, it included Germany and has since turned into the institution that it is today.
Then there is the Council of Europe. The Council had two special features. One was the full, active membership of the United Kingdom; the other was the concentration on the rule of law.
The Council of Europe had its moments. I remember one such moment very well. In December 1969, I was, in another incarnation, in the ministerial council,

695
representing another country. This country was being represented by George Thomson, now my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth. We discussed the suspension of Greece, of which the two of us were strongly in favour. It is uncertain whether we would have achieved a majority in the ministerial council, but the Greek foreign minister left and suspended his country.
Europe is nothing if it is not a liberal order in which the rule of law and democracy are respected. That is why the year 1989 was so important for the Council of Europe. To some extent the Council has used that important moment. If we look at the new members in the early years—Hungary, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania and Slovenia—we can see that there was a genuine attempt to include countries which subscribed to the rules for which the Council of Europe stood.
I cannot say that in more recent years that has been equally clear. We find that the extension of membership in recent years includes Albania, Moldavia, Ukraine, Russia, Croatia and, last week, Georgia. Georgia is fighting a war in Abchasia which is similar to the Kosovo war except that there are fewer journalists present. Georgia has promised to allow the Meschetes to return to their country, but it has not kept that promise. It is a country in which there is much evidence of torture of detained prisoners; a country in which there is considerable evidence of the corruption of judges; a country which is now a member of the Council of Europe.
For many years I have defended the Council of Europe precisely because I regarded it as the guardian of the rule of law. I no longer find that so easy. More recently, I have come to wonder whether we need some other instrument to ensure that membership and defence of the rule of law coincide. I have wondered whether, instead of the European Union becoming a member of the Council of Europe, we should read the convention into the treaties that bind the European Union. We need such a defence of the rule of law and we need it to be carried out by institutions which take seriously what we believe in, if and when we say it. Europe is nothing if not a liberal order.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, in joining with those who have thanked the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for initiating this debate, I am sure that I speak for all noble Lords in expressing my appreciation to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede for the work that he has carried out to prepare for the celebrations.
So far in the debate the importance of the Council of Europe as regards human rights has rightly been stressed. That is, of course, the most important and significant contribution that the Council has made to European and world affairs. I am one of those who believes that if this Government are remembered for nothing else—I am sure that they will be remembered for many other things—they will be remembered for the way in which they have firmly incorporated all that the Council of Europe has stood for into domestic legislation and the administration of our justice system.
696
Perhaps I may make a few remarks as a member of the present delegation. I know that I speak for all the members of the delegation when I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, on his election as president of the assembly. I have been impressed by the way in which he has set about his task. I have reason to know how firm he can be in the Chair, but he has also brought a great deal of imagination to the task. His incisiveness sometimes belies his rather relaxed appearance.
Looking at the success and work of the delegation. all noble Lords will want to put on record their appreciation of the leadership by my honourable friend Terry Davis in another place. He is ably and consistently supported by his wife, Anne. People often remark over coffee and drinks that we have two for the expenses of one!
The work and success of the delegation also owes a great deal to others less often seen. They should be mentioned. The mission in Strasbourg is ably led by Andrew Carter and supported by the Foreign Office team. The overseas office in Westminster and the travel office in Westminster carry out amazing feats to enable everybody to arrive wherever they should on time.
I am in my second innings in the Council of Europe. I was a member of the delegation at the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s. The contrast is total. In those days we were locked into the Cold War. Now it is interesting to see the whole family of Europe represented and to see the politicians and representatives of former communist countries participating in democratic debate, strengthening the art of democratic debate and taking that back to their countries. Indeed, we also learn from them, at first hand, about their preoccupations.
However, Kosovo has underlined discussions. In the very good debates on Kosovo last week, Russian parliamentarians participated as did Albanians, Macedonians, Greeks and Turks. Representatives from Hungary and Romania were also present. lit is very important, when holding a debate on a problem that faces us all in Europe, that we stand for the principles of parliamentary democracy and that parliamentarians from all those countries share their perspective on the problem.
Recently I participated in a small mission to Albania and Macedonia and it was very important for me that I was with colleagues from Spain, Turkey and Poland. Therefore, I was looking at the problem not just from the British perspective, but from the point of view of people from other parts of the continent.
With the enlargement of NATO and the enlargement of the European Union, the challenge has been to bring a wider Europe into a political assembly and a political dialogue of this kind. That cannot be overstated. The Council of Europe makes an important contribution to that.
When the Minister replies, will she give an undertaking that at some stage the Government will publish a list of those conventions of the Council of Europe which have not yet been ratified? Will she tell us for how long they have not been ratified in the United Kingdom and when we can expect them to be ratified?

697
It would also be extremely helpful if the Minister could say, now that the economic and social fund of the Council of Europe is supporting the practical expression of solidarity of the European Community to the people of Kosovo, Albania and Macedonia, whether it is time for us to consider our position and think about joining that fund as a practical expression of our commitment.
I agree with all noble Lords who have spoken. If the Council of Europe had never been invented, we would need to invent it today. It is good that it is there and it is tremendously important that today we have had an opportunity to underline the importance of its contribution.
3.58 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, like many noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon, it was my privilege when I was a Minister to participate in and represent this country at meetings of the Council of Europe's Council of Ministers in the areas of education and health and particularly on the important Pompidou initiative on drug abuse.
Subsequently, I served as a member of the United Kingdom parliamentary delegation between 1992 and 1997, a time which saw the remarkable expansion of the Council of Europe from 26 countries to what it is today, a grouping of 41 countries.
That was a great and enlightening experience. Having been brought up and educated during the period when the countries of central and eastern Europe seemed so far away, so closed off to us, it came as quite a shock to realise that Prague was further west than Rome and that Warsaw as close to London as Madrid. Holding meetings for the first time in Budapest in their beautiful parliament building, which reminds us so much of this building, being of the same style and vintage, and overlooking the river—in that case the River Danube—gave us a true recognition of what it is to be European.
I served on the Committee for Education, Culture and Sport, which was then chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, whom I look forward to hearing. He immediately follows me. I eventually became chairman of the Sub-Committee on Cultural Heritage where we blenched at the news that was coming out of the former Yugoslavia of the destruction of bridges, churches, Mostar, and the beautiful city of Dubrovnik during those early days of the disturbance and break-up of the former Yugoslavia.
My interest in heritage found a home in the European Cultural Convention which was signed in 1954 with signatories and members from countries outside and beyond even the 41 countries of the Council of Europe. The essence of that convention was to establish a framework to ensure that the diversity at the heart of Europe's cultural richness is respected as our common heritage and the basis of our unity. Many initiatives and fascinating projects have been built on that convention.
As an ongoing link with the work of the Council of Europe in this area, I have been fortunate in being asked to become president of the European Foundation for Heritage Skills, an organisation which, in its
698
incarnation, owes a great deal to the late Lord Duncan Sandys. The role of the European Foundation for Heritage Skills is to ensure that in the future there will continue to be people who care about our heritage in all its forms and who are capable of passing on their skills to further generations.
We in the foundation hope that the networking system which we provide, which brings together all the partners concerned in cultural heritage conservation, as well as our objective to communicate and disseminate information, will assist in the renaissance of crafts throughout Europe. We also believe that that in turn can contribute both to local sustainable development and to the wider aim of increasing mutual understanding in Europe. I am happy, no longer being a member of the parliamentary delegation, to be able to carry on the work in which I was involved in this way.
As a final remark I should like to say that in this, as in other areas, it is vitally important that the Council of Europe works in conjunction with, and complementary to, other European organisations. We do not want duplication and unnecessary overlap. I always believed it to be vital that we co-ordinated as much as possible with the European Union, the relevant parliamentary committee, the OECD, UNESCO's European division and so forth. I hope that in the future development of the Council of Europe's activities that will continue to be the way forward.
The Council of Europe provides a forum for the meeting of minds and hearts in Europe. I sincerely hope that on this, its 50th birthday, it will continue to do so.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Russell-Johnston: My Lords, I want to make a short and I hope concise speech. On 25th January I was elected president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I am both honoured and excited. My first predecessor was Paul Henri Spaak. To follow a man of his distinction and commitment to a united Europe is a great honour. The job offers great opportunities to do good. That is really exciting for me after a long time in politics. Perhaps I might be permitted to express a collective thank you to all members who have said nice things about me, some of them unjustified, but some of them quite well justified.
Being president even for three months has given me a much clearer and sharper understanding of the Council than I was able to gain as a member for 15 years. Some of my comments will be less emollient than those of my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. First, despite all the high formalities and recognition given by the Government to the 50th anniversary, it is a fact that British governments—this applies equally to the present Government as it did to the last—have not for a long time given any priority to the Council of Europe. They hardly ever say anything about it and certainly nothing favourable. In my opinion—I will return to this—it is not a good thing that within the Foreign Office, the Council of Europe and OSCE are handled by the same desk.
Secondly, members will know that the system of financing the Council derives from its establishment and the way it happened, with 60 per cent of costs being met

699
by what are called the grands payeurs —the big payers; that is, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy and now Russia paying each roughly 13 per cent, the remainder being divided on a GDP-population formula among the other 36 states. It is an out-of-date system. There should be a new system relating only to GDP and population.
Thirdly, the political effect of the grands payeurs system is that those who pay most are against any adjustment. In that they are against the majority of the other 36 states. They are seeking, as mentioned by the noble Lord. Lord Kirkhill, a zero growth budget which in reality is a minus growth budget. France leads the campaign, followed by the United Kingdom, with Germany dithering a bit and Russia naturally against because it should not be a grand payeur anyway. Italy seems to be our only friend.
What budget are we talking about? For the entirety of its programmes and activities the Council spends in British money £104 million a year, or, to put it differently, 12p per annum for each person in the Council of Europe—less than the cost of a second-class stamp. Of that the Parliamentary Assembly, which I represent and which has huge potential for finding ways of reducing tension, takes 8 per cent. Let me give an example. On 15th March I had a meeting with the presidents of the parliaments of Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia. They signed a common agreement. It was the first time Armenia and Azerbaijan had signed any paper about anything. It does not solve Nagorno-Karabakh but it is a step towards reducing tension.
Fourthly, the OSCE is a valuable organisation. Its budget has trebled three times in the past year. No one seems to mention that. But it does not have a developed acquis as we have. Fifthly, the Court of Human Rights is a wonderful achievement but it costs a lot of money and would consume the budget. It must therefore have a separate budget.
Sixthly and finally, there are some specific steps the Government could take if they believed in real celebration and real recognition. They could join the social fund. Britain has never been a member of the social fund. They could correct something done by the previous government and rejoin the European Youth Federation. I fail to understand also why the United Kingdom is not a member of the Venice Commission, particularly when one considers the wealth of legal arid constitutional experience in this House and knowing what the commission has already done.
We were certainly a founder member of the Council of Europe and encouraged its creation. But we are not supporting it as we should. We ought to do better.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston. Over the years, we have from time to time disagreed at Strasbourg but we have always been reasonable friends. It is a great pleasure also to find that the noble Lord has been elected president of the Parliamentary Assembly. I might marginally have preferred someone from the Socialist group but no doubt
700
the noble Lord will be replaced appropriately. I am sure that we will hear and understand much more about the Council of Europe as a result of the noble Lord's presidency. I hope that his argument about resources will be listened to carefully. I thank the noble Lord for securing this debate. He knows, because we had a word about this, that I would have preferred another day. I would have preferred using today to celebrate the past and have a full day's debate soon to talk about the future. Perhaps we will get one.
I hesitated to speak because of a subsequent engagement, but as I served on the Council of Europe longer than any other British parliamentarian in the past 50 years it seemed appropriate to say a few words. Few of us recall the Council of Europe in its pre-war, prefab building. I remember being there when there 16 members. When I left the Council in 1997, there were 39. That extension is significant, and it is why I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He seems to imagine that the Council of Europe should talk only about human rights. That subject is vital, fundamental and deserves the emphasis that the Lord Chancellor placed on it this morning. However, I chaired the Environment Committee and in the 1980s the Brussels bureaucrats took an extremely unpleasant, overbearing and arrogant view in demanding that Austria—not then a member state—and Switzerland should devote far more resources to ensuring that the roads through their alpine valleys could more swiftly allow the passage of EU vehicles. Life in those alpine valleys was wretched because of road transport. Brussels seemed to ignore the fact that neither of those two countries were at that time member states and took a high-handed view. If it had not been for the Council of Europe, there would have been no international voice to balance the pressures that Brussels is able to bring to bear.
The European Union will expand, but that will be a lengthy process, during which time it is important that there is a broadly based organisation. It may be that the wise men, or whichever Ministers are disposed to say this, will suggest that the Council's role should be curtailed. As a chairman of its Environment Committee for four years and of its Natural Environment Sub-Committee for 14 years, I emphasise that the Council of Europe embraces territory from the arctic tundras of Siberia to the volcanic islands of the tropical Atlantic. It is the only organisation that can place the whole environmental scene in the proper perspective.
I do not wish to say more, and I do not have the time anyway, but two points need to be addressed. One is the budget, to which the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, referred. In particular, the public relations budget is absurd. It will pay for someone to get from London to Strasbourg twice a year. Whoever is to be in charge of PR can go to Strasbourg a couple of times, but then will not have a penny piece to spend. If the Council of Europe does anything or achieves anything useful, invariably the British media refer to that as a result of the work of the European Union. I am not anti-EU but it made me angry, when, for example, the EU decided' to duplicate the arrangement for awards and prizes established by the Council of Europe and which was working well. I raised that matter in the Political

701
Committee during the Belgian presidency. The Belgian foreign secretary said they were going to stop it. They did not. So we have that absurd duplication, which should stop if there is any meaning to the new, better relationship between the EU and Council of Europe.
The Government themselves would benefit if British people were more fully aware of the Council of Europe's achievements, many of which accrue from the work of British Members of Parliament and officials. I do not know why the Government allow Brussels to take the credit when that can properly be directed at the Council of Europe.
I am delighted to see my noble friend Lord Callaghan in his place. Many of us on this side of the House owe him a debt of gratitude. When I joined the Council of Europe, no Labour MP or Peer was allowed to serve on it for more than three years, and no Labour MP or Peer got anywhere near a chairmanship of importance and significance. As soon as my noble friend became Foreign Secretary, I was able to stay on the Council of Europe and to spend the next 18 years in opposition rather more usefully than I may have done in the other place. I felt that particular tribute should be paid. Many others have received tributes, and they are deserved. I hope that over the next 50 years more British parliamentarians will take an interest in and receive useful advice as a result of the existence of the Council of Europe.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am fortunate to speak immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath and my noble friend Lord Russell-Johnston. As an ex-leader of the British delegation, I am delighted that the abilities of our numbers have been fully recognised. I am sure that my noble friend will perform his responsibilities with great efficiency and to the delight of all. I first met the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, at the Council of Europe, became a friend and we were able to coincide to a certain extent in working together, as we do in this House, on the environment. The Council of Europe is a great place for friendships. The noble Lord, Lord Hardy, will remember, as I do, a very unusual friendship between Ray Carter and Jim Lester across the ranks of the House of Commons, when they found themselves in Strasbourg. They were given an extra fillip at the very beginning because Sir John Rodgers could not believe that any Conservative member of the delegation could possibly have a regional accent and therefore, that Jim Lester must be a member of the Labour delegation.
As well as friendship there was the opposite of friendship. It was at the Council of Europe that I first learnt the practical problems of not having proportional representation. The Council was bedevilled in those days by Labour and Conservative delegations haranguing each other across the Floor of the hemicycle, whereas none of the same inter-party disputes was seen among the delegations of other countries. That is where I learnt that proportional representation was not only theoretically right but practically right.
702
There were stars in every delegation and those whom their parties wished to send to exile in Strasbourg. I will not comment on any of the latter. Among the former were Peter Hardy; David Steel, who kindly handed over to me at one moment the leadership of the delegation; and members of the Conservative delegation such as Julian Critchley. I believe that it was in the Western European Union, not the Council of Europe, that Julian Critchley quoted that well-known remark about the languages in which one talks to one's wife, one's mistress, one's colleagues and one's horse—which, in the course of being translated, meant that every delegate in the WEU had been insulted by the end of the speech.
I was also very grateful to my noble friend Lord Steel for letting me have the leadership because, as everyone knows, the point about being the leader of a delegation is that you actually have a car at your disposal. Indeed, if you have a car at your disposal you become extremely popular. I managed to be very popular during my time as leader of the delegation.
I believe that my main contribution was made when it came to our turn to give a party. We received much help from the food and drink industry in this country and we managed to get all the food and drink across all the boundaries in large pantechnicons and gave a very good party. One of the highlights of the party was the French appreciation of the pâté en croûte anglais, which was veal and ham pie with an egg in the middle. The French really appreciated it and did not know that we could produce such delicacies.
I am afraid that I did not contribute all that much during the time I was there. I visited Delphi in order to institute a cultural centre there on behalf of the committee upon which I was serving at the time. I hope that there is a plaque somewhere in Delphi, among its great historical monuments, recording that particular fact.
Before I close, I should like to add to the comments made by those who talked about the work of the Clerks of both Houses who accompanied us. Indeed, they looked after us so well and had such important abilities to offer. I am not the kind of supporter of the European Union as most of the rest of my party are on these Benches. I see the Council of Europe as a much more worthy organisation and an organisation of which I was very pleased to be a part. I hope that it will be taken very seriously in the future.
4.22 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, all of us will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for introducing this debate. I should also like to mention the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. As a long-serving member, he continues to make a very significant contribution to the work of the Council of Europe. I am particularly glad to have been a colleague of his on its Parliamentary Assembly, from which I retired this January after seven years' service.
In connection with the Council of Europe's 50th anniversary, I should like briefly to mention three themes. The first of these is evident from the period of 40 years from 1949 to 1989. It relates to the consensus

703
represented through NATO of western foreign policy in Europe. This was political idealism backed by force. While not conjoined in function, nevertheless, between 1949 and 1989, NATO and the Council of Europe were closely associated in purpose. In fact, in this House Gladwyn Jebb, as many of us know, played a major part in helping to form both those institutions. Practically all the member states of the one organisation were also members of the other. Their purpose in Europe was to replace Soviet totalitarianism with human rights and democracy. Their military strategy was this form of political idealism backed by force. The measure of its success was the end of the Cold War in 1989.
Then came the last 10 years between 1989 and 1999. In Europe, and however much latent earlier on, ethnic violence and regional instability did not become manifest until after 1989. The irony, as we are aware, has been that the lesser problem caused trouble almost as soon as the greater one appeared to have been solved. It is also inconsistent that NATO and Warsaw Pact states should have possessed the ability to bury conventional nuclear hatchets among themselves, yet, in particular the Balkans, lacked the aptitude to avert or control violence and civil war between and within minor European states. Thus the second theme relates to the wrong turning which western foreign policy took at the end of the Cold War. The mistake was to assume that political idealism no longer required to be backed by force. Although intervention came at last in 1995 and then in this year of 1999, each time it did not do so until the worst crimes and excesses of brutality and ethnic cleansing had already been perpetrated.
Following from the first two, the third theme is how the Council of Europe should be able to progress its work in Europe, free from the inconsistencies which have obtained hitherto. For, from 1949 to 1989, the anomaly was that while NATO states practised democracy, Warsaw Pact states did not. Equally, from 1989 to 1999 the anomaly has been that the majority of Europe, including the powerful states, was at peace, whereas, confined to minor states, a small part of Europe was intent upon civil war.
The Council of Europe has already achieved a great deal. Indeed, as we have heard, 18 states have joined since 1989. Now 41 states in Europe are committed to its principles and accept its moral authority. Paradoxically, this authority is all the greater since the Council of Europe has no executive power. Nevertheless, it is unencumbered as a result by such power which otherwise would distract its purpose. Equally, while its business is addressed by European politicians, its work is not undermined by the dogmas of party politics.
The European Convention on Human Rights, the committee for the prevention of torture and the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine are, as has been said, all examples of how the Council of Europe has provided protection against exploitation. Among a great many areas of involvement for its future, perhaps three should be mentioned today: first, mending the scars of war in the former Yugoslavia. Already in Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia and Slovenia the Council has contributed as an arbiter and with its endeavour to
704
re-establish communities and to assist the needs of families and children. Secondly, there is the invaluable work it does on legal matters, health and education in the rest of Europe. Not least, thirdly, there is the moral backing which it can bring to partnerships with other bodies and institutions. These are often designed as projects to establish best practice for social problems, including the control of drugs, the motivation of young people and the management of prisons.
For its first 50 years the Council of Europe has been low key and disproportionately effective. It should remain so. Yet its work should be publicised much more. It addresses the priorities of life. Its continuing success will also reflect that of Europe in the next century.
4.26 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Rodgers for his introduction to the debate and also to my noble friends as a whole for deciding to allocate part of our time to this important subject. Like all other noble Lords who have spoken, I share the view that the Council of Europe is an excellent and worthwhile collection of institutions and activity. I wholeheartedly support its aims and objectives.
I have never served as a member of the delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly. My reason for joining today's debate is to mention the role that my grandfather, Arnold McNair, played in the formation of the process which only came to full fruition last year. Of course, my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill has played a significant role in that respect.
Arnold McNair was actually the first president of the European Court of Human Rights. He played a significant role in the decision of the Wilson Government to accept the optional clauses of the European Convention on Human Rights. I believe that the European Convention and the European Court of Human Rights are the two most important and significant achievements of the Council of Europe.
The optional clauses refer to the right of individual petition to and compulsory jurisdiction—or the acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction—of the European Court of Human Rights. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill for drawing my attention to an article he wrote for the summer 1998 edition of Public Law. I cannot hope to do either my noble friend or his article or, indeed, my late grandfather justice in the matter. But I felt that it would add a different historical note to today's debate.
Another player in this small drama was the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, who also attended the lecture which my noble friend delivered last year and which subsequently appeared in Public Law. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, had several times pressed the Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, about when his government would accept the optional clauses.
As my noble friend discovered when the official papers were made available for inspection in 1995, discussions between Ministers were proceeding, though rather slowly, in the direction of the acceptance of the optional clauses. The chief stumbling-block was

705
whether the clauses should apply to Britain's still considerable number of dependent territories at that time. This was the case until a Foreign Office official wrote to the Treasury to point out that there was a possibility that if the two optional clauses were accepted and if the War Damage Bill, which was then before Parliament, was passed, the Burmah Oil Company might be tempted to bring proceedings under the convention—which in fact happened.
I do not propose to go into the details but Lord McNair made a very powerful speech on Second Reading against the War Damage Bill, and in defence of the rule of law and against retrospective legislation. He had been active behind the scenes in attempting to persuade the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner, and the Foreign Secretary, Michael Stewart, to accept the optional clauses. He was excellently placed to do so because he had a possibly unrivalled reputation as a jurist. In fact, he was the first judge at the International Court of Justice ever to vote against his own country's position in a case in which the judge's country was a party. This was the case following the nationalisation by the Persian Government of the foreign oil companies operating in that country.
I would also like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Russell-Johnston on his election as president of the Parliamentary Assembly. I wish him enormous success in what he referred to as his great opportunity to do good.
I cannot top the anecdote of my noble friend Lord Beaumont on the problems of translation. However, I conclude with one told by my father. He remembered hearing an Irish senator refer to the "Protestant work ethic." This was translated by a German Bundestag member as "the Protestant labour moral."
4.34 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord McNair. As he rightly says, the achievements of his grandfather will never be forgotten. I am quick to say that no one could be better qualified than the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, to initiate this debate. He was very close to Hugh Gaitskell. The first time I ever met him, 40 years ago or more, was when Hugh Gaitskell sent him down from the platform to find out what we delegates from the Labour Conference thought about the "fight, fight and fight again" speech.
Later, of course, after the tragic death of Hugh Gaitskell, who was potentially a great Prime Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, became acquainted with Roy Jenkins, who held exactly the opposite view on Europe. I say "the opposite view" because at the end of Hugh's life he was generally regarded as anti-Europe and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, would be able to tell us what I believe to be the truth, that, 40 years on, Hugh's mind might have developed very considerably and in fact he might have thought quite differently now.
Indeed the whole situation is so completely different and the economic situation is so different as between this country and the European countries. In 1950 I made
706
a courtesy call on Doctor Adenauer, who later became the famous German Chancellor. I knew him because I had been Minister for Germany and therefore I was able to make this courtesy call, although by that time I was Minister of Civil Aviation. He took the opportunity to beg me to go back to London and persuade the Prime Minister, Clem Attlee, and the Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, to join with France and Germany in the Franco-German iron and steel pact, which in many ways was the foundation of the modern European economic organisation.
Of course he completely over-estimated my influence. I was brushed aside and a high Treasury official summed up the general estimate in Whitehall that to tie ourselves in such a way would be to tie ourselves to a corpse. Well, the "corpse", has shown some animation since then, and I suppose that some people would say that the standard of life in those countries was rather higher than in this one. So the situation has completely changed in 50 years, but that is how things were seen in official and governmental circles in 1950.
Today, if anyone asks me whether I am in favour of joining the single currency, I say that my knowledge of this matter, however closely I try to follow these things as a Member of this House, is small compared with that of many others. I would try to consult the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and also the noble Lord, Lord Healey, who was another Chancellor of the Exchequer. I may add that I have great confidence in the judgment of the present Government. It is very difficult to know whether it is in our interest or not. I do not think that an outsider, or even a Member of this House, if not right behind the scenes, can form a worthwhile opinion without advice from those who are much better informed. I have an open mind on that question.
4.35 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, it is a great pleasure and privilege to follow the noble Earl, Lord Longford. He referred to himself as a former Minister for Germany. He was Minister for Germany, as we called it, three years before I was born. He presided over a smashed, defeated and disgraced nation. Twenty-one years later I was proud to be for six years a member of the British Army of the Rhine. I was not a member of an army of occupation. That, I believe, is due largely to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and his team, and indeed those who set up the Council of Europe and the European institutions.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for introducing this debate. He stated that he would ask no questions, that he would not be awkward and that he would not on this occasion look to the future. Perhaps I may be permitted to ask the Minister a couple of questions, promising of course, as always, not to be awkward and to look to the future. I also commend the noble Baroness and her colleagues for their marvellous dress sense, their performance and indeed for their elegance in speech and dress.
I was disappointed to note that today the press have paid very little attention to the events that have taken place in the Royal Gallery and in the Foreign Office and

707
St. James's Palace later today. I hope that will be rectified tomorrow morning. One way to do it—and I hope the Foreign Office will take the lead in this—is to give the widest dissemination of that quite outstanding piece of oratory by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who, in his outstanding and excellent speech, put human rights and the rule of law at the centre of the Council of Europe.
My noble friend Lord Russell-Johnston notably asked a rhetorical question: in the light of Kosovo, has the Council of Europe failed? He reminded us that the ceremony commemorating half a century of the Council of Europe showed that there was a need for continued commitment to the principles of the Council of Europe. I hope that the people of Kosovo draw some consolation and inspiration from the point that he made.
I would draw attention to what happened in 1960 in relation to central and eastern Europe. We have many visitors in our capital city today—notably, for me, the delegation led by his Excellency Mr. Toomas Hendrik fives, the Foreign Minister of Estonia. He has come to pay tribute to the work of the Council of Europe, not only since Estonia joined it five years ago but since its foundation in 1949.
I spoke earlier this morning with Madame Eve Sirp, the Second Secretary in the political department of the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I asked her what she thought were the highlights of the Council of Europe to the nations of the Baltic states over the last 50 years. I also asked what they expected of it. The highlights were, first, the foundation of the Council of Europe in 1949, even though they were denied, through no fault of their own, admittance as full members for 44 years.
Secondly, in 1960 the Council passed a resolution concerning the three Baltic states, which are small in geographical area and have some of the smallest populations among the free nations of Europe. That resolution expressed the hope that one day the Baltic states would become full members. It is difficult for us to realise what that resolution meant to the people of those countries. It was a signal not only to the world but to the Baltic states and to the tyranny that oppressed those people.
The third highlight was the day they joined as full members. Tributes have been offered; I offer mine to Sir Frederic Bennett, chairman between 1979 and 1987. He told me with, I think, mock humour that he brought the Baltic states in as associate members on a Friday afternoon when everyone else had gone home. Sir Frederick is a hero in central Europe, particularly in the Baltic states.
Fourthly, in 1996, for six months Estonia occupied the chairmanship of the Council. The irony is that during that period of chairmanship Estonia pushed for Georgia to be admitted. We have heard about Georgia from my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf. He has issued a caution. Georgia was, indeed, the birthplace of Stalin. One therefore had the situation where a nation that was persecuted between 1918 and 1953, primarily on the orders of Stalin, was working to admit the nation that produced that monster.
708
What of the future? Yes, it will help those nations to prepare for the EU, but they recognise there are no short cuts. They know that, because they have met fellow delegates such as my noble friend Lord Russell-Johnston, in the Council of Europe. They have accepted already 25 per cent of the 176 conventions and wish to go quickly to accepting all the others. But these matters take time. They wish to include—I do not like the word "integrate"—the participation of their own governments at every level the 28 per cent Russian minorities.
I started with publicity. As I walked back from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, where I had taken Madame Eve Sirp, I passed through Westminster Hall. I noted the display, "Council of Europe: The democratic conscience of Europe", showing that the Council costs us £157 million or 20 pence per head. There were five soundbites: co-operation, discussion, meeting, respecting and deciding. In the light of the last 50 years and in a vision of the next 50 years, 20 pence per head is not, as the Foreign Office might say, money for old rope; it is value for money.
4.42 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, as the 17th speaker in this interesting debate I add my congratulations to the, noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, not only on his lucid introduction but on his masterly timing. It is exactly 50 years today that the inception of the Council took place, at a ceremony at St. James's Palace. It seems very appropriate that this year the Council has the luck to have a British/Scottish president. I was delighted to hear his pungent speech in the debate and I wish him every success during the next three years.
Like many others, I have served on the British delegation. I retired seven years ago. The experience left me with the very strong impression that the concept of the 1949 innovators of forging stronger links with Europe was a brilliant vision. It is a challenging role which the Council of Europe, over the past 50 years, has worked hard to achieve. I hope that in years to come it will become even more effective.
Many of us will know that the Parliamentary Assembly works hard in the plenary session debates and produces excellent committee reports. Being a member involves a great deal of travelling to interesting cities throughout Europe. I recall that there were certain hazards involved in serving on the delegation, one of which was the "Strasbourg expanding girth syndrome." I notice that my noble friend Lord Dundee, who succeeded me, did not suffer from that.
The value of the assembly is not only the unique chance it provides for parliamentarians to meet each other—today there are parliamentarians from 41 European countries—but also its remarkable influence. I recall that at the time the eastern European countries were turning from communism to Western-style economies, which was no easy task, passage through the democratic gate at Strasbourg was a tremendous achievement for them. Even more of an influence was the support, advice and encouragement which the Council gave to many of those countries. The noble

709
Lord, Lord Kirkhill, who served valiantly as chairman of the legal affairs committee during that period, visited many, many countries and conducted many, many interviews. He mentioned today, rightly, his concern that some of the entrants do not have true democracy.
For all the good work of the assembly, it is disappointing that very few people—including the press—know anything about the Council. As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby reminded us, the Council in many ways is a parallel to the House. It enjoys excellent debates; it has brilliant reports; its members are part-time and unpaid; and there is little public awareness. But there is the invisible asset of the strong value of influence. The hideous daily atrocities committed by European people upon European people in Kosovo must be very galling for the Council and for those serving in the assembly. I was delighted to hear today of the powerful debate that took place in Strasbourg last Friday. I hope it will have some influence on a very dangerous European peace situation.
A lesson for the Council today—indeed, it was in the vision of 1949—is that woven into the Council's texture over the next 50 years will be not only the Court of Human Rights and the European Court but also perhaps a European force, a successor to NATO, which will be less remote than a United Nations force.
There have been many achievements over the past 50 years. The centrepiece is the European Court of Human Rights. The entry of the eastern countries is another great achievement. Finally, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby mentioned, there is the important achievement of European cultures. It is perhaps a less glamorous achievement but it is very important. The twinning of towns and villages within Europe is very important. Many of us are aware of the benefits.
Towards the end of his speech, the president of the assembly took the Government to task over the budget, as did the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. I am concerned that the Council should always have sufficient funds to run itself in a proper and sensible manner. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that that will be achieved. I wish the Council well during the next 50 years.
4.49 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I. too, wish to add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank for what has been a crucial occasion. It would have been a great shame if, on the 50th anniversary of the Council of Europe, there had been no recognition by debate in either House of the Council's achievements and the challenges that still confront it. Perhaps we may suggest to the Government that at least occasional debates in government time on the Council of Europe would be a useful way of bringing more attention to bear on the remarkable work of this organisation. That is partly the message of this debate. I note that more than half of those who have participated have at one time or another been members of either the Council of Europe or the Parliamentary Assembly, or have in other ways played an active and important part in the Council's deliberations.
710
In that context, I wish to add a word about the noble Earl, Lord Longford. He is the only speaker in this debate who recalls playing an active part when the Council of Europe was first established. I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Carlisle in placing on record the deep gratitude that any European owes to the noble Earl for the sterling and brilliant work that he undertook in what was then called the British Zone of Germany, helping to make Germany one of the pillars of democracy in the modern Europe. I pay tribute to the noble Earl for what he did.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am overwhelmed and I thank the noble Baroness. However, I must make it plain that I am only one of three Members of this House who were members of the Attlee Government. The others were the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, who does not attend the House very often now, and the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. I should not like people to think that I am the only one who is still about the place!
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am more than happy to pay tribute to the other two noble Lords who were members of that great administration.
We should be careful about avoiding too self-congratulatory a note on this occasion. I remember attending, in 1948, the conference at The Hague, as a schoolchild in the company of my family. There was a speech that electrified the whole of Europe. It was given by Winston Churchill. It set before that conference a vision of a united Europe that has never been matched in practice from that day to this. It managed to inspire most of the nations of Europe, and it gave Britain an opportunity which I am afraid she totally failed to take further. It has taken us 48 years even to arrive at the point where our own country accepts the right of individual petition in our own courts with regard to the European Convention on Human Rights. That, even by the relatively incremental progress associated with British democracy, is extraordinarily slow progress.
In addition, we have been in a sense, even today, not a totally full-hearted member of the collectivity of countries concerned with human rights. To my great regret, we have still not signed the International Covenant of Political and Civil Rights; we have not signed the protocol; we have not signed the protocol to the Convention Against Torture; we have not signed the protocol to the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Yet we rightly feel as a country that we should be one of the great champions of no racial discrimination and no acts against human beings that reduce them to little more than animals. So on this occasion I urge the Government to complete the long step forward that they have taken by incorporating the convention into British law and by also signing those conventions, at a time when the lessons of Kosovo and its refugees show how vital it is that we line up on the right side of the international community on these matters.
It is also extremely important to recognise that the great achievement of the European Convention on Human Rights is that it has made Europe one of the only two areas of the world where an individual can bring a

711
case against his or her own government. That ought to be one of the building blocks of the moral and legal order to which the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, referred. Unless an individual can seek justice at some level of a system of law, the attempt to argue that countries are behaving in a fully democratic way is vitiated from the very beginning. I believe that too much cannot be made of that right of individual petition. However, I add one warning word. A right of individual petition is as strong as the ability of a man or woman without means to receive justice. That is why legal aid in countries is an absolutely indissoluble element of the true recognition and acceptance of human rights.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to what was said, in a strong speech, by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I see the point of the noble Lord's remarks about the need to focus the work of the Council of Europe. But it would be a great pity if that meant that we pulled back almost entirely onto its legal and judicial work. The creation of a culture of human rights rests firmly in education. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referred to the youth parliament, which is one of the remarkable achievements of the Council of Europe. My noble friend Lord Russell-Johnston has been closely associated with trying to train and educate young people in the member states in the concept of democracy. It is also vital to mention that the collective responsibility that members of the Council of Europe accept for creating that culture is of crucial importance.
I also wish to refer to the work done in central and eastern Europe and the former states of the Soviet Union. I have seen something of the work of the Council of Europe at a modest level in helping the Moscow School of Political Studies to establish a series of seminars for parliamentarians in Russia. It does that work in a way that makes it acceptable to those parliamentarians to listen and discuss the slow and gradual building of democracy in their own country. I contrast that with some of the high-handed and patronising attitudes taken by all too many western consultants who visit central and eastern Europe or the former states of the Soviet Union knowing nothing of their history or language and often lacking the humility to show willingness to learn.
The Council of Europe has consistently been a listening, moderate and humble organisation. Tragically, that may well be why it has received so little publicity. In my view the work of the Council of Europe is crucial to the survival and flourishing of democracy, as the noble Lords, Lord Hardy of Wath and Lord Judd, pointed out, if we are to see democracy flourish in that part of Europe which is still not fully within the structures of democracy so far. The Council of Europe is working today on the Russian judiciary to try to help it become independent of the state and able to act according to the highest standards of equity and justice. It is working on the constitution of Albania, to take another crucial example.
Perhaps I may turn briefly to the magisterial words of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. The noble Lord raised two issues that we cannot neglect. The first is how far some of the new members wholly understand and incorporate a strong sense of what it is to have a
712
democratic and liberal civic society. The noble Lord mentioned Georgia. I wish to place on record my respect for some extremely courageous Georgians who have fought very hard for democracy. In that context, I would say a favourable word about Mr. Shevardnadze, who has twice survived assassination attempts in his own efforts to modernise Georgia. I share some of his concerns, not least about Croatia and Moldavia, where there is a very great of work to be done. It would be a tragedy if the Council of Europe allowed itself to be diluted in an attempt to extend the umbrella just a little too far. The noble Lord may be right in suggesting that the European Convention on Human Rights might be incorporated into the treaties of the European Union—a view that I share as a former member of the Comité des Sages which examined this issue.
The danger remains if a fortress Europe, prosperous, democratic and strong, left outside it what might be described as the bigger nations of Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and others referred to the danger of a Balkans which is simply outwith what might be called the circle of comfortable, civilised and relatively easy living. It is crucial that the judges who come from those new states are trained and persuaded to accept the highest standards of judicial independence, or the whole court might itself be diluted. Its tradition has been of vital importance in establishing the Council of Europe.
I conclude by pointing to the new statute on the role of minorities that was passed in 1998. My noble friend Lord Russell-Johnston spoke of his future responsibilities. There are few more serious or difficult than upholding the attempt to create a tolerant culture towards minorities. As is all too evident from Kosovo onwards, it is a goal that we have to go a very long way to achieve.
5 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to wind up this debate from the Opposition Benches and to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for initiating the debate. From a position of substantially less experience and insight than him and many other noble Lords this evening, and with apparently rather less emphasis on my appearance in comparison with his Front Bench and the noble Lord the Minister, I am in the pleasant position of agreeing with a great deal of what the noble Lord said this evening and the comments just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. My only regret is that I am suffering from gastro-enteritis. For the much hoped-for temporary respite I thank the parliamentary nurse. But the emphasis from the noble Lord's Benches on asparagus, in or out of season, menus, foods and, even from my own Benches, expanding girths, has not aided my recovery. But I wish the noble Lord and all other noble Lords who are to attend the reception tonight at St. James's Palace a wonderful and memorable evening.
Today's contributions have rendered me deeply sensible of the expertise, first-hand knowledge and experience brought to the debate today, which in itself is a tribute to the contribution that Members of your Lordships' House have made to the work of the Council

713
of Europe during its lifetime. It is fitting that in your Lordships' House we should have the opportunity to remember and celebrate the achievements of the Council of Europe over the five decades of its existence and to anticipate and discuss its future development and the role that this country should play in directing that development. It is also timely to assess the Council's contribution to European and world society and its future role as a focus for democratic security and the proponent of a European model of society, particularly in the light of the challenges that Europe currently faces in Kosovo which act as an all-too-stark reminder of the importance of the values propounded by the Council.
Today's debate builds upon the useful discussion that took place when the House last considered the Council of Europe just under a year ago. That debate focused both upon the ways in which the important and unique work of the Council could be brought to a wider audience—a point made by a number of noble Lords this evening—and the means by which this country could and should continue to play a central role in furthering the Council's key aims; namely, to promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law and to develop a continent-wide common response to social, cultural and legal challenges.
On that note, I come to my only question this evening. Since the matter was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, last year, can the Minister inform the House what progress has been made on the suggestion that those Members of your Lordships' House who are also members of the European Council, could and should submit a report, perhaps to the Library of the House, and then table a Motion to debate that report in the House?
The debate has been particularly interesting. It is right that it has not been simply a mood of celebration. There has been sombre and wise reflection rather than celebration, inevitably overshadowed by the crisis in Kosovo and the horrific scenes of ethnic cleansing and atrocities in that region. These are scenes which the architects of the post-Second World War Europe hoped that their construction of interlocking European institutions would ensure this continent would never again witness. I shall return to that point which is critical to today's debate.
It is important to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the Council of Europe over the past five decades and to offer a warm welcome to its most recent new member. Georgia became the Council of Europe's 41st member at an official ceremony held at the Palais de l'Europe eight days ago. Precisely what organisation has Georgia joined? The 41st member now belongs to a unique pan-European institution which plays an unparalleled and indispensable political role in Europe, with one aim above all: to unite the whole of Europe into one family of democratic nations. The Council has sought to protect and strengthen pluralist and parliamentary democracy as part of its goal towards an integrated Europe, underpinned by democratic security. The Council has been one of the strongest champions of the indivisibility and universality of human rights, in
714
particular through the principles set out in the European Convention on Human Rights, and the pre-eminence of the rule of law.
Here I agree with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath. It has been important for the Council to be among the foremost to seek common solutions to the evils that continue to bedevil our society—the abuse of minorities, xenophobia, exploitation, racism and intolerance, corruption and terrorism and AIDS and drugs—and to make important contributions in the field of environmental protection, bioethics and sustainable development.
Why are these issues important both in their own right and taken together? I believe that the answers can be found in the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. The Council aims to promote awareness of a genuine European cultural identity and to encourage the development of a culture of peace and dialogue among its member nations. These are vitally important steps on the road to wider education. In more recent years the Council has worked to develop a political partnership with Europe's new democracies and to assist central and eastern European countries with their political, legislative and constitutional reforms. As the Council strives towards its goal of the creation of
"a Europe under one roof',
with the exception of defence there is hardly one important area where member states have not sought to tackle their problems together. As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, reminded us in his reflections, the new states of central and Eastern Europe, including Russia, have viewed membership of the Council of Europe as a prize that bestows valued entry to the European club. To join, these states have had to subscribe to the Council of Europe by accepting the principle of the rule of law and guaranteeing everyone under its jurisdiction the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
As a result, since 1989 the Council's main political focus has been co-operation with the countries of central and eastern Europe as membership has bloomed from 22 nations in 1988 to the 41 members we have today. Today, the Council of Europe stretches across the entire European continent from north to south and, more recently, from west to east, spreading the values of modern, pluralistic, free and open societies to the newly-democratic states of central and eastern Europe.
But in any debate on Europe and its institutions at the present time it is right that a number of your Lordships have given consideration to the crisis in Kosovo which demands our urgent and critical attention. The intransigence of Serbia, the defiance of President Milosevic and the subsequent NATO operation taking place on Europe's very back doorstep—unprecedented in the past 50 years—are a blow to the peace and democratic vision of a Europe truly whole and free that was so dear to the founding fathers of the Council of Europe. Today, we witness the very scenes of destruction and despair which those founding fathers strove to ensure could never tear this continent apart again.
As with the 50th anniversary of NATO, today is rightly a time for reflection, celebration, resoluteness and also rejoicing. It is a time to stand up for our values

715
of democracy, the rule of law, freedom and peace. It is key, therefore, to ask what role the Council of Europe can play in the resolution and post-resolution phases of this conflict. Last June the noble Lord, Lord Judd, told the House about how the Council of Europe provided a forum for debate on Kosovo where representatives from the region provided members of the Parliamentary Assembly with first-hand knowledge about what was at stake. Initiatives such as the colloquy on Kosovo's future status held in March, which are designed in part to promote dialogue between the various political forces of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with a view to establishing democratic stability in this country, amply demonstrate the value of this approach.
Across Europe there was a hope that today, as the Council marks its 50th birthday, almost every European country would share in its democratic vision that has an impact on the lives of all its citizens of a free, more tolerant and just society based on the common values of freedom of expression and information, cultural diversity and the equal dignity of all human beings. Today's leadership of Europe must rise to the challenges that the Council of Europe faces today, challenges to the cohesion, stability and security of Europe, in order to continue the legacy of its founding fathers and to fulfil their vision of a hope-filled future. In this way the Council will be equipped to meet the challenges that it will face in the 21st century as it continues to act as the driving force in bringing the western, central and eastern reaches of our continent together beneath the single roof of a united, democratic and stable Europe.
5.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and others, I, too, would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for introducing this debate today. Your Lordships' contributions underscored the importance that we all attach to the work of the Council of Europe. I thank my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede for his very hard work in chairing the committee responsible for the 50th anniversary celebrations. Many thanks are due to him.
As your Lordships have rightly highlighted, today is a day of commemoration and celebration. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, it is right that we are commemorating today the fact that it is 50 years since the signing of the statute of the Council of Europe in London. Today we celebrate the achievements of one of the oldest European organisations. Today we pay tribute to an organisation which has not simply survived for 50 years, but which has flourished and grown. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said, in the past 10 years the Council of Europe has undergone an astonishing transformation, expanding from 23 to 41 member states and representing nearly 800 million people.
Today my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has invited Foreign Ministers and representatives of the 41 member states to London to take part in a series of commemorative events to mark this anniversary. One of the events, to which a number
716
of your Lordships referred, took place in this House this morning when my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor addressed distinguished guests in the Royal Gallery.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, reminded us, today we have also not forgotten the significance of an institution such as the Council of Europe in a continent which is confronted by the crisis in Kosovo. Fifty years on from the birth of the Council of Europe one country has shown by its actions that it holds in contempt the values and standards which are accepted in a civilised world, a point made very forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan.
President Milosevic has shown through his actions that he regards law as merely a tool for repression, and freedom as something which he is entitled to remove at will. He has shown his contempt for human rights, and how little value he puts on the truth or on the independent media.
But most of all, he has shown, through the ethnic cleansing on Kosovo, that he regards ethnic diversity as a threat and ethnic hatred as an asset to be stoked up and used. The images we have seen in recent weeks are horribly familiar: the mass deportations by train; the shallow graves; the pathetic masses of refugees, their homes burnt and their papers destroyed for no other reason than their ethnic identity. They are scenes which, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, we hoped never to see again in Europe.
What President Milosevic is doing in Kosovo is the expression of values that we cannot accept in our continent. It is a rejection of everything that the Council of Europe stands for, as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, emphasised. It is a direct challenge to our determination to build a Europe founded on democratic values, respect for human rights, and the rule of law, as the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, reminded us.
As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Danrendorf, the Council of Europe was established to protect and preserve values and standards which its founding members saw as defining part of their identity. The Council of Europe has now instituted over 170 conventions. These have codified in binding international law the ideals common to democratic societies.
The Council's first major convention, agreed in 1950, was the European Convention on Human Rights. Its importance lay not only in the breadth of the rights included but also in the protection machinery set up in Strasbourg to investigate alleged violations. Britain played a central role in the adoption of that convention and worked hard last year to shape the arrangements for a new full-time Court of Human Rights which came into operation in November. The new court will have to deal with a much expanded caseload of individual complaints from new member states such as Russia and the Ukraine.
As my noble friend Lord Kirkhill reminded us, the Council of Europe has proved time and again its relevance to the changing face of our continent. Many noble Lords remarked on the collapse of communism,

717
which 10 years ago gave the Council of Europe a new and central role in European unification. The new challenge was to reach out to the new democracies of eastern Europe to plan and help implement key reforms to their constitutions and their legal systems; to their civil services, judiciaries, and to that essential element in any democratic system, a free media.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, reminded us that the Council of Europe has helped to reduce tensions among communities, which, if unchecked, might lead to human rights violations. We supported the adoption of the Framework Convention on National Minorities, which gives important support for minority rights in Europe. It provides a flexible framework for countries to co-operate with one another to deal with national minority problems which often have very deep historical roots.
As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, the Council of Europe, for so long frustrated by the Iron Curtain, can now operate as it was always meant to in setting standards across Europe. The Council of Europe has provided a yardstick for former communist countries as they develop modern, pluralistic, free and open societies as the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, described to us. But at the same time it continues to work to keep the older established members up to the mark.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, I believe that the older member countries must not be complacent. We must constantly examine our own record to ensure that we are behaving as we ought. That is why this Government, in one of their first major policy initiatives in 1997, enacted legislation to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into British law, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, reminded us. This will mean profound and fundamental changes for our legal system and it will affect all areas of government work. These changes are so extensive that we cannot bring the Act into force immediately. But we are committed to this fundamental reform.
As my noble friend Lord Kirkhill said the Council of Europe's monitoring mechanisms help to ensure that all its member states, long-established and more recent, abide by the standards to which they pledged themselves when they first joined the Council. I give as one example the work of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture. That committee, composed of independent experts, may at any time visit any place of detention in states which are party to the Council of Europe torture convention. The committee has provided valuable reports on the situation in Turkey and on many other Council of Europe states.
I also congratulate very warmly the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, as the newly elected president of the Parliamentary Assembly. In many ways I suppose it is an organisation which is the conscience of the Council of Europe. I am sure that we all look forward to that conscience flourishing under his presidency. The members of that assembly scrutinise the compliance of existing member states with Council of Europe standards and report on whether prospective members are yet ready to be admitted to the Council of Europe.
718
But monitoring on its own is not enough. A major challenge to the international community as a whole is how to stop the violation of human rights and bring offenders to book. That is where the Council of Europe offers the citizens of its member states an institutional basis for the protection of their rights. It is an institution which is unique and unparalleled, as was so clearly stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. For when countries become members of the Council of Europe they all sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights and they all accept the mandatory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.
The court is in many respects the jewel in the Council of Europe's crown. Its jurisprudence, with over 700 judgments, is immense and covers a vast field of human activity. It provides a guarantee for individual citizens that their governments will not get away with human rights violations. The fact that the caseload of registered applications to the court has increased sixfold in the past 10 years bears testimony to the importance of its work, but also to the respect in which it is held.
As my noble friend Lord Longford said, the international co-operation which has developed under Council of Europe auspices has touched many areas of public policy in this country and in all countries which are member states. I have spoken about the Council's fundamental role in the protection of human rights and the promotion of democracy and the rule of law. But the Council has also been a pioneer in many other fields.
The European Social Charter, setting out rights including the right to strike and the right to social protection, came into force in 1965. Today. the Council of Europe brings its members together to discuss policy in a whole host of areas—such as working out strategies for combating drug abuse, codifying medical ethics, protecting the rights of minorities, promoting Europe's cultural heritage, preventing corruption, and in the fields of education and local democracy. But the Council's work in drawing up conventions, and in encouraging its member states to incorporate those conventions into their domestic law is very great indeed.
I wish to touch on some of the issues raised by noble Lords in their contributions today. I refer to the points made forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the Council's extension of its work and its organisation. The Council of Europe's Second Summit identified structural reform of the organisation as an area of concern. The noble Lord is right in some of what he said. A Committee of Wise Persons was set up to make recommendations about how that reorganisation could be dealt with. The Committee of Ministers' Deputies in Strasbourg, chaired by the British ambassador, has taken forward this work and is submitting its report to Ministers for endorsement in Budapest on Friday of this week.
The Government strongly support that process. We shall be working to ensure that the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers' Deputies are taken forward swiftly. We also believe that the Council of Europe must operate within existing resources, adhering to an annual budget ceiling of zero real growth.

719
That brings me to some of the points raised by my noble friend Lord Kirkhill. The budget settlement for 1999 included an element for the new Court of Human Rights but it remained within the zero real growth target. We believe that zero real growth is a useful management tool to encourage prioritisation and to refocus on some of the core objectives of the Council of Europe. However, I stress to my noble friend that we recognise that the court is an essential and important institution, and one which must function properly.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, also warned us to a certain extent about horse trading in the Council of Europe. I believe that those were his words. He made reference to the impending election of the Secretary-General. The Government have nominated Mr. Terry Davis, MP, not because of any form of horse trading but because we are convinced that Mr. Terry Davis is the best candidate for the job, that he has the qualities and, in particular, the management experience which will be so important to anyone holding down that position.
Questions of financing were also raised by my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath, and in a different way by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. We are already a grand payeur. We pay 12.64 per cent of the budget. In 1999 that amounts to about £.15 million. While we and the other five grands payeurs pay the majority of the budget, other countries, for example the Scandinavians, also make significant voluntary contributions.
My noble friend also asked what we could do to give the Council of Europe a greater profile within the United Kingdom. I believe that today is an example of what we have sought to do. The 50th anniversary commemorations have had a high profile. The Government have supported the work of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and his UK national committee. We have put forward, we believe, a good, sound and credible candidate, Mr. Terry Davis, as Secretary-General. And noble Lords who read the Guardian have had today an interesting article from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State about the Council of Europe. So I believe that the Government have sought to raise the profile of the Council of Europe.
My noble friend Lord Judd asked specific questions about the social development fund. They were echoed by other noble Lords. The United Kingdom does not belong to the Council of Europe Social Development Fund. I must tell your Lordships that we do not have any plans to do so. The Government already are heavily committed financially to a European development programme in central and eastern Europe. We are committed multilaterally and bilaterally. We calculate that UK membership of the SDF would cost us about £27 million. The bilateral aid which we give to central and eastern Europe is already very considerably in excess of that figure.
My noble friend also asked about the list of conventions which we have not yet signed. Such a list was given in March this year by my honourable friend Mr. Lloyd in answer to a Parliamentary Question by Mr. Tom Cox. I do not have the date but I shall let my noble friend know where he can find the list.
720
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, indicated that she did not think that we had ratified the protocol on torture. I believe that we have ratified that protocol. I was slightly puzzled about her reference to a protocol on racial discrimination. We have ratified the Framework Convention for National Minorities which covers racial discrimination issues. I do not know whether that was the protocol to which the noble Baroness referred.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords. I am. grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. I understood from an answer to a Question for Written Answer that we had not signed the protocol with regard to the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, nor the Convention on International Civil and Political Rights.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I was not referring to the Convention on International Civil and Political Rights. I shall check. I believe that there is some cross-cutting in the protocols and conventions; and some of the issues appear in some and not others. I shall write to the noble Baroness with details when I have had an opportunity to study in Hansard the specific points raised.
However, I can give the noble. Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, what I hope he will consider two pieces of reasonably good news. I am pleased to be able to confirm that following the decision of the previous government to withdraw from the European Youth Foundation with effect from the end of 1996, the United Kingdom rejoined on 1st January of this year. The noble Lord also raised the issue of the Venice Commission. I am pleased to confirm again that following careful consideration the Government have decided to join the Council of Europe's commission for democracy through law: that is, the Venice Commission. It is important because it will enable the commission to pursue through the money we donate—it will be just under a quarter of a million pounds per year—important work on advising on constitutional and legal reform. I hope that that will give some pleasure to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised the question of assembly members submitting a report which might be debated in the House. I think that that is an extremely interesting suggestion. I should like to talk that through further with the noble Lord and others involved, and perhaps we may consider how best we can meet that point.
Our debate today has highlighted the essential role which the Council of Europe has to play in our continent today. The Government are firmly cornmitted to the values which the Council of Europe espouses. We are also firmly committed to ensuring that the Council of Europe is constantly improving and adapting its priorities and objectives to meet the challenges it faces.
In the follow-up to the Council of Europe's Second Summit in 1997 important work has been done to draw up plans as to how the Council of Europe should adapt and reform its working methods, as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. When Ministers meet in

721
Budapest tomorrow and on Friday, they will endorse these measures to reform the Council. I am sure that we wish them all success in those efforts.
I would like to thank all your Lordships who in various ways have contributed to the success of the Council of Europe over the years. I hope that the noble Lords who have contributed in a variety of ways will forgive me if I particularly single out the contribution of my noble friends Lord Callaghan and Lord Longford.
The Council of Europe is indeed a unique institution. It brings its members together at local government and parliamentary levels to discuss, adopt and implement the standards which should be expected of civilised societies. We will do all that we can to ensure that these principles prevail over the forces of tyranny and arbitrary rule. We need only to consider the enormous expansion of the Council of Europe since 1989 to see that such ambitions can be achieved. It is a major goal of our foreign policy to work to ensure that soon the time and circumstances will be right to enable all European countries to meet the standards which are required and to join in the embrace of the European family that is the Council of Europe.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for her reply and to the 19 Members of your Lordships' House who have contributed to this debate. Perhaps I shall be remembered for, among other things, apparently confusing "scruffy old Labour", which I once was, with "elegant New Labour", which the noble Baroness so consistently represents.
There may have been too much reminiscence in the debate. I was responsible for that because I started it. However, I believe that it may in a way have been appropriate on this occasion. If I was not perhaps as critical as I might have been of some aspects of the Council of Europe's work—because every institution deserves scrutiny—I hope very much that there will be other opportunities of the kind suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, and picked up on by my noble friend Lady Williams, to debate the principle of the future of the Council of Europe. There are many issues still to be answered. I hope, as I said at the beginning, that it has a long life ahead of it.
My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Public Service Broadcasting
5.32 p.m.
Viscount Falkland Viscount Falkland rose to call attention to the case for preserving the quality and diversity of public service broadcasting in the digital age against the background of increasing global competition; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we are facing an upheaval in broadcasting in this country which allows us to take a completely new look at what the future
722
holds, not just for the BBC, for that is the main thrust of the debate which I have the pleasure to introduce today, but what is the function of broadcasting in society and how the demands of the public will be met in future with the new technologies that are available to us.
I would not be opening this debate today were my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth here; he is away. With his enormous experience, I would perhaps have looked forward to winding up the debate, would have picked the brains of other speakers who had preceded me and may have suggested one or two ideas. It is a much more difficult job for me to open up the debate to the speakers, to all of whom I am extremely grateful for their participation in today's debate. I very much look forward to their contributions, which I am sure will be wide-ranging and full of the expertise which one expects in your Lordships' House.
I also have to say that I have received a number of letters from other noble Lords who are well known in the field of broadcasting. They were courteous and kind enough to write to me to say that they would have liked to have spoken in this debate but that, unfortunately, pressing matters made it impossible for them to do so.
Public service broadcasting—for that is the origin of British broadcasting—and a very particular public broadcasting culture in the shape of the BBC, performed a role over many years which made it a national cultural institution with standards to which it adhered, sometimes viewed as rather pompous but always offering quality, truthfulness and often innovation. There were perhaps occasional moments of pomposity and a certain prurience, but we forgave it that as we would forgive a well loved relative at times when we disagreed.
By and large, the record of the BBC as the public service broadcaster in this country has been outstanding. It has given it a brand image which is probably second to none in the world of public service broadcasting. The advent of the new digital spectrum technologies now causes us to review the future of public service broadcasting in this country. These new technologies, which will create a great deal of choice and technical quality, perhaps represent as important a development (if not more important) as did colour and commercial television in this country in the 1950s.
The role of the BBC has now had to be examined. The corporation has been scrupulous in taking every kind of advice and seeking to help wherever it can, within the constraints of its funding, which of course is through the licence fee, in arriving at decisions which will allow it to compete—for that is what it seeks to do—in an increasingly competitive national and global market.
We have run into difficulties. The difficulties, of course, start with the funding. The BBC is funded by the licence fee. The licence fee puts many financial constraints on the breadth and variety of public service broadcasting in a way which never previously was the case. Nowadays, young people do not look upon the BBC in the same way as perhaps some of us who are in our 50s do. Most of us think about broadcasting in terms of the BBC. Young people now know what they want,

723
they go out, they seek it and, when they find it, they will more often than not stick with it, whether it is in the form of commercial, satellite or any other kind of broadcasting. The difficulty is therefore one of the BBC facing changing audiences and changing roles.
Gone are the days when we were able to go into our offices or the homes of family and friends and discuss a programme which we had seen the previous night. That was always the habit, it was a cosy habit, and that has now gone. Nowadays people more usually watch a sports or music programme on satellite television or listen to the radio or engage in other activities within the general area of broadcasting. To that extent, the BBC has lost its natural constituency.
It seems to me that the BBC has lacked the confidence to be able to make any clear decision about its future role in broadcasting in this country. I believe that the perceived pressure put upon it by Parliament and Government to achieve a share of the market has been unfortunate. After all, we have never judged the quality and breadth of programming of our public service broadcasters according to their share of the market.
Even with the advent of commercial television, it was more the continuing quality and the reach of the programming which was important, whether it be drama, documentaries or comedy. Now it is necessary for the BBC to look closely at the competition and decide where it should be competing, if it should be competing at all. It is interesting that in one's talks with the senior management of the BBC, it is always evident that the word "ratings" will occur within the first few minutes.
It is natural that the BBC should be concerned about its loss of share. It is put at about 30 per cent and it is said that sinking below that would be unacceptable. I do not know why the figure of 30 per cent should be deemed to be a reasonable level. So what if it drops temporarily below 30 per cent provided that it maintains its quality? It seems to me that if the BBC is forced, or encouraged, or chooses itself to chase after ratings and market share, it can only fail and will not justify its licence fee. If it sticks to its remit and continues to provide the quality by which we are accustomed to judge it, it seems likely that it will not fail to the extent that it will if it chases market share. Parliament's role is to give the BBC the confidence to see that new development and to encourage it to look more closely at where its natural constituency lies.
The new technology that we have is unusual in that nobody asked for the new developments in digital television. It is unlike, for example, the motor industry where there was always a demand for cleaner, higher performance and safer motor cars. Even though the new technologies—for example, engine control systems—were expensive, the motoring public were prepared to pay for them. In some ways, the advances in radio and television technology have gone ahead of the market, requiring extremely costly marketing and sales exercises.
We are still seeing those battles being fought in terms of dominating that market where huge investments have been made. Only today we have
724
seen in the war over top boxes that BSkyB has offered free top boxes and the benefit of reduced telephone bills for people who subscribe to their programmes. That is bad luck for anyone who bought a box last week. But that is the game we are in. That has certainly put pressure on its main competitor, ONdigital, which has entered into that battle as regards top boxes, even to the extent of acting in a rather restrictive way—and one must have sympathy for BSkyB—by not allowing its ITV programmes on the satellite platform, which is a cause of heated discussion between the two operations.
It seems to me also that there are the problems of replacing income, certainly for independent commercial companies which seem to be contracting more and more. We may end up with one commercial operator. One can see reasons for a large predatory operator trying to take over to achieve the economies of scale in order to compete, particularly in an area of limited advertising revenue.
There is now a great spread of advertising revenue over more and more channels. Therefore, one must market and sell successfully and that has not been done very successfully, by British television programme-makers in the world at large. Certainly we are no match for the Americans or Australians in that field. There is a need for a new sales and marketing imperative. Also, there will be a drive to make up for that loss of income through pay-per-view television and subscription channels.
It is difficult to engender the kind of income needed to replace the income from advertising. It seems to me that there is only a limited possibility offered by sports channels, movie channels and soft porn. Pornography is a problem with which I shall not deal this evening. I am sure that we shall deal with it in the months to come because we have not entered into the debate on what is or is not acceptable to the extent to which other countries in Europe have. It is a sombre reality but it is one which must be faced.
To conclude on the general aspect, I hope that noble Lords will agree with me that the BBC must not spread itself too thinly. It must not be seen to be everywhere. Why is it absolutely necessary for the BBC to compete in every possible area where there is broadcasting activity? One example which springs to mind is BBC News 24. That costs a lot of money. It competes almost directly with Sky News and does not do it so well. What is the point? As a satellite programme, it is seen by relatively few of the licence fee payers. One may say the same of children's broadcasting. Without intending at all to cause a disagreement between the right reverend Prelate and myself, that may be so also in relation to religious broadcasting. The BBC has a role to play in religious broadcasting. Is it not likely—and I hope that the right reverend Prelate may deal with this—that specialist religious channels will proliferate with the new spectrum? That will make it necessary for the BBC to know exactly what it is doing, to do it effectively and to be careful in watching costs.
Radio is very important. If the BBC has a natural constituency, it is in radio, from where it sprang. It is culturally important. It is the natural successor in our literary tradition. Some of that tradition has gone into the quality of television, particularly in drama.
Local radio is now becoming a force. As the concept of nation becomes more difficult to define, more and more people are turning to their local communities. More and more people want to listen to local radio. Even with the restrictions of analogue, it is done extremely well. The new technologies will make it possible to improve the quality and service at great cost. The BBC has already invested a lot of money in the hardware but seems to be going cold on the programming, the software, if I may put it that way. It is necessary for the BBC to lead the way in local programming.
Commercial people want it because in that way more radio sets will be purchased. Manufacturers will have the confidence to make more radios and their unit price will go down. That can only be good for the country. I hope other noble Lords will address that issue. I shall be interested to hear what noble Lords say in what is a crucial period for broadcasting and a particularly crucial period for our well loved BBC. I hope that what noble Lords say now and later will give it the confidence to face the future and survive. If we succeed in that, we shall be doing a good job.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Patten: My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on what he said and the way in which he said it. He expressed an extremely balanced view.
I follow him immediately by saying that I agree with everything that he said in the closing moments of his speech about local radio and the importance of local radio. I wish that the clock had not cut him off in full flood on that issue because I believe that localism and regionalism will be reflected more and more in the broadcast media, whether in radio or on television.
I should like to begin by saying that in this place of all places we should seek to avoid any sense of cultural elitism or any attempt to be patronising, trying to impose on people what we think they should see or what they should listen to. So far in the debate we have managed to avoid that, and I hope that others will avoid it as well or at least justify it if they feel that the general public should be told what they should watch and the way in which they should respond to radio programmes.
Secondly, by way of background, it is very important that we all recognise that there is only one rationale for public sector, public service, broadcasting, and that is to provide what the market cannot or will not provide. If we go beyond that and say that there is a duty for the state to inform or educate, we enter a dangerous zone: therein lies the slow march towards totalitarianism.
I am not known for being a raving radical or someone who stuffs free markets down the throat of anyone who wishes to listen. But I think that the test for public
726
service broadcasting is whether it can be provided at a high quality by anyone else. If it cannot be provided at a high quality by anyone else in the market, there is a very strong case for the state continuing to provide it. I hope that there at least the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and I will agree.
I have only three points to make briefly against that background. First, we need to cut through all the modern buzzwords: "digital", "global" and all the rest. I congratulate the noble Viscount on not having given us a torrent of buzzwords about the new technologies. Thank heavens the speech came from the Liberal Benches and not from the Government Benches, or we would have had the word "modern" every third or fourth sentence. We would also have had "joined up thinking", "joined up government", "joined up broadcasting" and all the rest.
The noble Viscount put his finger on the matter: the key issue is the BBC; that is what we are talking about. He set the tone for the debate, and I intend to follow him absolutely.
It is extremely easy to criticise the BBC and score cheap points off it. That is wrong. The BBC has done an excellent job over the years, but times are changing, as they are changing in this Chamber. I am a great admirer of Sir Christopher Bland and many of his colleagues who are doing a very great deal.
On the other hand, it is also too easy to exalt the BBC and to stick it on a pedestal, saying that it is beyond all criticism, with the attitude that to criticise the BBC is like criticising the purposes of Her Majesty the Queen Mother or to doubt the integrity of the National Trust, or something else that is just too far-fetched for anyone even to think in the dead of night. It is possible to criticise the BBC without being anti-BBC. It is also possible to suggest that the BBC needs to go through a period of radical and carefully thought through change, without being thought to be against public service broadcasting. I am not against public service broadcasting in any way.
That leads me to my second point, which is that the BBC needs to focus on those things that no one else can provide. Therefore, I see absolutely no reason why the BBC seeks to provide the services of Radio 1. I see no reason why the BBC seeks to provide the services of Radio 2, and I see no reason why it seeks to provide the services of Radio 5. I am concentrating, if I may, on the radio channels.
It is clear that the market can provide the services that I have mentioned. To attempt to integrate those things that the market can provide within a public service framework is, frankly, wrong. We see in the present shape of the BBC an attempt to maintain a radio-visual welfare state, providing everything and sometimes, alas, not providing it very well. We do not and should not seek to have the BBC provide a radio-visual or televisual welfare state harking back to the days of the 1940s or when Lord Reith rightly ensured that BBC newscasters read the news in evening dress. There is an opportunity for a reformed BBC.

727
That leads me on, I am afraid, to my third and last point, which is the need for more radical action in relation to the BBC. I cannot imagine that BBC Radio 3 could be provided by anything other than the public service. It is of an extremely high standard, and I cannot imagine that if it were floated off, with all sorts of provisos and cultural golden shares and all the rest, it would not be dumbed down before one could say "Rachmaninov". It should be preserved in the public sector.
I have doubts about Radio 4, though not about the news service, which is extremely important, and a very important component part of our attitude to the English language. English culture and to world affairs. But I worry quite a lot about much of the rest of the output on Radio 4—quiz shows, chat shows and all the rest, which could easily be provided by market stations.
I should like to enter a note of caution, not over BBC news programmes, but over BBC news magazine programmes, where we have seen a reduction in the standards of politeness in interviewing politicians. I hasten to add that this is not a party political point. It often strikes me that interviewers on the "Today" programme are rude to people impartially. I sometimes listen to the "Today" programme because it is the only programme to which Ministers will go in the morning. Therefore, if one wants some political comment one must listen to the "Today" programme; it is a kind of monopoly.
But it is very sad when highly intelligent and motivated Ministers of the present Government are in the middle of saying something, are just pausing on the word "and" and then the interviewer suddenly says "Briefly" or asks another question. We are beginning to see the germ of the growth of yob radio on the BBC "Today" programme. It would be very good if it were possible for senior Government Ministers to go on a variety of programmes in the morning.
There are doubtless some people who like to hear Ministers being harassed, abused and irritated. There is nothing wrong with that. I sometimes enjoy it myself, secretly. But there may be some who would prefer the American interviewing style rather more, where people are allowed to talk for two or three minutes to explain themselves, and sometimes hang themselves on their own political arguments. Mr. Jimmy Young is a master of that sometimes on BBC Radio 2.
So I do not welcome the fact that the BBC seems to have a monopoly on our politicians and Ministers. I should like to see and listen to them on other programmes being interviewed in different ways.
We have been told from the Government Benches that things must change in this place, that the hereditary Peers must go. In the end, as things change, in due course probably much of the BBC will go, in our lifetimes or certainly in the lifetime of many of us. For I do not see why to provide public service broadcasting one has to have a BBC. If there is a licence fee for reception, which raises funds, why cannot it be distributed to any station which wishes to provide a public service element in what it is seeking to do, under strong safeguards and under tight regulatory control? To
728
take an example at random, why should not Talk Radio have an early morning programme on which politicians are asked to be interviewed and tortured in a different way from the way in which they are tortured on the "Today" programme? Why should there not be that opportunity for Sky or anyone else to say, "We are going to provide a public service element to what we are doing"?
There is nothing outrageous or wrong in asking that sometimes the public sector should subsidise the private sector. We do this all the time in the way in which, for example, we subsidise otherwise loss-making railway lines to provide railway services for people to get around in country areas.
The BBC has done an excellent job. Many parts of it continue to do an excellent job. But I think that the end of the BBC is on the horizon. It is perhaps not so close an end as the end that the Government plan for the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and other hereditary Peers, bat it is looming on the horizon. I shall be sorry if the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, is not here to address us in future years because I believe that he has done the House a great service in the way in which he has addressed us this evening.
6 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on initiating this further debate on public service broadcasting and for so valuably placing within a digital and global context his concern to preserve its quality and diversity. Perhaps I may declare an interest. The subject of the debate is a concern I share as chairman of the Sandford St. Martin Trust. The trust exists to encourage quality and diversity in religious broadcasting. Our awards this year for outstanding religious programmes on radio and television will be presented, I am delighted to say, by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. invited my comments on religious broadcasting. Religious broadcasting is an integral part of the public service remit. Its quality and range, together with its scheduling, are a significant litmus test of the way that remit is discharged.
I recognise that public service broadcasting evolves. It has, understandably—as the noble Lord, Lord Patten noted—moved far from its once Reithian mode. The manner in which, for the most part, public service broadcasters now treat religion causes me dismay—a dismay I know to be shared in your Lorclships' House beyond these Benches. One would have expected that in the most widely distributed form of its seemingly visionary document entitled The BBC beyond 2000, the doyen of public service broadcasting would have made at least some specific reference to religion. But not a bit of it. There is no specific mention of religion for general consumption as the BBC looks into the third Christian millennium. That is disheartening to those of us who know from our personal visiting, from the care of our parishes and from our important and growing links with other faith communities, which, especially in a diocese,

729
like mine, are very important, that religion, especially Christianity, is a deeply significant factor in the life of our nation.
Even more disturbing is the incontrovertible fact that on the mainstream channels, religious programmes have, for the most part, been pushed from prime time to the margins of the broadcast schedules, making them potentially less accessible to audiences, thereby diminishing the status of religious programmes and endangering their quality. That is such a tragedy because some of the best examples of public service broadcasting have been religious programmes. Without them the ability of public service broadcasting to maintain its standards of creative and imaginative programmes, which inspire and enlighten, and to provide a range of broadcasts, which not only reflect, but also challenge, will be seriously undermined.
In talking about religion in this debate, I am addressing an area of broadcasting history of proven quality and engaging diversity that was in no small way responsible for the previously high reputation that public service broadcasting enjoyed in this country and for which it was admired abroad. The unwelcome trends I have noted have been increasingly evident over the past two decades. However, technological and regulatory developments now permit religious organisations to "narrowcast" on dedicated or satellite TV services.
There is a fundamental issue to be teased out. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for putting the point so directly to me. That point is whether religion will continue, for the most part, to be broadcast mainstream as part of a rich and varied diet accessible to everyone, or whether it will be moved to what eventually becomes a "pay ghetto". I do not believe that a move to the ghetto would be to the benefit of religion or of broadcasting. Dire warnings about manipulative tele-evangelists are probably overstated, but channels on which religion would become the raison d'être could be detrimental to the spirit of tolerant inquiry and balance which has long characterised religious programmes in public service broadcasting. Nor would consigning religion to dedicated channels reflect our current culture, and reflecting our current culture is an aim much vaunted by public service broadcasters. It is an indisputable fact that for millions of people of many faiths in this country religion is central to their lives. The BBC knows that from its own surveys and from the many occasions it mentions religion in its news bulletins. It knows it too from its own religious education programmes, which, in common with other mainstream channels, are done extremely well, covering in an effective and sensitive style all the main religions.
It is therefore all the more extraordinary that religion should so often be relegated from mainstream viewing and trivialised. The importance of religion to the viewing and listening public—I declare a further interest as president of the Churches Advisory Council for Local Broadcasting—is evident from the huge audiences which are increasingly attracted to the unprecedented number of religious programmes on regional and local television and radio. I welcome the points made by the noble Viscount and the noble Lord on the importance
730
of local broadcasting. There are 63 local radio stations currently providing programmes of daily or weekly worship.
Technologies may change, but human nature does not. That is why religion offers some of the greatest challenges and opportunities to programme makers. The best religious programmes offer insights into the complex and varied nature of religious belief, demonstrating its uncertainties and not giving easy answers or glib solutions. In those ways. we in this country have been, and continue to be, very well served.
The major series of the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, "Two Thousand Years", will be complemented later this year by the BBC's 12-week history of the Bible. Indeed, there are welcome signs that the BBC has accepted that chasing relentlessly down-market is not the way forward. However, the BBC continues to have the key responsibility of keeping religion alive in the mainstream media. No one doubts its ability to make good religious programmes. It does it so well. No dedicated channel and no imported programming could do better.
It is therefore tragic that the BBC should be marginalising what it is uniquely best at doing. I disagree with the suggestion, hinted at by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that the BBC should leave religion to dedicated channels. It is a question of commitment by the BBC, not of skill or ability. Those noble Lords who visited the Dome today will have been reminded that important tests of that commitment will come at the end of the year. I hope that there will be no repeat of last Christmas Day when not even one act of televised worship was shown.
The millennium celebrations offer an important opportunity for public service broadcasters. How they deal with it in terms of religious programming will be seen by these Benches and many other people as a yardstick, not least because of the recent and widely publicised opinion poll indicating that two-thirds of those who expect to be watching the celebrations at the Dome on New Year's Eve favour a specifically Christian element.
The noble Lord, Lord Bragg, said in an article for the Sandford St. Martin Trust that the main building blocks of our British culture should be seen on the main channels. He has said that religion should fight to be on the main channels. For that we will fight. And if, as I pray, we win, then the quality and diversity of public broadcasting as a whole will be enhanced. If we lose, faith will not fail. But I have to say that without religious programmes, the quality and diversity of public service broadcasting will be the poorer.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate, not least because he dealt so ably with the religious issues that he spares me trying to do so rather inadequately. The House will be in his debt for his remarks. I should declare an interest as deputy chairman of the commercial TV regulator, the ITC, and in a sense

731
therefore someone who operates from the no-man's land where technology, commercial competition and public service meet.
There is an implicit assumption in my noble friend's Motion—I, like others, am grateful to him for procuring this debate—that globalisation, competition and the technological proliferation which digitalisation makes possible are, by definition, the enemies of quality and diversity. We should be careful not to confuse quality with elitism—a point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Patten. There is a danger that they are the enemies of quality and diversity, but it ain't necessarily so.
Perhaps I can take three scenarios which point in an alternative direction. First, the interactivity which will be made possible by digital could transfer television, in close relation with the Internet, computer technology and IT, so that it becomes a more effective medium of public information and education.
The second scenario is that a world which now trades and increasingly communicates in English is hungry for media output—a point made by my noble friend—in English. It wants alternatives to the products of the Los Angeles dream factories. We are in pole position to supply them from this country. Points were made in a debate two weeks ago about the need for better marketing, and I am sure that is right, both for the BBC and independent companies. But we are in a position to take great advantage of world demand for good quality English broadcasting of programmes of one sort or another.
The third scenario—a counter-indicator perhaps—is that in this world of greater proliferation with more channels, we can all picture the people surfing their way nimbly up and down the repertoire of a much larger offering. But sooner or later our fingers have to stop. A friend of mine who is lucky enough to be the son of a very rich man, said that the best piece of advice his father gave him was that he could only wear one suit at a time. It is rather like that on television. We can surf to our heart's content. But sooner or later we have to alight on a channel and watch something. When we actually choose what we want to watch, then it could be that diversity, niche marketing and producing programmes specifically tailored to specific interests will fully come into their own when we move out of the duopoly of two very broad-scale broadcasters trying to compete totally across the range.
I merely say this by way of qualification to the rather easy assumption that all change is for the worst. That is not necessarily the case. On the other hand, there is a legitimate concern that the quantity that is made possible by digitalisation will not necessarily mean quality.
So, as we go into the digitalisation age, which was so well explored in your Lordships' House on 21st April in a debate procured by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, public service broadcasting is alive and kicking in the UK. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Patten, whose presentation perhaps elided this, that public service broadcasting is not confined to the BBC. Public service requirements are made on Channels 3 and 4, and up to a point Channel 5. As we look around, 30 per cent of homes have multi-channel pay channels. But
732
interestingly, though 30 per cent of homes can watch other than free-to-air programmes, 87 per cent of the actual viewing is of the traditional Channels 3, 4 and BBC channels. So they still have a crucial role in informing, educating and entertaining viewers.
Perhaps at this stage it will be helpful for me to attempt a definition of "public service". It means more than one thing. In this country it is made up of a whole web of legislation, statutory requirements, charters, codes, licence and other public obligations. But I identify the following elements in varying degrees, which both the BBC and main commercial channels share. They all have some requirement for impartiality and a balanced fairness of some sort, particularly in their reporting of contentious issues. I am sure they all accept that there is some need for authority, responsibility, verisimilitude in what they do. Interestingly, some of the cases on which the ITC had to regulate recently had to do with the simulation or faking of scenes. The concept that it is important to know that what we watch is the real thing is part of the notion of authority and responsibility.
The question of catering for a diversity of interests arises; the notion that, taking broadcasting as a whole, there should be something for everyone somewhere in the repertoire. The same phenomenon applies at the other end; that is, that minorities should be catered for and minority interests, particularly those of disadvantaged minorities, should not be neglected. There is the crucial concept of regionalism or community; that is, that television in this country should be connected to the geographic areas of the country. Licences awarded by ITV are still essentially awarded on a regional or, in the case of Scotland and Wales, a national basis, whatever the ownership of the company. Incidentally, the gloomy assumption that we may end up with one mega-company is certainly precluded at the moment by the ownership regulations that exist
There are fewer companies than there were, but even if those companies straddle two or three regions, they have to honour their obligations. That is how should be and, after tomorrow, when we have a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Assembly and, we hope, arrive at a working Parliament in Northern Ireland, it will be crucial that that concept of being rooted in the nation or region of the United Kingdom is reflected in our definition of public service.
Finally, and crucially—and perhaps the point of my noble friend asking for this debate—we have the issue of quality. This is where confusion sometimes comes in. Quality does not necessarily mean highbrow; it means that it should be good of its kind. If it is a quiz show it should be well done; if it is a soap opera it should be well done. Anybody who has had to suffer in hotel rooms over the years snips of American soap operas as I have, knows how good British soap operas are of their kind. I do not expect that to find ready assent in your Lordships' House; I doubt many of your Lordships find time to watch them. But we produce good soap operas in Britain. I am trying to say that public service broadcasting should continue to set under the leadership

733
of the BBC and the independent companies, a general benchmarking which raises the game for all and provides substantial overseas revenue.
On public service channels, it is important that the regulator works with the grain of commercial pressures. Most people who work in free-to-air channels are happy and often keen to be seen as public service broadcasters in the wider sense. That important ethos, made up partly of culture and tradition in Britain and not merely regulation, could be destroyed by excessive and silly regulation of an intrusive and interfering kind, whether in respect of content or economic matters. It is important to see the regulator as coach rather than the nanny of the public service culture.
It is not for me to lay down the law for the BBC, but it and the independent free-to-air channels are both, in different ways, pillars of the public service ethos. The BBC, owing to the wisdom of licence financing, does not have to respond directly to commercial pressures. I draw two conclusions. First, I do not believe that the BBC necessarily has to lead on digitisation, although it should certainly not lag far behind. I am uneasy with the idea that there should be a special extra licence fee levied for the BBC to digitise. Secondly, in the more pluralistic world that broadcasting will have, the BBC should look at the balance between the pursuit of excellence and the pursuit of viewer numbers. Of course too small an audience would be a disaster but, by the same token, a reduction in quality would be an even greater disaster.
Money does not necessarily mean quality. If we look at the effective work of Channel 4 and Film on 4, we realise that there is in this country a great reservoir of creativity, originality and imagination that can be and should be mobilised by good creative management. It is not just a matter of big bucks.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, this debate follows relatively shortly after that of the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, on public service broadcasting in early March. Some might argue that it would have been better for a longer period to elapse between the two debates, but I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for introducing this debate because I want to use it to take forward some of the ideas that I raised on the earlier occasion.
We are moving into an era when there will not be spectrum scarcity and broadcasting, and telecommunications and on-line services will merge seamlessly. I do not know exactly when that will happen and cannot tell how it will occur. Neither can I precisely predict the effect that it may have on the viewer and user. But it will happen.
Of all parliamentary chambers, your Lordships' House is perhaps the most patrician and Reithian in its view of itself and the world. That is our strength—and our weakness. It is neither surprising nor misconceived for us to debate the concepts of quality and diversity. Having spent many a happy hour at the Dispatch Box when I had the privilege to be the Minister with responsibility for broadcasting, I know the importance that the House attaches to that subject.
734
There is an argument in favour of quality and diversity that stands alone. It is axiomatic and self-evident to a civilised society and I will not argue it further. A second argument also applies when there is spectrum scarcity. It is the basis on which the current rules are formulated, be they general or contained in the remits of various public service broadcasters—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, pointed out, cover not only the BBC but a number of other enterprises.
If we are to move into a world of spectrum abundance, the second argument loses a great deal of force. If we are in a world in which there is enough spectrum for all, why in a free society should specific rules about quality and diversity pertain? They do not exist in the world of books and newspapers. While there are plenty of bad books and newspapers, there are also good ones. There has always been more junk than quality. Great literature is rarely self-conscious.
Until recently, radio or television broadcasting has been special because a small number of point-to-multipoint broadcasts have provided entertainment and information to much of the population in their own homes, and from that arises the concept of the development of public service broadcasting. In the new era that will soon be on us, the advent of emerging digital technologies will change that. We shall live in a world in which almost limitless audio or visual material—and, if visual, still and moving—will be easily available in every household as and when it wants. The concept of a broadcaster as we know it will cease to exist. There will be no need for any point-to-multipoint broadcasting, as all information and material will be available on a point-to-point basis, with no constraint of spectrum shortage to limit reception.
In such a world, in which technology does not recognise the boundaries of separate jurisdictions—as experience of the Internet already shows—content regulation is extremely difficult. I welcome various voluntary efforts to curtail the anti-social consequences of untrammelled libertarianism in Internet material, and there should be a basic legal framework as far as our own jurisdiction is concerned against obscenity, racism and so on—as in the case with the written word. Equally, mandatory quality criteria will come to be seen as irrelevant. The real issue is whether there should be a supplier or suppliers of material on the new converged digital systems with a specific public service purpose, either exclusively or in addition to a wider commercial function.
In March 1997, only days before the last general election, I delivered a speech to the United Kingdom Association of European Law's Media Conference. I explained:
"Our view is that universally available free-to-air public service broadcasting still has an important role at the centre of broadcasting for two main reasons. First, it will act as a benchmark against which all other services will stand. It is not necessary to mandate 'high quality' everywhere across the spectrum. The major free-to-air channels, with universal coverage and their privileged place in analogue broadcasting and on the digital multiplexes, act as the datum point against which others will be judged. Given that such services remain universally available there seems no reason why people should not also choose to receive and pay for whatever TV

735
services they want—subject to taste and decency rules and other general legal criteria. Secondly, the free-to-air public service channels are part of the information infrastructure of contemporary society. Access to them is as much part of the citizen's right as access to the water main or telephone line—nobody need have either service but each must be generally accessible".
The world has moved on dramatically. In this case, it has much more to do with technology than politics. But those remarks of mine made in March 1997 were a diffident and groping realisation on my part of the need to change definitions and aspirations. In the comments that 1 shared with your Lordships on 3rd March in the context of the Davies Committee deliberations on the BBC licence fee, I said:
"Against that background, I believe there is a need for a re-definition of public service broadcasting for the next millennium because only then can one identify, for example, what the BBC might do, how it might do it and how in turn that will be paid for. What is true for the BBC is also true of Channels 3, 4, S4C and Channel 5 because a change on one part of the public service broadcasting waterfront reads across to, and has implications for, all the others". —[Official Report, 3/3/99; col.1670]
I am increasingly clarifying my own thoughts because broadcasting as we know it will become a dead or certainly a changed concept. We must think in terms of public service information provision without being hamstrung by the shadow of the technologies of the past. My initial and tentative conclusions are moving towards the development of the concept of a free-to-air information infrastructure within society.
Of what should that infrastructure comprise? First, there should be impartial and universally available news and information with appropriate comment. Secondly, somewhat similar to public libraries, there should be an educational and quasi-educational service. When we were in government, we were thinking about such things. The present Government have taken a number of those concepts forward in, for example, the National Grid for Learning. Finally, there could well be a case for some kind of what I might describe as an "arts and culture package", which would be the digital equivalent of those things in the museum and cultural area which are funded by the DCMS.
At first sight that might sound a trifle apocalyptic. After all, it is only one man's look into the future; but the future is not all that far away from here.
The existing BBC Charter and Agreement is due to expire at the end of the year 2006. By then a number of issues which are part of the story that I have been telling will, I believe, become commonplace reality. They will have to be addressed. If they are not, the existing structure of public service broadcasting may well be completely anachronistic and irrelevant to the needs of Britain's citizens as we approach the end of the first decade of the next millennium.
Taking their time, but in time to deliver their conclusions to coincide with the debate that will take place about charter and licence renewal, I believe that the Government should establish a Royal Commission—the latest in the succession of those which have set the course of United Kingdom broadcasting since the Second World War—to advise both Parliament and the Government. After all, let us not forget that it is we, the legislators, and government
736
who write the rules and not the broadcasters. We take the decisions. I believe that we need to know the form of the likely media landscape at that time and the place where what I quite deliberately call "public service information providers" ought to be, in what will be a very different media terrain from the one that we are in now.
6.31 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, perhaps I may also thank the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for introducing this debate. Like many others, I believe that it has given us an opportunity to speak about issues which we were not able to fit in on the last occasion when the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, tabled such a debate. First, I need to declare an interest. I am a non-executive director of Meridian broadcasting which is a regional ITV station, and a non-executive director of the Cable Corporation, which is also a regional cable provider.
Despite the vision of the future of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, with which I was not able to identify with during his speech—but perhaps, given time, we might all catch up with him—I feel that we are very fortunate in this country. In effect, we have four different types of television and radio broadcasting. This is because they are slightly differently, and, in some cases, very differently funded. We have the BBC, which we fund ourselves through the licence fee. It does not have to go to the market place to seek its funding. We have ITV, which is funded through sponsorship and advertising, and we have Channel 4, which has no shareholders. Therefore, its position is slightly different from the other ITV companies. It is able to invest all its revenue in its programme making. Further, we have cable and satellite, which is funded by subscription.
In my case, I believe that the latter is what leads to diversity in broadcasting in this country. The BBC's remit is, quite clearly, to set the bench-marks and to be the leader in quality and public service broadcasting. Because ITV has to provide for consumers—if they do not watch its programmes, there will be no income for the ITV companies—it has to provide populist programmes. However, it does much more than that. In its own words, it tries to achieve "quality, accessibility, popularity and regionality".
Speaking of regionality, I believe that ITV covers that very well. Being a non-executive director of a regional television company, I realise how important it is to meet the needs of the region in which the company is situated. Otherwise the company will not pay. It is very simple: if you do not provide what the local people want, you do not exist; as, indeed, the predecessor to Meridian found out.
Then there is Channel 4, which is unique. It is a strange combination of sponsorship and advertising. However, it has no shareholders. In its own words, it describes itself as being in the vanguard of creative industry in Britain; in other words, as the catalyst for its development.
So there we have it. As long as we have these different sources of funding, I hope that we will continue to receive the kind of diverse broadcasting that

737
we have become used to. We are spoilt in this country. Indeed, we all know that. When we visit other countries, we all realise how much better served we are here.
However, I should like to spend a few minutes talking about a different kind of diversity in broadcasting. I should like to talk about inclusive broadcasting, not a permeation of issues which are seen as separate and exclusive. There are television and radio stations which provide for the needs of, say, ethnic minorities, people with disabilities or the over-60s, but they provide it in programmes which are specifically aimed at those people. I have nothing against such programmes being specifically aimed at minorities and, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said, at disadvantaged minorities. I no longer like to think of us as being disadvantaged. The noble Lord will find that even people with disabilities are not so keen to think of themselves as disadvantaged. We all like to think of ourselves as being part of the society in which we live.
Although we like programmes that focus on specific issues which might be of concern only to us, we would also like to see ourselves as part of the mainstream programming. This can be done in many different ways; for example, it can be done through integrated casting. When a drama is being cast, why should it not have people with disabilities in it? Why should it not have people of different shades in it? After all, that is what society in Britain is today. This is not a sin of commission; indeed, I believe that it is only a sin of omission. I am not sure that the programme makers are as aware of the issue as they should be. I am not sure that they keep it as much in the forefront of their minds as they should. The time has now come to have overlap and not to see people as separate units in the community. People must be seen as being part of the total. To my way of thinking, that is a very important facet of broadcasting. It is also very important in educating all of us into being part of a whole rather than separate units.
There is also something else that I have noticed. When programmes are produced for minorities, they often do not have the production values which are applied to mainstream programming. They are poorly produced and the money that is spent on mainstream programming is not spent on them. There are two very good examples from the BBC about which I have been very excited. I have in mind the "Windrush" series, which went out last year, and the comedy series "Goodness Gracious Me". Both of those programmes have been scheduled at times when people would watch television. They have also been of the quality which has proved to be popular with the mainstream.
I should like to make a few comments about radio, because it seems to get wiped out by some noble Lords in one or two sentences. I have in mind commercial radio in particular. There is no one to monitor the performance of BBC radio; indeed, that is entirely in the hands of the BBC. Despite such major criticism as has been taking place recently, there has been no response from the BBC.
738
Programmers used to be told: "you will provide so many hours of this kind of programming, so many hours of the other kind of programming and six hours of minority programming". I am very pleased to see that the Radio Authority has decided to be more flexible now and it is a general promise that will be required and not "ticking the boxes" as to what has been provided. That does not make for quality: that simply makes for quantity.
It is very important to remember that commercial radio, like commercial television, is not funded by a licence fee. It must appeal to local people, because local independent radio belongs to local people. They pay for it by advertising on it and it is very, very close to them. Perhaps I may say to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Lord, Lord Patten, who both wrote off local commercial radio, it is supposed to fill a particular niche in local radio and it does that by providing for local needs: otherwise local commercial radio stations will not get the advertising and they will not exist. Also, they are much closer to the community than the noble Lords imagine.
On Radio 4 there are two programmes which are designed for people with disabilities. One is "Does he take sugar?" and the other is "In Touch". They were meant to be mainstream but they have come to be really quite separate. That is wrong.
Finally, we have an ageing population in this country but we have no specific radio programmes for older people. There is a generation of radio listeners now growing older and they need to feel valued. They need radio and television which includes them as well.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I speak purely as a consumer of the broadcasting media. When we consider quality and diversity in the media. I initially think of the BBC and then I think of the other free-to-air services: definitely in that order. The last time I referred to this subject I concentrated on radio, and particularly on Radio 4. I believe it is so valuable because it has diversity, it informs and educates as well as entertains.
It can inform and educate because it is entertaining. I would certainly find myself at odds here with the noble Lord, Lord Patten, because if you are not entertaining you cannot do the other things. People, even if they do not switch off physically, switch off mentally. You have to be able to hold attention.
Another theme which has run through this debate is the fact that if we have specialist channels the world is lovely. It is not, because if you do not know it is there you cannot listen to it. The great strength of the BBC and the other free-to-air broadcasters is that they have a variety of subjects being broadcast on the same day. How many of your Lordships might perhaps switch on to some broadcast medium and switch on a little early, keep the channel open and find yourself listening to something else? That is the great strength of the diversity of programming.
We are in grave danger of surrendering to the anoraks at every single level if we say, "There is one thing we shall watch or listen to, and that's it". If he will allow

739
me, I would like to challenge the noble Lord, Lord Patten, on something that concerns Radio 1. It was probably about 1986 when I last knew what was in the charts, but at that time I was forming musical tastes in popular music. At that time the BBC, and in particular Radio 1, were the people who helped to form those tastes because they had little programmes at the edge containing things like world music, rhythm and blues, jazz and so on—an introductory service which allowed you to sample everything. If you suddenly say, "Here is something" and you know nothing about it, you will not touch it. How many people would consider watching a natural history channel on Cable if they had not seen David Attenborough playing catch with a bunch of gorillas at one point or watching a lion chase a zebra at another point? They just would not be interested: it would not appeal to them.
If you give people a diet which consists purely of gameshows, no matter how well made, then they will only watch gameshows. That is the only thing that they will understand. The same is true of other channels and of sport. The armchair athlete who sits back and watches nothing but sport—and usually only one or two sports—might be encouraged to watch other things. Possibly you can capture the news while you are waiting for a final score to come up.
We have to try to keep this function of public broadcasting going. The BBC is uniquely placed to do this because it should not have to worry too much about the watchers. It should become something which people go into and out of. They may be able to form tastes as a result of this, because they do not have to respond to commercial pressures.
I am totally in support of my noble friend Lord Falkland when he says that they should not continue to worry about market share. They should simply be worrying about making sure that quality comes across, and also that diversity comes with the quality. If we do this we will continue to justify having these programmes and these processes. If we decide that everything can be dealt with by a specialist channel eventually we shall end up making a broadcast media a great irrelevance. We might as well go out and buy whatever the equivalent is of a pile of CDs, tapes or other things and put them in whatever viewing or music generating machines there are at home and just listen to them: you would not need anything else. Unless we concentrate on diversity and trying to inform people we shall fail future generations.
We must accept the fact that we cannot say simply that because it is broadcast you have access to it. If you have a channel guide in front of you it is no more informative to you than if it was written in a language you do not understand, because you do not understand the point of reference. I could go on ad infinitum on this subject, but that is the only real point that I wanted to make.
Unless we are prepared to accept that public service broadcasting has an obligation to take risks, to try new things and to make available in an easy format to the general public a diversity of watching and listening experiences, we shall fundamentally let down our
740
population. We shall cut down their reference points to virtually all issues—news, current affairs and everything else—unless there is a framework to put it in.
For instance, how many times has the dramatisation on television of a book encouraged the sales of the book? For one thing, we do not always catch all the episodes. We might think, "Oh, that was good: I wonder what else this author has written". That is a well known phenomenon. The reason why people are interested is that the programme has caught their interest; it has been well produced or at least well enough produced to make them think about it.
Also, we must accept the fact that failure is guaranteed within a process of experimentation, so that the BBC and the other free-to-air broadcasting media must have something which says to them, "You are obliged to take risks and if you have one or two failures don't worry about them: that will always happen". Unless we manage to keep this in sight we are in danger of having 400 channels. I believe that my noble friend Lord McNally said to the House last year that they will all have repeats of "I Love Lucy". No, they will not: only about half of them. The rest of them will have solid repeats of a thousand-and-one chat shows made 20 years ago, with new follow-ups to them—and nobody will ever be aware of what is on the next channel.
6.49 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for introducing the debate. I should first declare an interest in that I am a director of ONdigital.
I intend to concentrate on issues related to the debate today and issues that derive from the Minister's reply on 21st April to my Unstarred Question on digital coverage. I shall try to move the debate forward rather than just repeat the previous performance and also deal with some of the technical issues.
The first issue that I should like to address is analogue switchover. Responsibility for digital coverage rests with the ITC, the BBC and the transmission providers. There will be a considerable increase in coverage when analogue switchover occurs. Prior to the switchover, there are a number of steps that could be taken to improve coverage for the BBC and ITV through the ITC: more relay transmitter sites and increasing the power of transmission. There were initial worries about interference but there seems to be less interference in practice than was originally feared.
When I pressed the Minister last month that the most important step was the setting of a target date for the switchover, he replied in his first point that we do not have much to learn from other countries. He then proceeded to list a series of other countries, the USA, Germany and Japan, all of which have target dates. We are the only country that has successfully launched digital terrestrial television and we do not have a target date. I suggest that perhaps we do have something to learn. We are leading the world in developing digital terrestrial television. If the Government do not set a target date, even if that date has strict conditions attached to it, we risk doing what has been done so

741
many times before in this country—leading the world with the introduction of new technology, then falling behind, losing the advantage and being overtaken by other countries.
The Minister also seemed to reject the concept of a rolling switch-over and then went on to say:
"We still have not really had field tests for switch-over in a small area to establish how to do it".
It is for the Government to encourage and for the ITC to implement. It is not that difficult, as some 100 relay sites have coverage of fewer than 100 homes in this country. The ball is in the court of the department and the ITC to go ahead and start field tests.
The Minister also said that a rolling switch-over would be very attractive to manufacturers, as if that was the only reason in its favour. Yes, of course it would be attractive to manufacturers, but the real benefit would be for the consumer and the industry as a whole. If digital television prices come down the industry itself can subsidise switch-over.
The Minister made one point with which I seriously disagree. He said:
"One of the real faults with the implementation of the 1996 Act was that insufficient pressure was put on the providers who obtained multiplexes to produce new and better quality programmes…we will not receive from digital significantly better quality of programming than we receive from analogue". —[Official Report, 21/4/99; col.1227.]
The Minister in another place, Janet Anderson, does not agree. Indeed, writing in the Parliamentary Monitor this month she stated:
"The advent of new channels will not lead to a reduction in the quality of programmes and not simply because the current regulatory regime places requirements on the broadcasters".
I should ask the Minister whether he has watched digital television. I fear he has not. If he had, he would have seen a wide range of programmes. One can watch free on digital television now BBC1, BBC2, ITV, ITV 2, Channel 4 and Channel 5; and also BBC 24-Hour News, an exceptionally good news service, and BBC Choice; and, shortly to be launched, BBC Knowledge and BBC Text. On subscription television one can watch Film 4, Carlton Cinema, UK Horizon, two Sky Movie Channels, Sky Sports 1 and 2, Sky 1 and 10 other channels. Those channels are not just repeats; many of them are new channels which are commissioning new programming.
I have taken the Minister to task for not watching digital television, but perhaps it is not his fault. Perhaps it is our fault on this side of the House for keeping him here, in his role as Deputy Chief Whip, from afternoon to late evening, guarding his flock against the possibility of a voting ambush. Less voting and more viewing is needed, I think. I can assure the Minister that I shall try to prevail upon my noble friends to give him more evenings off. If he has not seen digital television and does not have a set-top box, I shall be happy to lend him mine so that he can see for himself the quality and diversity of the programmes. I am glad that he is looking forward to that.
742
As the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, said, it is not only the BBC which has a public service remit; ITV companies also have a public service remit enshrined in their licence conditions and enforced by the ITC.
Perhaps I may say a few words about interoperability. I apologise for being technical, but it is an important point that has caused much debate both inside and outside the industry and, indeed, in Parliament. Oftel and the ITC will ensure that set-top boxes will be interoperable with the addition of a "sidecar box", as it is known. Digital televisions will also be interoperable. The adoption of "open systems" by all the digital terrestrial broadcasters, including the BBC, will ensure that all receivers of whatever type will be able to receive the full range of free-to-air and subscription services.
There is a certain lack of understanding of the Internet and e-mail and how exactly they will work in broadcasting. The main Internet access will not operate via a satellite or terrestrial transmission system for the transmission of data; it will be through a telephone line connected to the set-top box or digital television. If, today one buys a BSkyB satellite system, one has to plug the system into a telephone line, even though that link via the telephone system is not yet in use by the broadcaster. ONdigital boxes can also be plugged into a telephone line. For example, the e-mail service shortly to be launched works via a signal being sent via the transmission system to the set-top box, so that when one switches on the television it tells one that one has an e-mail. But access to that e-mail will be through the box, through a modem, via the telephone line for the collection of that e-mail. Terrestrial digital will offer the possibility of full Internet access, as will BSkyB, but with one difference: it will be a proprietary system and, therefore, subject to conditional access.
Perhaps I may briefly turn to the BBC and the idea of raising the licence fee to cover the implementation of digital television. That could kill the goose that has laid the golden egg. The BBC has more than £400 million available for digital. It asked for the money from the sale of transmitters; it got that money. The BBC then launched its digital services with a great fanfare. They are very good services and I would encourage all of your Lordships to watch them. But the BBC did not say that more money would be required. It must explain why £400 million is not enough; it must explain what has changed. Otherwise it will be seen as an unjustifiable back-door licence fee increase. I hope that the Government will reject the proposal or, at the very least, examine carefully why the extra money is needed.
Digital is very new; it is a success. The announcement today by BSkyB is good for the industry and good for the consumer. It is a step that shows confidence in digital television, whether it be satellite or terrestrial. Digital television was born out of the Broadcasting Act 1996 introduced by a Conservative government. The present Government have conducted their role as midwife well—I congratulate them on bringing in digital television. I am sure that the Government and the Minister's department will do everything they can to

743
support digital television—in the public interest and for the benefit of consumers—whether it be BBC, Channel 4 or any of the commercial operators.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, as the debate revolves principally around the BBC, I should say that I am still contributing to a Radio 2 programme to which I have contributed for the past 24 years. It was gratifying to hear the noble Lord, Lord Patten, give a pat on the back to my old broadcasting partner, Jimmy Young—or "Sir" Jimmy Young, as I used to call him. If Margaret Thatcher had had a scintilla of gratitude, that is what he would be for all the interviews he so ably afforded her.
My proposition, shared by many noble Lords, is that public service broadcasting is an essential part of broadcasting as a whole; and the standard bearer is, and must remain, the BBC. I say that in full knowledge of the explosion referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, in the media world, including broadcasting. Spectrum scarcity is about to become a thing of the past. There has been an enormous increase in the number of programmes being made. The right reverend Prelate referred to "narrow casting". That is probably right. The question is: are there dangers in all this, as well as wonderful opportunities? Most would agree that there are particular dangers and that they relate to the quality and standards of broadcasting, particularly vis-à-vis current affairs.
One striking effect of the revolution of the past 10 or more years has been the commercialisation of broadcasting. I refer not merely to the growth of commercial companies, but to the growth of huge, immensely powerful global corporations with no fixed loyalty, run by individuals who, without ascribing to them either ill will or malice, are interested in dominance and profit and precious little else. It behoves us to look that reality fairly and squarely in the eye. Maintenance of quality and standards in broadcasting against a background of overweening preoccupation with capital and income profit is extremely difficult to achieve.
I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, as have other noble Lords, that the BBC has no monopoly on public service virtue. Indeed, in introducing the debate in this House on 3rd March, the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, gave some vivid examples of how the BBC has in some respects fallen behind the mainstream commercial companies in the public service element of its programmes. This debate provides an opportunity to express a certain anxiety as to the degree to which the BBC is today maintaining the best traditions of its inheritance. For example, reverting to current affairs, to remove "The Week in Westminster" and "Yesterday in Parliament" to what might be termed the margins of broadcasting may reflect ill upon the quality of the debates both here and in another place, but this is still the centre and focus of the democratic life of our nation. I, for one, believe that it was a bad sign, not merely that the BBC did that, but that it pretended that there would be no deterioration in the listening figures. It has taken only a short time to disprove those reassurances.
744
On the other hand, there is the "Today" programme and "Newsnight", although the noble Lord, Lord Patten, was apt to be somewhat critical of the performance of some of the "Today" presenters. But if journalists are prepared fiercely and rigorously to cross-examine experienced Ministers and politicians and men and women of affairs who are determined to give as little away as possible, inevitably there will be a degree of aggression and overstepping of the mark. The noble Lord referred to the near monopoly that the "Today" programme enjoys. We may ask why that is. The answer is simple. It is so good. It reaches the parts that other programmes do not reach.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to the importance to the commercial stations in terms of public service broadcasting of the standards that the BBC should, arid on the whole does, set. Some noble Lords may remember a notable speech by Sir Denis Forman at the Edinburgh Festival four or five years ago on this very issue. No one is more experienced in the ways of the world of commercial television than Sir Denis. He made it plain, and others have echoed him, as did speakers in the debate on 3rd March, that the commercial channels look to the BBC to maintain and enhance standards of public service broadcasting. Although the ITC is there to ensure that under their licences companies must maintain a balance and quality which serve public service interests, nonetheless the exemplar that the BBC should be, and is, is critical to the success of that whole programme.
I turn briefly to the BBC World Service. It exemplifies the standards of public service which most of us wish to see the BBC as a whole maintain. I should like to think that this debate is not confined to the public in this country. The importance of the BBC World Service to the public in other countries cannot be underestimated. The esteem in which this country is held in other parts of the world is critically affected by the work of the BBC World Service. Some noble Lords may not be aware that during the recent Kosovo crisis the BBC has penetrated through to all the communities within Serbia, Kosovo and the neighbouring countries by shortwave and also, importantly, for the first time via the Internet. Although I do not understand the technicalities, I am told that its Internet pages have been turned to in over 11 million on-line cases—the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, informs me that the word is "hits".
Access is crucial. There are so many other influences in our national life that are pulling us apart. The Government must do everything that needs to he done to ensure that the great changes that are coming upon us in broadcasting are not such as to rule out access by the less well-off. I commend the debate introduced in another place by Dr. George Turner dealing with precisely that point. I hope that the Government will heed the sentiment behind it.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. made some interesting comments on the ITC, as deputy chair of that institution. He was rather kind in saying that it should be "coach" rather than "nanny". Now and then, it needs to be "policeman". It needs to ensure that the extremely powerful institutions over which it is

745
supposed to preside do what their licences say they will do. I was extremely displeased when it allowed the removal of "News at Ten" and replaced it with a quarter of an hour of news at 11 o'clock. It will be interesting to see the consequences of that in terms of public access to a crucial news programme.
Finally, that trinity of letters, "BBC", still receives unparalleled universal recognition and respect. Although it is an immensely difficult job for the Director-General and Governors of the BBC to maintain the balancing act between appeal to a mass audience on the one hand and appeal to minorities and elites on the other, I believe that they can do it. Although there are aspects of their performance which give one less than total confidence, I believe that they have the mind and will to ensure that the integrity, independence, balance and quality for which the BBC is renowned will be maintained in the difficult era that lies ahead.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, when I saw the title of this evening's debate I believed that it would concentrate largely on television broadcasting. Therefore, it is appropriate that at this stage, given the excellent contributions on radio, I declare an interest. I am currently chairing a bid to the Radio Authority for a short area local licence in north west London aimed at students and young people aged between 15 and their mid-twenties.
The debate comes at a very interesting time. The headlines in today's papers made an admirable trail for the noble Viscount's debate. I am only sorry that I bought my Sky box a couple of months ago. Within the past year digital technology has given us dozens of new channels all receivable through existing aerials. Cable and satellite offer us even further choice. But still at the heart of television viewing remain the services provided by the BBC, ITV and Channel 4.
When we talk of public service television we are wrong to think only of the BBC. Several noble Lords have reminded us that ITV, under regulation by the ITC, also has specific public service responsibilities, and both ITV and Channel 4 make very substantial investments in quality domestic production.
The existing commercial companies have, along with the newcomers ONdigital, invested heavily in building the new digital terrestrial transmission network and producing new programme services. With the increase in channels, the broadcasting landscape has altered dramatically. The BBC provides only a minority of available television channels. The viewer has never had such a great choice of channels or ways to pay for them.
The BBC has also invested in the new digital transmission network. A reported £240 million raised from the sale of former BBC transmission facilities was specifically earmarked for investment in the new platform. To gain the benefits of more efficient use of the available broadcast spectrum, it is essential that BBC1 and 2 be available to the public as we migrate from analogue to digital and eventually close down the analogue system. I and, I suspect, many other noble
746
Lords, would applaud the use of public funds to guarantee the continuation of traditional BBC services in the new digital age.
However, before the benefits for the viewer and the nation can be enjoyed we must complete the coverage of the digital network so that it mirrors that of the existing analogue system. That will allow those who have invested in this new technology to promote its benefits to the whole nation and ensure widespread take-up of the set top boxes and the new generation of digital television sets. Ultimate success will, however, depend on the new content on offer to the viewer. New free-to-air services like ITV2 and subscription channels provided by Carlton, Granada, Channel 4, Sky and others are already attracting new digital customers at a rate that bodes well for the future. In the first few months since the launch of the ONdigital service, over 100,000 customers have signed up for a variety of new channels and Sky has also been successful in converting many of its customers to its new digital satellite services.
However, the role of the BBC is less clear. Not only has the BBC embarked on a number of commercial joint venture channels and services aimed at the overseas market; it has also launched two new domestic digital channels: "News 24" and BBC Choice. The current advertisement by the BBC to promote the fact that these new services are absolutely free is reassuring. They appear good value for anyone who wants to watch them. But the reality can be a little different. This debate comes at a time when the funding of the BBC is under review. My noble friend Lord Astor referred to one proposal backed, I believe, by the BBC which is very worrying. I understand that consideration is being given to a surcharge of up to £35 to be added to the licence fee for anyone who receives digital services. I hope that that does not happen for two important reasons.
First, a tax on the new digital technology would be a disincentive to consumers at the very time that television companies are trying to stimulate take-up of digital services. Recent research carried out by NOP suggests that as many as two-thirds of those likely to get digital television in the next 12 months are less likely to do so if a surcharge is imposed. This echoes previous findings by NERA and others that digital take-up could be seriously damaged by such a price penalty.
Secondly, one of the great benefits of the growth in the number of digital channels is the choice that viewers now enjoy, not only as to what they want to watch but also as to what they do and do not pay for. To impose a surcharge on the licence fee without giving viewers a choice as to whether or not they want the new BBC digital services flies in the face of the whole concept of multi-choice television. It cannot be right that viewers who wish to take up the many new services offered by the commercial broadcasters face prosecution if they do not wish to pay a universal licence fee surcharge to view just two new BBC channels. I urge those looking into the future funding of the BBC to ask searching questions about how the BBC has been able to launch its new digital channels without a clear idea about how they will be financed. To force the public to pay extra for services

747
it neither asks for nor may want to watch is both potentially damaging to the future of digital television and unfair to viewers.
The new world of digital television must have at its heart strong, creative and efficiently run public service television as offered by BBC1 and BBC2. However, I believe that the quality of these services can best be upheld if the BBC focuses on maintaining the standards of existing channels. We should be very careful before we ask the British public, under threat of prosecution, to give more money to the BBC to support its digital adventures. We need to understand much more how the BBC has got into its current predicament and how we can best secure its contribution to the future of quality digital television. I look forward very much to hearing the Minister. I only hope that the empty Benches behind him do not reflect the Government's interest in this subject.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. As is often the case, this debate has been extremely thought-provoking. Clearly, there are many areas of agreement. For example, we can all agree on the rapidly changing nature of broadcasting and what it means. We can also agree that the quality and diversity of public service broadcasting remains high, and we all wish it to continue.
I do not want to embark on a lengthy description of the strengths of public service broadcasting, but it is worth pausing briefly to look at the way in which the conflict in Kosovo has been covered to demonstrate the current situation. I take three examples: first, straightforward news broadcasting. Night after night journalists such as Bill Neely, Fergal Keene and John Simpson have reported events as they see them with a tremendous degree of integrity and commitment to get across the news agenda.
Secondly, there is the question of the ability to put across alternative views. It is probable that many noble Lords did not see "Counterblast" yesterday evening on BBC2 in which Harold Pinter launched a tirade—with which I profoundly disagreed—against the Government's current policy. Nonetheless, in a democracy, particularly one in which there is such an accomplished team to promote the government message, it is crucially important that free-to-air broadcasting puts across the opposition view as potently as possible.
Thirdly, I follow the comments of my noble friend Lord Phillips about the importance of the World Service in dealing with the current situation on the ground in a flexible way and helping to increase coverage through its vernacular services and short wave link to the areas of the conflict. Another area where it has proved its worth in the conflict is the Internet. While I cannot enlighten my noble friend as to how the Internet works, one thing I do know is that it is a lot less easy to jam than radio. That is important in situations like the conflict in Kosovo. The BBC has received from the war
748
zone some extraordinary testimonials. I hope that your Lordships will not mind if I quote briefly from a recent e-mail emanating from a man in Belgrade. He said,
"Every night I'm listening to your News on Serbian … and during the day I'm on your site checking the news. It is funny feeling to listening news on Serbian, broadcasting by some country that is dropping bombs around you. … do you think it would be normal … that I send some 'words of greetings' or anything positively to News company from 'invader' country? I think not. But, in this case I must be insane, because I think that you are doing great job in trying to show thing in right way. I'm not sure anymore where or which is a right way, but I'm sure that you are not pointing it to your listeners/readers, like other agencies here".
What better testimonial could one have as to the value of the World Service and on its on-line facilities?
I do not propose to go into detail about the raft of very specific points which have been raised by noble Lords this evening. However, I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield to the extent that anyone in the BBC who believes that enthusiastic listeners to religious broadcasting want a double Sunday service on Radio 4 at eight o'clock on Sunday morning neither understands the pattern of worship in this country nor indeed the audience for that particular service.
However, I would like to look at some of the key questions as to how we preserve public sector broadcasting in the digital age and with the ever-increasing competition that has been referred to. Before returning to the BBC, I say to my noble friend Lord Holme that I believe that there will be particularly difficult pressures over the coming years as regards the ITC. The ITC companies will inevitably press for a looser regulatory regime to allow them to generate flexibility and to compete with pay-to-view channels. While I understand that pressure, I am sure that the ITC will bear in mind that for many, for the foreseeable future, analogue free-to-air television is all that they will have the resources to watch.
Frankly, given the complexity which was in a sense demonstrated by the speech of the noble Viscount. Lord Astor, there is a real problem in my view as regards the confusion which arises in the minds of certainly the elderly and many others concerning the great plethora of new services. They need reassurance that they will continue to be able to watch familiar programmes on familiar channels. That is significant for the foreseeable future. It is part of their citizens' rights as the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, put it.
However, for the BBC the greatest challenge is how to maintain and fund the quality and diversity of the BBC's output in the light of the technological developments about which we have heard. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Patten, in his suggestion that the BBC should attempt only to do those things which no one else can do. That would lead to an odd and unsatisfactory animal.
There has been some considerable criticism in a debate about the BBC for spreading itself too thinly and to a certain extent in investing on BBC OnLine and perhaps more so for investing in digital broadcasting. In general terms I disagree with that analysis. The BBC is a tremendous national asset, but if it is to retain its position it must remain at the cutting edge of the

749
technology to which consumers are increasingly turning to get news and factual programmes. It must be at the core of the free-to-air information structure of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. It must also be prepared to take risks, as my noble friend Lord Addington pointed out.
I have already referred to the value of the Internet. It is a Reithian addition to the output of the BBC. It has many new educative functions to perform which cannot be performed by straightforward radio or television. Interestingly, it enables people to see and hear what is happening in Parliament with somewhat greater ease than is now the case on mainstream radio, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, but I do not believe that it is an adequate substitute for the BBC returning parliamentary broadcasting to greater prominence.
Taken as a whole, the Internet, with the BBC playing a major part in it, is absolutely core to what it should be doing, not least in its role as guardian of the English language and as its promoter internationally. The Internet is indeed becoming the third arm of broadcasting.
Digital television is clearly the more controversial area. There is no doubt in my mind that the BBC should be investing in digital TV. I believe that the BBC has still to answer satisfactorily the question as to whether it has gone in too soon and over too broad a front. I believe that the jury is still out on those questions, not least in relation to its 24-hours news service. One's view on that depends in part on how one believes the BBC should be funded in future. There have been some references to that in the debate.
I understand the criticism which has been made, not so much in the Chamber but generally, about the overtly commercial deals that the BBC has entered into, not least with Flextech. But equally, I believe we would agree that the BBC must look to new sources of funding to supplement the licence fee if it is to respond adequately to the new challenges it faces. I realise that this is an area that is being investigated by the Davies Committee. We look forward to seeing its proposals. For my part I hope that it looks at the widest possible range of possible partnership options and other funding mechanisms even if in the end it decides to reject quite a number of them. Here I share a significant number of the misgivings expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, about a digital surcharge.
I do not have time to say much about commercial radio other than that anyone who listens to it knows of its value in promoting community life. One hopes that as it adds digital stations to its local and analogue stations that tradition will be maintained. The world of broadcasting is changing at a tremendous rate. There is no reason why that change should not strengthen the public service component of broadcasting in the United Kingdom. But that will require innovative thinking from the broadcasters, regulators and Parliament alike. None of these bodies is blessed with perfect foresight and judgment, but on the evidence to date there is no reason to believe that we cannot all rise to that challenge.
7.26 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I too thank the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for introducing this debate. It feels as though we are here tonight as friends continuing a half-finished conversation. Several noble Lords referred to the fact that this is our third debate on broadcasting in the digital age within a mere nine weeks. As I understand it, the question posed today by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, is whether quantity has to be the deathknell for quality and diversity, especially if consumer choice is only within a range of programmes supplied by one or two mega-media firms.
The noble Viscount naturally pitched his speech very much on the remit of the BBC, which is the main but, as noble Lords have said, by no means the only provider of public service broadcasting. I believe that my noble friends Lord Inglewood and Lord Patten both made valuable contributions to what could be the future pattern of public service broadcasting.
Several noble Lords referred to the first of our three debates—our trio—proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bragg. I believe that the fundamental issues that I addressed during that debate are still relevant today. Is public service broadcasting sustainable in the multichannel digital future? Is it merely an anachronism? Will markets on their own give us the media and the society we want? Is public service broadcasting an optional add-on or is it essential to the health of all broadcasting? Without such broadcasting, does the global media market risk homogenisation—the "Murdoch" world, perhaps?
Like my noble friend Lord Astor I do not want merely to repeat my previous two speeches so I shall stop there on that particular thread. I, too, today would like to take the debate one stage further. I shall concentrate on a theme to which I have referred briefly in previous debates but not so far developed. One question that I believe should underpin all our debates on digital broadcasting is the usefulness of fighting to retain quality and diversity of public service broadcasting if one does not at the same time ensure access to it for all, whether they want it or not.
Today I wish to highlight some of the current issues regarding access that we must overcome if public service broadcasting in the digital age is to be of value to our society. What if changes in society and technology mean that people either will not or cannot watch public service broadcasting, even if it is there?
Social changes could threaten the future of such broadcasting because they mean that viewers will not necessarily watch TV in the usual ways, at the traditional times, for the traditional reasons. I seek to please my noble friend Lord Patten by avoiding the word "modern". I think that I may have just managed to do so.
Whether we like it or not, we are becoming a 24-hour society in which daily routines are being eroded. Our approach to watching TV could be like the eating habits of the young today. We will snack, we will graze, rather than sitting down to watch a full length programme and absorb its finer points.

751
As other noble Lords have mentioned, the Internet is already establishing itself as the third broadcast medium world-wide. Soon the integrated content covering interactive TV, video on demand, the Internet, banking, shopping and a video phone will be available via the TV, the set-top box and the PCTV. Already Web television—television offering pictures and Internet text—has nearly half a million subscribers in the United States.
Experience in America shows that teenage boys are two to one more likely to use their television as a personal computer for games and the Internet. They are not watching traditional programming. If society continues to develop in that fashion, we are likely to see the use of the television as a personal computer dominated by the Internet, blocking access to public service broadcasting programmes—access which other family members may wish to obtain. That could happen even in a multi-set household. Other members will not necessarily be able to access different digital channels from the one showing on the main monitor. It will depend on the type of platform used and its level of technical development. How can we ensure that viewers of all ages continue to be able to watch public service broadcasting?
What are the implications of social changes for the way in which the Internet operates? How can or should public service broadcasting be part of it?
The second obstacle to overcome before public service broadcasting in the digital age can reach its audience is one which my noble friend Lord Colwyn covered so well. It is the problem of the patchy coverage by various forms of digital broadcasting. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Astor for his clear explanation of the intricacies of digital broadcasting not only today but previously in his Unstarred Question.
We are aware that for various reasons 30 per cent of households cannot have a satellite dish. Fifty-three per cent of all homes in England now have cable available to them, but transmission of digital TV by cable is not now likely to start until next year. We have heard of digital terrestrial TV. At present only 70 per cent of the population can receive it. Coverage will improve—but when and by how much? At the moment it is a muddle from the consumer's point of view which needs to be resolved before we have analogue switch-off.
Can the Minister tell the House what consideration the Government have given to the kind of public service commitments which should be built into future commercial TV licences when digital takes over from analogue? Bearing in mind the words of my noble friend Lord Inglewood, should there be such commitments?
Finally, I come to a group of people who face a triple whammy in their attempt to enjoy public service broadcasting in the digital age. Those people have control of the gateway; they have a television capable of receiving the digital signal and they actively want to watch the broadcasting, but they still cannot enjoy the programmes. Why, my Lords? I refer to the 20 million people who use subtitles. Five million people rely on them. A further 15 million use them occasionally. That is a significant proportion of the total viewing population.
752
I welcome comments made recently by the. Minister for Film outside the House that digital needs to be inclusive of all members of society and that we should ensure that we maximise the potential for digital to increase its accessibility. That is true. But how do we do it? There are no subtitling regulations for satellite and cable programme providers, so the majority provide no subtitling. BBC Choice, BBC News 24 and the new, about-to-be-launched BBC Knowledge currently subtitle 5 per cent of their programmes. That will take 10 years to rise to 50 per cent. The RNID is concerned that the BBC is not maximising the effective re-use of existing subtitles on its archive programming. I understand that previously subtitled programmes are too often broadcast without their subtitles on the free-to-air digital channels like BBC Choice.
Last week I visited the BBC and saw at first hand the public service digital transmission area. It was most impressive. It also made me appreciate the significant costs of adding in subtitles. But surely those are costs worth bearing.
What policies are the Government pursuing to ensure that hearing-impaired people are not excluded from the digital revolution in TV? Will they consider looking again at the question of subtitling targets? I am delighted that when we were in government those targets were put into legislation. It was an excellent first step. But I am aware that changes in technology mean that the issue should be kept under review.
In conclusion, I am fascinated but by no means mesmerised by the new technology. I recognise that the digital age brings with it risks as well as opportunities. It brings the risk that the globalisation of culture will threaten national identities. It brings the risk that the powerful gateway controllers will restrain rather than promote diversity. It brings the risk of a two-class society: the information rich, ready and able to pay for their increasingly expensive media, and the information poor who cannot. But if I am persuaded in favour of the merits of public service broadcasting by any argument, it remains quite simply this: that without it we could lose the opportunity of being surprised by programmes that we did not know we wanted.
I believe that we must do all we can to overcome the barriers to access to public service broadcasting and the threats posed by the development of global competition. It is a difficult challenge, but I think that it is worth the candle.
7.37 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, reminds us that this is the third debate on these issues within the past nine weeks. On 3rd March we had the debate introduced by ray noble friend Lord Bragg. On 21st April the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked an Unstarred Question. The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, teases me about empty Benches. Some of my noble friends feel that they made full contributions to those debates and have no more to say. I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, even more on having succeeded in teasing out a number of most interesting speeches to which I feel a duty to reply

753
on behalf of the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, is wrong. We are profoundly interested in the issues under debate today.
On 3rd March I set out my stand on the implications for broadcasting and in particular public service broadcasting of the changes in technology which will be brought about by digital television. I refer to cols.1712 to 1718 of Hansard of that day. Clearly, I cannot take up my time by doing so again. Perhaps the best contribution I can make is to race through the fundamental argument, relating it so far as I can to the debate this evening. Undoubtedly, the changing nature of broadcasting is bringing about changes in the way in which public policy can address these issues. Public policy, as we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, was based on regulation which in turn was based on spectrum scarcity. With the end of spectrum scarcity in sight, there is indeed the prospect, I think, of product famine. It will be difficult to find people who will produce high quality product for unlimited spectrum on radio and television. Clearly, the power which Government had in the past to regulate has disappeared. The noble Lord, Holme of Cheltenham, made the same point. However, my argument then and today is that that increases the need for a public service broadcasting obligation rather than decreasing it. As I said on 3rd March, I think there are three elements of public service broadcasting that we have to consider: first, who produces the structure of the broadcast industry; secondly, the programmes themselves, the product; and, thirdly, the issues of access, that is, marketing and distribution.
Turning back to who produces it, unfortunately it is not the case that new technology necessarily brings into play new sources of good programming. The fundamental economics are the same. Good programming is expensive. It may be that there will in future be cheaper dissemination. I am sure that there will be below marginal costs but the fundamental original cost is the same, or perhaps even greater, with a shortage of first class producers and performers.
Therefore, it is not by any means evident that the digital revolution is going to bring into existence new players, new smaller broadcasters who, I would like to argue, are the kind we need to achieve greater diversity and greater pluralism. The key, coming back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, is pluralism in the production of television and radio. A feature of convergence of prints, telecommunications, broadcasting, information and communications technology will be greater diversity but not necessarily greater quality. And there may indeed not be greater diversity.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, seems to think that the 1996 Broadcasting Act created the digital revolution. All that the 1996 Act did was allocate the digital spectrum. It did indeed—and I pay tribute to the Act—say that those with a public service remit would get space on the spectrum and that those who got space would have public service obligations. However, it did not secure the objectives so widely demanded in the debate today.
754
I turn to the issue of the programmes themselves which has, as on the last occasion, dominated a considerable part of the debate. I must start by profoundly disagreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Patten. I do not consider that public service broadcasting should be defined as a safety net, as being what commercial broadcasting does not do. I certainly do not think that it should be the negative definition of niche programming, which is what the noble Lord implied. I believe that the public service obligation should cover the whole spectrum of quality programming. As the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said, the definition should be whether it is good of its kind. In other words, it is an approach to broadcasting, not a special type of broadcasting.
The obligations on public service broadcasters to entertain, inform, educate and challenge the audience into new thinking—as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, to take risks—are fundamental to the public service broadcasting concept and apply not only to the BBC but to all broadcasters, commercial, free-to-air and, in so far as it can be achieved, to satellite, cable and the other converging technologies.
The third element of the definition is access. I have quoted Lady Plowden as saying, "Broadcasting is democratic, there are no reserved seats." There probably now are reserved seats; it is probably not democratic. We now have the existence on a large scale of subscription and pay-per-view, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, drew attention to the problem of the information rich and the information poor. As a number of noble Lords, notably the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said, we have whole new services with a much narrower geographical coverage. Indeed, there was a debate in the House of Commons on that issue.
We also have the issue to which the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Holme, referred: how do we find what we want? I have not time to go into the issue of the electronic programme guide. However, the Government are intensely conscious of these problems of access. I draw to your Lordships' attention the speech which Janet Anderson, the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, made to the Media Trust on Tuesday last week. She said:
"Digital needs to be inclusive to all members of society and we should ensure that we maximise the potential for digital to increase accessibility".
She went on to refer specifically to services for those with sensory disabilities and the need to have audio description and signing in order to ensure that digital broadcasting is made available to every part of our society.
She also said—and I give her remarks in full in response to those who urge an early decision on the switch-over to analogue broadcasting:
"The Government wants to move to as early an announcement as possible of a switch-over date. We need to announce a date with sufficient certainty to give industry and consumers confidence in making their investment and purchasing decisions. However, this can only be done on the basis of a properly considered strategy set against the background of actual digital services winning public acceptance—a strategy which protects those consumers who only

755
wish to receive free-to-air services as well as those who are potentially excluded from this new technology. We expect to say more about the switch-over before summer".
I cannot go further than that. My honourable friend's remarks make clear that there is a profound obligation on those who are entering into the provision of digital services, and presumably doing so in order to make money from it, to play their part in helping us to come to a decision which they so urgently want.
I cannot leave the issue of access without saying a few words about the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. She is right to say that habits may change, that there could be conflict in the home between broadcasting and narrow-casting, the use of PCs, the Internet and indeed telephones.
I am rather pleased that we may have reached a peak of daily viewing. I am rather pleased to think that a broadcasting viewership may be a zero sum gain, but what is gained by one channel will he lost by another. I do not like the thought of particularly young people spending four hours or more a day in front of a television set. However, the point that must be made is that households will behave as they wish. It is not the role of government or any other outside body to try and dictate to them.
I shall use the rest of the limited time I have available to try to refer to specific points raised in the debate. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, talked about specific obligations on the BBC. I believe he was implying that the BBC
should not be involved in a fight for ratings. I think we covered that fairly fully in the last debate. We certainly agree that we should be encouraging the BBC to identify its natural constituency, but that does not mean that it should not be concerned with ensuring that the good programmes it produces are viewed by as many people as possible. That, of course, will be part of the Charter debate.
I have referred to my disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Patten. He foresees the end of the BBC and, more urgently, the end of Radio 1, 2 and 5, although I was pleased to have his tribute to Radio 3. I was pleased to hear him say that there should also be a public service obligation for Sky. I was interested in the analogy as regards the public service obligation for the railways when they were in public ownership. From what I have said, it must be clear that we believe that there is a public service obligation for all broadcasters and that it should not be crowded into the ghetto of those programmes which the commercial sector cannot produce.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield complained about the lack of religious broadcasting. in particular by the BBC. He was very firm on the point. He said, and I agree with him, that religious broadcasting is an integral part of the public service broadcasting obligation. That is so under the BBC Charter. The Statement of Promise for this year refers to the need to cater for the diversity of religious and spiritual life of the United Kingdom.
The religious broadcasting department of the BBC in Manchester produces two hours a week of network television and 10 hours a week for radio. The governors
756
receive regular reports from independent advisory panels which have urged, in particular, religious programmes addressed to young people. I understand the right reverend Prelate's point about not confining religious broadcasting to the ghetto of purely religious channels.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, was concerned that digital may fail to produce the required range of quality and diversity. That is right. I hope that I have confirmed that I agree with him. The noble Lord was right to refer to opportunities for exports and right also to refer to the regional emphasis on ITV and the BBC.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for building on his thoughtful speech in the debate introduced by my noble friend Lord Bragg in which he referred to the end of spectrum scarcity. I thought his observations about the nature of public service information provision for impartial news and information, for educational provision and for an arts and culture package extremely wise. He was right to say that ideas produced by the previous government were being carried on by the present Government. I am pleased to find that continuity taking place.
I cannot refer to the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, because she is not here. I have some difficulty with the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. He quite properly declared his interest as a director of On-Digital. Perhaps I may say with all respect to him that he must be careful not. to speak on behalf of On-Digital. He must speak independently, having declared that interest. Almost everything that he said was in the interests of On-Digital.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my speech was about digital television as a whole. On-Digital is only one company. I emphasised that the BBC is a major player. One reason that I am a director of On-Digital is because it is a requirement of the company's licence, granted by the ITC, that it must have two independent directors.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I would never have doubted that. I still believe that we must all be extremely careful about the way in which the interests we have or have had are reflected in what we say in this Chamber.
My quotation from Janet Anderson's speech last week answers the fundamental points which the noble Viscount makes about the switch-over from analogue to digital. I shall be glad to write to him on any further points that I may have missed. I was interested in what he said about my own lack of experience of digital television. I am pleased to have his motto—less voting and more viewing. If he can persuade his noble friends to say that we can go home in the evenings, nothing would please me or my colleagues more. Everything he described as being available on digital is available in my home on cable. I do not believe that I am losing very much other than through being confined to the Palace of Westminster.
I was grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Phillips and Lord Newby, for their tributes to the World Service and in particular what it can do and is doing in Kosovo. I

757
thought the extract which the noble Lord, Lord Newby, read from a response to an Internet message from Belgrade was particularly effective.
A number of noble Lords, notably the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, but also the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred to the consideration being given by Gavyn Davies's committee to various alternatives for the funding of the BBC. They referred in particular to the prospect, which has been reported in the press, of a digital surcharge. All I can say is that Gavyn Davies and his colleagues will report in July and before the Government make up their mind there will be a very full consultation. I agree profoundly with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that Gavyn Davies should consider the widest possible range of options. I am sure that he is doing so.
I hope that I have addressed as many as possible of the issues which have been raised in the debate. I confirm that the Government believe profoundly, along with so many noble Lords, that public service broadcasting is an essential element in informed citizenship, like public safety or health education. It has a particular role to play in combating social exclusion and in bringing in those with various disadvantages, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said. We shall continue with our championship of public service broadcasting whatever the technology and whatever the commercial implications.
7.58 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, it only remains for me to thank all noble Lords who have spoken. It has been a debate in which each speaker has made an outstanding contribution. All the contributions have been well-informed and have raised important points.
Perhaps I may thank in particular the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield because I asked him a fairly direct question about religious broadcasting. He gave a robust and very full reply which I am sure will be read widely with interest.
Perhaps I may refer also to the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, who is not in her place. She understood me to dismiss, in a cavalier way, the contribution of commercial local radio. I intended to do just the opposite. I am a great admirer of the contribution it has made. There is a great future for commercial radio and also for the BBC. I hope that the BBC will take up the challenge because that will be welcomed by commercial radio and it will greatly strengthen the power of the BBC if it takes up that challenge. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Local Schools: Closure
7.59 p.m.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone Baroness Linklater of Butterstone rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what are the implications for rural communities of the closure of their local schools.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords I am aware that this is the last time it will be appropriate for a Question such as this, which also affects Scotland, to be asked in this House, and therefore this is something of a watershed.
I have raised this issue because I believe that our rural schools represent the most precious and important resource in our national life, one which must not be marginalised, but must be promoted. Not only does their existence have enormous implications for their particular rural communities, but they can also be exemplars of best practice in a wider community and in educational terms as well. Yet since the war, and in particular in the past 10 to 15 years, they have been in serious decline, as they have been closed or amalgamated in favour of larger and more urban schools.
Just over a year ago the Education Minister, Stephen Byers, announced a "presumption against closure" of rural schools, acknowledging that
"villages lose a vital focus, families come under pressure to move. and the knock on effect on other services sets up a spiral of decline."
He stated that any proposed closure should automatically be referred to the Secretary of State.
Similarly, Brian Wilson in Scotland stated that financial considerations alone should not determine the closure of a school, and that "proportionate advantage" in educational terms should also be demonstrated.
I applaud those statements, but I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us when he replies what the consequent package of help to rural schools in England and Wales, or in Scotland, has amounted to and what is being done to mitigate the crisis that rural communities are experiencing the length and breadth of the country.
My first school was a one-teacher school in the village of Butterstone, and was to me the best and most memorable part of my school experience. It was a single large room with a stove at one end and a high desk for Miss Menzies, our teacher, whom I shall never forget, while many another subsequently doomed to teach me has faded or has been blotted completely from my memory. The roll was around 12, but it fluctuated from the teens to, occasionally, as low as three or four children. It served the people of the tiny village and families who worked on surrounding farms and round about. Opposite were a shop and a post office. Dunkeld, the nearest town, or village, is about five miles away.
When that school was closed the heart went out of the village. On coming to this House I discovered that it was the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. who carried out the death sentence. The village no longer has a shop or a post office, and no longer has families with young children living there. Instead, there are some retired people, a few professionals and others with holiday homes.
It was a very small school, in a very small community, but that story is typical, and it is the sort of story which tells of how the whole nature of a community was changed by the loss of the school.
In England between 1983 and 1993 30 per cent. of all schools with fewer than a hundred pupils, a large proportion of them rural, were closed, with that kind of tragic story being repeated for similar communities all over the country.
A rural school attracts young families, whose presence in turn attracts and makes viable other services, sustains and holds the community together, and prevents what could be a terminal decline for the smallest and most vulnerable places. Importantly, its existence can also completely reverse such migration. For example, last year in Argyll a planned housing development was put in doubt as a result of the threat of the closure of a small school near Lochgilphead. After a fiercely fought battle, local people saved the school, the housing went ahead and now further development is planned; the community is actually growing, thanks to the existence and quality of this little school. The roll has grown from 26 to 33, and it is projected to reach 40 in the next two years.
Not all rural schools are perfect, any more than urban ones are, but the arguments for closure are invariably those of cost calculated on capacity, which is usually a function of physical space. Unused capacity is seen to represent a drain on resources, but it could be seen as an opportunity for more community education. One director of education told me that as the Government funding formula is based on the number of children in the system it automatically favours urban areas and economies of scale. The cost per pupil is far higher in rural areas than in urban ones, and 'when budgets are down and savings have to be made rural schools are the inevitable target.
Despite Brian Wilson's statement, that director has a target of three to four rationalisations annually in the next few years, and the issue of proportionate advantage is irrelevant, since he argues that all the schools in the authority are good, so moving the rural children could not possibly disadvantage them. It is this argument which indicates the continuing real threat to rural schools unless the capacity/cost issue is tackled. Why, I asked, if there is spare capacity could urban children not be moved to rural schools, with all that they have to offer, rather than always the other way round, and I was clearly thought to be mad. But, in fact, there is now evidence that parents are beginning to choose precisely that option for themselves.
The issue, therefore, for the Government is that while local education authorities have the responsibility for making the necessary decisions to cope with their allocated budgets, they are continuing to choose to close the rural schools, and the calculation of these financial costs overrides the vital social gain to their communities. The loss is particularly acute in really rural areas, and perhaps less so for semi-rural ones. The important study by Professor Nisbet from Aberdeen demonstrated clearly the broader social and community benefit from rural schools, and showed that pound for pound they bought far more than just a good education and that they have real community value.
If the Government are serious about their support for small rural schools, then they are duty bound to make funding specifically available so that those schools can
760
be sustained. This crucially includes, for example, money for visiting specialists to complement a staff of say, three teachers in subjects such as science, IT, and art; facilitating clusters of schools so that resources can be shared, but local identity sustained; and adequate funding for the repair of buildings. Without this practical support, statements favouring rural schools are no more than fine words.
Finally, my belief in the value of small rural schools is also because of the quality of the education they provide. There is evidence now that it is certainly as good as, and in many cases better than, that in larger urban schools. The received wisdom among some educationists and administrators is that it is necessary to have larger units in order to deliver better-quality provision. But, particularly in primary schools, which are what we are really discussing here, and where the most crucial foundations are laid, impacting on all subsequent learning, small schools are well equipped to deliver what children need—precisely because they are small. I have seen HM Inspectors' reports on this, and furthermore the quality of provision in small schools has been demonstrated by an objective study of HMI reports on primary schools in England and. Wales, to be published shortly.
When children, teachers and parents know each other well and the links in the community are automatic, it is so much easier to identify and meet children's needs; much easier for children to feel valued and to feel that they have a place; much easier to cope with the problems when they arise; much easier to bring about truly inclusive learning, when real potential can he realised. I have seen so many small rural schools where the standard of work has amazed me, where French and music are integral to the curriculum, where computer literacy seems quite natural, and where the needs of the very bright and those with learning difficulties are equally well met.
In other words, these are places where not only is closure unacceptable, but where their potential should be recognised as exemplars of what all schools should be aiming for. I hope that the Government can demonstrate their determination, unequivocally and practically, to give them this recognition.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone, for introducing this important issue for consideration by your Lordships' House. My contribution to the debate will be short, uncomplicated and straightforward.
It seems to me that there are two features which must be simultaneously addressed when assessing the implications for rural communities of the closure of their local school. One is the well-being of the rural community and the second is the education of the children. On the well-being of the community, maintaining the local school is but one aspect, albeit an important one. The quality of life of those living in a rural community depends on the establishment cif a comprehensive, industrial, social and economic

761
infrastructure, which includes adequate healthcare, transport provision and employment opportunities, as well as educational facilities.
We must always ensure that those who live in rural communities are an inclusive part of our national development and are in no way excluded from the advantages of urban advancement; and that they are viewed with the same concern and attention as those who live in urban areas. That is absolutely essential for maintaining and improving a one-nation society, a society which ensures that all our people share in the advantages of progress at the same time as preserving and increasing the quality of life of our nation as a whole.
In regard to local schools in rural areas I say: yes, we must be mindful of the adverse impact that such school closures will have on local communities. We must be conscious of the integral nature and advantage that such schools have for the community, but we must also ensure that our focus is not so narrow as to concentrate wholly on the interests of communities so that we lose sight of and perhaps neglect the educational interests of the children.
By that I mean that it is not only necessary to retain rural schools wherever possible, but also to ensure that the educational standards are maintained and improved so that those receiving an education in rural schools are not at a disadvantage compared with those taught in urban areas. If that were the case, the retaining of schools in rural areas would be of no service whatsoever to the community or to the children.
I hasten to add that I am no longer fearful that that will be the case. The approach and the action taken by this Government give me confidence that they have rural communities and education in the forefront of their thinking.
The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone, referred to an announcement by the then education Minister, Stephen Byers, in March 1998. I shall quote from a different passage in the same announcement:
"Closing a village school can be a death-blow to the community. We have lost 450 of them since 1983".
I pause there to repeat that statement:
"We have lost 450 of them since 1983".
That was in 1998. The Minister went on to say:
"Today, I am announcing tough new protection for village schools to end this stream of closures".
The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, referred to the fact that any proposal to close those schools would go before the Secretary of State. At that time the Secretary of State said:
"Shire counties will have an extra £447 million in 1999 to boost standards".
That demonstrates to me that the Government are extremely concerned about education and schools in rural areas.
Perhaps more up to date is the announcement made in February of this year by both the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions when they
762
produced a discussion document, Rural England. That document is comprehensive. It responds to change and it believes in strong communities—a fair and inclusive society. The document talks about working in partnership and wants a debate on issues in rural areas such as transport, education, health, social services, housing, local business, childcare, community safety, access to justice, utilities, the provision of services, information and communication technology and access to culture. I believe that reflects the Government's plan for a comprehensive, industrial, social and economic structure for rural areas.
That clearly demonstrates the will of the Labour Government to represent all the people of this nation. I believe that the people of this nation know that and applaud the Government accordingly. I hope that this House will do exactly the same this evening.
8.14 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, I wish I could share the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity. I want to express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone, for initiating this important debate. I endorse much of what she described so eloquently as the distressing results of the closure of our rural village schools.
The issue of closing rural schools is difficult and complicated. So much depends on individual circumstances. Clearly, it is not feasible or sensible to keep open tiny primary schools for a few pupils who may span the full age range. How can one teacher cope with a class of 30 children spanning all age groups between seven and 11 in the same room?
Australia solves the problem with radio schools. Perhaps they are a possibility. I wonder whether the Government have considered them. Perhaps at some time in the future the present Government's plan for launching a network of learning centres in the inner cities with modern ICT facilities—information and communication technology facilities, as I have to keep reminding myself—could be expanded into rural areas. At the moment the level of ICT needed is far too sophisticated and expensive and could not be justified on economic grounds. Virtual classrooms that enable teachers in one school to teach interactively pupils in another school that could be miles away require "real" time which, in its turn, requires broad-band technology. Doubtless that will happen one day, but not yet.
The Government have produced a cheerful Green Paper entitled Excellence in Cities. It clearly expresses the most laudable aims for special programmes, networking, learning centres in inner cities, radical expansion of specialist and what they call beacon school programmes, and extended opportunities for gifted and talented children in the inner cities.
As I said, that is a laudable priority, but it is directed explicitly at the inner cities. What are the Government planning for rural schools? Their needs are different but just as pressing. The trouble is that many such schools, often rather isolated, are invisible. The need for attention to rural schools cannot be separated from the need for

763
transport in rural areas, not only school buses, but buses to local shops, medical health centres and other amenities.
Cornwall, for instance, is fast becoming a crowded tourist centre, catering for its summer visitors but turning its back on its local residents. The principal at Landau Forte College, where I chair the board of governors, tells me that recently he interviewed a teacher from Cornwall for a teaching post at the college, which is in the former industrial centre of Derby. He asked her why on earth she wanted to move from such a beautiful county as Cornwall to the east Midlands. She replied: "From June to September I cannot move because of the crowds of tourists and from September to June the place is empty and dead". What an environment for the children, the teachers and the families who live year-round in the area.
The problem for rural communities is not just one of school closures. The Government must recognise what a dismal future lies ahead for the elderly, the poor and those tied to the land who cannot escape while all the families who can move to the inner cities, to the marvellous schools about which we are hearing, abandon the rural area in which they were brought up. It is a frightening prospect. I should like to hear what the Government's strategy is. What measures are they going to take not only to save our rural schools but also our rural communities?
I wonder how interested in rural schools are those on the Government Benches when I count only three noble Lords in their place on the Front Bench opposite.
8.21 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone, for enabling us to have this debate on an issue which is of great concern to so many in our rural communities.
As the new chairman of the General Synod's Board of Education, I am conscious that the Church of England has been and continues to be a provider of many village schools. That is a responsibility which we take seriously. In my diocese, around 60 of our 190 church schools are village schools, and many, I am pleased to say, offer a quality of education which an increasing number of parents living in urban areas choose for their children. Village schools are, without doubt, an indicator of the living village community and are clearly seen as such.
On these Benches we believe that confession is good for the soul. I must therefore admit that when I was diocesan director of education in the diocese of Durham in the 1970s I was involved with the Durham county LEA in the closure of a number of small rural schools. My criterion was then and is now a concern first and foremost with the educational viability of such schools and the ability of the school and its staff to deliver a rounded curriculum for the education of the whole child.
I do not regret most of those closures on such grounds. But I must admit also that on almost every occasion at the public meeting following the announcement of the intention to close the school, the charge was made that the LEA and Church were taking
764
the heart out of village life, even if the school was rarely used outside school hours. I want to suggest that when it reaches that stage and the proposal to close has been announced, it is too late. The rural communities whose schools remain need to be thinking of the value and the worth of their school to the community in the wider sense while that school is still functioning.
For example, the parish council, realising the higher unit cost per pupil in a village school--this has to be recognised—should be pressing governors, LEAs and Church authorities to see that the educational resources are being provided in a realistic way; suggesting appropriate clustering of village schools; arid sharing head teachers, staff, specialist staff and facilities with neighbouring village schools. There are a host of ways, when creative minds are applied, which would help to reduce the cost of rural schools but also increase the educational advantages and opportunities offered to the children.
However, that does not address the Question posed by the noble Baroness this evening. In a recent note on my vision for the countryside, which I wrote for the first meeting of the new Countryside Agency of which I am a member and must therefore declare an interest, I suggested that village communities should deliberately make their schools, with their often under-used school premises, a key focal point for village life. This is not easy, but with vision, will and determination it car be made to happen. There are examples of this, as the former RDC Report on Joint Provision of Rural Services shows; for example, at the James Bradfield Community Primary School at Stoke Ferry in Norfolk the hall serves as school hall, community centre, theatre and Methodist church and the school houses the doctor's twice-weekly surgery. The potential for such uses is enormous, not least when the question of social exclusion in rural areas is seriously addressed. The school complex could house post office, IT centre, information office and library, as well as pre-school and adult education opportunities, to say nothing of sporting facilities.
If that were to happen—it would be an excellent example of joined-up thinking on the use of precious resources in the service of rural communities—we would not be talking about the closure of rural schools; we would be extending them. I should like to see parish councils, Churches and voluntary groups working with the Government and the LEA to promote this. It needs the Department for Education and Employment, the DETR and other departments to work together at the very least to promote some pilot schemes, possibly under the guidance of the new Countryside Agency.
I do not believe this begs the question posed by our debate; it is one answer to it. But neither do I underestimate the problems which must be faced if it is to happen. Legislation about the safety and protection of children means that other activities on school premises must be well planned and managed. There are issues of security—sadly, a major concern with children in our times—and lack of storage, and unwelcome noise from other activities can be a problem. I know from personal experience that shared use is not: an easy option. However, none of the problems is insuperable if we believe that rural schools are an essential component

765
for a living and lively village life. I am going to do all in my power to see that our Church schools, based as they are in communities, use their premises to the full in the interests of those communities. I hope that the Minister will promise government encouragement and some resources for such initiatives, so that most remaining rural schools continue to serve and enhance their village communities.
8.27 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, on introducing this debate on a topic of such importance both to our education system and also to the well-being of rural communities.
I offer my brief contribution as someone who has consistently supported the principles of diversity and choice in education and who, in times past, before I spent so much of my time abroad on humanitarian aid work, often spoke in your Lordships' House on behalf of the rights of parents to have access to the schools which were best able to give their children the type of education they wished them to receive.
One of the categories of school which was frequently involved in those debates was local village schools which were often under the threat of closure on grounds of size, alleged financial inefficiency and concern as to whether they could offer an adequately broad-based curriculum.
In defending the right of those schools to survive, I frequently found that size was an irrelevant criterion. Small rural schools were often cost-effective, especially in the context of costs which would be incurred by closure and the relocation of pupils to urban or other rural schools. Such schools frequently succeeded in providing excellent, imaginative and high quality curricula many epitomised the spirit that small is beautiful. I will never forget visiting Hartland, a small school in North Devon, and being profoundly impressed by the quality of relationships in the school, the relationship with the local community and the breadth of curricula taught in highly imaginative and effective ways.
Parents are often passionately committed to keeping their local school open. The advantages to them and to the local community include the avoidance of the hassle for them and their children of travel to more distant schools; teaching staff who are more closely in touch with local families in the community; and accessibility which encourages more parental involvement in school activities, as well as the communal use of facilities provided by such schools so well outlined by the right reverend Prelate. Such schools continue to operate to the benefit of parents, children and the community.
The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, emphasised that the standards achieved in small rural schools are often higher than in other schools. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who expressed concern about whether such schools can maintain academic standards, that research undertaken by my colleague Dr. John Marks showed that in 1997 children aged seven in such schools
766
were three to four months ahead of pupils at schools in the rest of the country in respect of national curriculum tests for reading, spelling and mathematics. In 1998, the difference for children at age 11 were smaller. They were about two to three months ahead, as measured by national curriculum tests for English and mathematics. On average, 6 per cent more pupils in such schools reached the Government's target for 11 year-olds at level 4 in mathematics, compared with pupils at other types of schools in the rest of the country. There should be no concern about the ability of small rural schools to meet high academic standards.
In countries such as the Netherlands, if parents want to establish or preserve a local school, the Government are obliged to fund it, even if there are only 50 children—subject to adequate educational standards. That legal requirement demonstrates an understanding and commitment to the wishes and rights of parents that is highly commendable and accords with the European Convention on Human Rights, which enshrines the fundamental principle that parents should be provided with education for their children consistent with their fundamental values and principles.
Many parents in rural communities passionately wish to retain their local village school. They do not want their children to travel to towns for their education or for school links with communities to be severed. Will the Minister give an assurance that the rights of parents in this country will be similarly respected and that good rural schools will be preserved if parents want them? In so doing, the Government would demonstrate their commitment to the principles of diversity of provision, freedom of choice and accountability to local communities. That would have the double benefit of being both principled and popular. What more could the Government ask than a positive political philosophy and policy that simultaneously demonstrates respect for the rights of parents, children and local communities?
8.32 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I follow my noble friend Lady Linklater in reminiscing about my time at school when I was three. I used to cross the road to a little primary school in Llangollen. If one goes there today, one finds that school trips are made there, but they are not made because I attended that school. The children are dressed in period costume and a teacher sits at a high desk wearing a winged collar and frock coat and holding a cane. He terrifies today's children with teaching from the past and ties the Welsh knot around their neck—which in the old days used to forbid children from speaking in Welsh. That is not something I had to undertake. My recollection of that school is that I was put to sleep in the afternoon and had to take home my dog, an Airedale named Towser, when he visited to see what I was up to.
That rural school gave me a momentum that followed into the larger urban schools that I later attended. After the Butler Act in 1944, there came into being the philosophy that larger was better—exemplified by the Gittins Report in 1967 on primary education in Wales and the concurrent Plowden Report in England, which

767
suggested that any school having fewer than 50 pupils was unable to give the quality and range of educational facilities necessary.
That philosophy has been proved wrong. Rural schools are a success. They should be more confident about their success and broadcast it to the world. Their success is demonstrated by the reports of school inspectors in Wales. Parents, staff, governors and pupils know each other well. For that reason, the behaviour of the children and school discipline are always excellent. Attendance figures are always good. Parents say that their children love going to school. That atmosphere is good for learning. It fosters happy and successful children who do well at secondary level because they are self-reliant and down-to-earth. I was most interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, refer to 1997 and 1998 reports confirming that. That is certainly the experience in Wales.
There are certainly budgetary limitations but they can be overcome by forming clusters with similar schools in the area to pool expertise, share the cost of educational trips, form joint sports teams and even establish a joint governing body. Books and other resources can also be shared. New information technology should be intelligently used among rural schools. That does not necessarily require extra cash but just enthusiasm and organisation—the creative minds to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn referred.
In most rural communities in Wales, the whole community is made to feel involved. Local people are invited to the school to talk about the history and the way of life of their community. Everyone, regardless of whether they have children at the school, is pressed to attend its concerts, carol services, sports days and fairs. The parent teacher association is a major focus of social activity. If one takes away the school, the village quickly changes from a living community to just another dormitory suburb or, even worse, a cluster of holiday cottages and second homes where the Welsh language and culture die and nothing moves for half the year—as the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke said.
Mentor Powys, which is the rural community development organisation delivering the European Leader II programme in Powys, commented to me today:
"Small community schools are a key component of rural communities and often play an important role in keeping young families and attracting younger families to live in rural areas, which contributes to the de-acceleration of the general ageing trend that is characteristic of rural populations. Small community schools, particularly in Welsh-speaking areas, are vital in preserving the Welsh. language and culture, and many parents fear that such a cultural identity may be lost if a school closes and children have to travel to urban schools".
The closure of a village school must never be done simply to save money on the education budget. I was happy to hear the assurances given to the noble Lord, Lord. Davies, in referring to the statement of Stephen Byers, the Minister in another place, that a tough policy is to be adopted and that no school will be closed without the Secretary of State being involved. When that happens, the Secretary of State must take into account the impact and social costs of closure not just on the school itself but the whole community.
768
In Wales, we are of course concerned about the Welsh language. There is a strong case for having rural schools where, in one instance, Welsh is the main language and, in another instance and at a nearby school, English is the first language and children are taught accordingly. Those matters are being passed to the new Welsh Assembly and I sincerely trust—indeed, I know—that the national assembly will fulfil its responsibilities to rural schools.
8.39 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, for initiating this excellent debate—although for me it is somewhat painful. However, I will take courage, follow the advice of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn and confess my sins.
One of the hardest decisions that I had to take during my time as a county councillor was when we closed the village primary school. I had to defend the decision in a debate on television. I have to say to your Lordships that I was neither convincing, nor convinced, that: I was right. As noble Lords have said, closing a village school can devastate a community. Not only are local children brought up together, but parents are brought together by the school. It is not just the nativity play, the carol concert, the school fete or the jumble sale; nor is it just the work of the PTA which adds vibrance to village life. Often the cement of a small community is the chatter and the concern which are swapped at the school gates. These are the informal information systems which hold a community together and which often obviate the need for social services or visits from the doctor or the district nurse.
However, as councillors we had a problem. We received advice from officials about critical mass, about the introversion of a tiny school community, about the lack of competition and the absence of proper team games, all of which had some validity. But our problem in the 1970s was that, as councillors, we had no measurement as to whether the school was good or bad. Now we do have simple league tables to measure success. The whole village or community and the local authority can benefit from this knowledge.
Quite simply, parents do have more information on which to base choice as to whether to send their children to a good school or a poor one, whether to support their village at all costs or take their children to a better school elsewhere. In my experience they generally choose the school—the one that they perceive to be the best. We have liberated parents by giving them more freedom to choose. Most have transport and few are prepared to have their children handicapped for life by a poor education. Indeed, we have only to look at the league tables to see that there is often little correlation between size and success, new buildings or location, as was emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone, and my noble friend Lady Cox.
Conscientious parents will seek out the best schools for their children. They know that good schools, just as good village shops, good village churches, good sports clubs, scout troops, dramatic societies, pubs and post offices thrive if they are well led or managed.

769
We surely all know of village schools bursting at the seams and those which are hopeless, full of moans and their bad luck, or how they are misjudged. That is tough. Indeed, the world is tough. Parents live in a tough world and they know that their children will probably live in an even tougher one where competition is even more forceful than it is today.
Parents are not fooled by the caring, sharing politically correct "everybody is a winner", "the bright must wait for the thick"—in other words, the navel gazing of yesterday's teachers. The best schools provide the best education for everyone. Each child should be motivated to reach his or her potential. But that depends on leadership. I should like to ask the Minister where the Government are in their drive for performance-related pay. Do they believe that the best should be rewarded? That means not just being labelled a beacon school; it means real money in real pay packets, salaries and bonuses. Do the Government believe that governors should have more freedom to juggle the finances in order to secure the best head teachers by paying a bit more? Is there a case for weighting pay not only in terms of inner cities but also in terms of rurality? As my noble friend Lady Brigstocke said, the challenges, although different, are just as great in rural areas.
However, leadership should not come from full-time staff alone. It should also come from the governors. Does the Minister think that the calibre of governors is sufficient to raise standards in schools by retaining their personal independence and determination that their school will be top of the premier league? Chairmen of governors should be resolute in their quest to find the exceptional head teacher who attracts the best staff for a school, a school to which children will flock and which will enable the village to thrive. Does the Minister believe that we have the best system for appointing and electing governors? Should there be more scrutiny as to their ability and leadership skills? Many, I know, are outstanding in their commitment. I should like particularly to cite Church schools in that respect. But their responsibility is very great and it is important that they should demonstrate strong leadership skills and not just be a poodle of the LEA or the teaching staff, particularly the head.
People deserve excellence but, sadly, no government can deliver without a determined community. As an "Archers" addict, I know that the Minister will be aware of that fact. If I had to make a decision today to close a school, whether it had a handful of children or hundreds, I hope that I would close only a very poor one. I would recognise a good one because parents would choose to send their children there and the school would be one of those in the premier league.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, this debate is timely in that the effect of the class size rules for key stage 1 are beginning to be felt in our primary schools across the country. If government money is forthcoming for their continued implementation, the effects will inevitably
770
work their way up the school system. In theory, this should mean smaller classes throughout the primary sector, and more schools to cope with total school population. In practice, I believe that politicians and local government officers, the country over, will attempt to rationalise and move pupils to the point of delivery, rather than maintaining schools where they are needed.
Rural schools are at the centre of their communities, as many noble Lords have said. They are the place where children start their education, gain their knowledge and often move on to their larger urban secondary counterparts. But village schools are more than just simply a place of learning. As other speakers have said, they are the focal point. They are the daily meeting place for families, but mainly for the wives and mothers whose knowledge of the community is brought to bear on combating the problems of isolation, illness, bereavement and deprivation.
Much of the information that is exchanged within the confines of the rural school is strictly local, but here, too, lifts to the hospital, the doctor's surgery or the nearest town are arranged. Here alerts concerning those in need are given, invitations to parties or celebrations are handed out and activities involving the whole community are planned. Lifelong friends are made and living centres retained.
Rural schools are under threat. Even as we debate this issue there are people countrywide who are investigating the possibilities of closing yet more rural schools and bussing children into the towns. Further, if rural schools are closed the counties have to bear increased school transport charges. In October 1998, the county council network produced a briefing paper on home-to-school transport costs. The work was originally commissioned by Norfolk and then extended to other sparsely populated areas of the country. It was intended to relate the cost of home-school transport to the allowance for population density in the standard spending assessments. In the case of Norfolk, it had been discovered that the allowance did not fully compensate for all the effects of sparsity.
Population sparsity is calculated in a manner totally impenetrable to the normal mortal but yielding a table of sparsity factors which run from 0.83 for North Yorkshire, 0.70 in Lincolnshire, 0.33 for Northamptonshire, 0.31 for my own Leicestershire down to 0.16 for Surrey. Having applied these factors, the costs of primary school transport for 1998–99 for primary school children were £58.84 per child for North Yorkshire, £40.90 for Lincolnshire, £39.27 for Northamptonshire and £13.13 for Leicestershire. In Suffolk it was £85.18, but in Staffordshire it was £5.15. In other words, the cost of home-school transport varies widely and is not fully compensated for in the SSA.
At present, buses travel the rural bus lanes stopping to pick up sets of one or two children. They travel for miles, taking children from rural villages to urban schools. In thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, for making this debate possible, I nearly hesitated to do so because I thought that she was in fact stealing my thunder. Will the Minister tell us why things are arranged in this order—for example, taking children

771
from rural areas to urban schools when it would be in fact infinitely wiser, as I have suggested, on the transport side alone to do things in reverse? In other words, we should give children from a small area of town the opportunity to go to school in the country. The cost of transport would be lower than they are now and indeed the task of rationalising places in town would be made much easier by the fact that schools there are so close together.
Rural schools face many additional costs in providing facilities and specialisms to make them available for children. Traditional teaching of skills such as reading, writing and arithmetic are key, but modern technology can play a very real part.
I have touched on only two issues: the cost of providing schools for children living in rural areas and the importance I place on retaining rural schools not only as the centre of learning but in fact as the very centre of community life, as was so well referred to by earlier speakers. I have briefly touched on the need for modern technology and the way in which that can help rural schools: the shared resources, the clustering of schools.
The Government have stated that they believe in rural sustainability, but to make this possible money and ideas must: be forthcoming. If they fail to provide these, we will end up with many of our young people being sent out of their villages. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, asked: what are the implications for our rural communities? The answers are many. The question is: have the Government the will to deliver or will this be yet another question of hopes raised but answers not provided?
8.51 p.m.
The Earl of Stair: My Lords, I join with others from all sides of the House in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, for asking this extremely relevant Question tonight. With the new Scottish Parliament and the Assembly in Wales about to start, the majority of the regions in this country covered by this Question will come under the control of other bodies. This matter, however, is still relevant in considering United Kingdom education matters as a whole,.
It is very easy to consider the cost of individual schools with vacancies and then to close one, combine two and thus save money. However, in a rural area, unlike an urban one, the school also provides, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, a vital focal point in the community. In the first place, the school not only provides education for primary and secondary school children but also serves social and recreational purposes. Secondly, the school provides a link for adults easily to maintain contact with their children's primary education.
The Government have repeatedly expressed a wish not to abandon rural communities by improving transport links and encouraging business development and retraining. However, if a real effort to maintain effective schools in rural areas is not made, then parents who are not directly linked to agricultural or forestry employment will be forced out of the community in
772
order to be within reach of the schools they need for their children. The knock-on effect of this will undoubtedly affect other small businesses and thus cause depopulation of the countryside.
In Scotland there must now be ministerial approval before a council may close certain schools if the next nearest school is five miles away if it is a primary school or 10 miles away if it is a secondary school. The second reason would be if the school is denominational; and, thirdly, if the school is operating at greater than 80 per cent capacity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, referred to a statement made in Scotland by a Scottish Office Minister who said that schools should be closed only for exceptional educational reasons and not for only financial reasons. It should not be necessary for a Minister to be consulted at all. The Government have been heard to make bold statements such as "education, education, education" and to state how there should be computers in every classroom. Both these aims are commendable but if in order to achieve this goal children have to travel long distances at both ends of the day, I suggest that this is counter-productive. The first point is that primary school children would have to travel longer distances in possibly unsupervised buses, possibly even without seatbelts correctly fitted. Secondly, older children would be travelling at times when they should be studying. Both problems are compounded in winter, with the long nights and often unpleasant weather.
Another favourite cry from all governments is for smaller classes. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said, it is often proved that the smaller rural schools and the additional teaching attention produce better results than the larger urban schools. With advancing technology there is no reason why there should not be computers in classrooms in rural schools linked to the Internet or even linked to other schools. Teachers should cost almost the same whether they are in urban or rural schools.
Finally, I hope the Minister will agree with me that: if the policies for maintaining the rural environment. developing small businesses, retraining for rural employment and improving transport are to be worth while, rural areas need education, education, education within the community, without the children having to travel for it.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone, for introducing this very interesting debate. The rural community in many parts of the country has, sadly, declined but in some parts it is managing to keep going very well. The successful village will have a good strong fanning community, a good rural shop, a church, a school and a good pub. Unfortunately, many rural communities do not have these. Fanners need children in order to keep on farming. Children need education, and education brings about community spirit and pride in the local community. Communities need a focal point and that focal point is the school, which often doubles as the community centre, the sports centre and, indeed, the everything centre of the village.

773
My local village rejoices in the name of Moscow. The school is known as the Kremlin, and I must admit that it is extremely popular, despite its name. The village has nearly quadrupled in size in the space of the past 10 years, thanks to good governance, some extremely good teaching and a very able headmaster.
The problem with rural schools is that the pupil roll fluctuates with the age of the community. As the community ages, so the school's roll diminishes; and then the young get older and breed, and fill up the school again. There is an inevitability about a school in the rural community and that must be so if the communities are to survive. So it must be wrong when schools are closed on purely commercial grounds. Last year two schools in Perthshire were closed to save £60,000 per annum, despite having 33 pupils between them. That sum of £60,000 is actually less than the local authority's director of education receives as his annual salary. It does seem a little peculiar. This happened despite the fact that Mr. Brian Wilson, the education minister at the Scottish Office, stated quite clearly that schools should only be closed with educational, not commercial, justification.
The decision in that case certainly seemed to be very much based on commercial grounds, but the blame was placed on educational reasons. This must be a loophole in the diktat that has been laid down by the Scottish Office, and it must surely be looked at. In many cases, closure has meant long journeys along single-track roads, with the potential danger of a head-on smash round the bend. It has meant long journeys by fishing boats off islands which no longer have any schools whatsoever. It means that pupils have to travel to school in taxis or in buses, all costing extra money, whether it is in winter in snow and ice and in the dark. And all for what?—the saving of a few pounds in the huge realm of the educational budget.
It is, of course, extremely hard to sustain any practical argument for keeping a school open when its roll amounts to only one child. However, country schools have been a part of the education system for generations. It cannot be beyond the wit of our modern-day councillors and education authorities to work out that if schools are closed the local community does not have much of a future.
Currently, councils in Scotland can close primary schools without government permission if children do not have to travel more than five miles as a result of that closure. However, all closures should have to go to the education ministry, I would have thought, as they have to in England.
The survival of their primary schools really matters to rural people. They argue that that is why they pay their taxes. The Government say that they care for the rural community; that their raison d'être is education. Now they have the chance to prove it. Small local primary schools have a good reputation and an honourable record; they are free in the main from the social problems that all too often blight large schools in the middle of urban areas. Parents feel safe with their children in the bosom of the community. Children who
774
are bussed away never feel the same sense of belonging as those who have been educated in their local area, and they tend very often to drift away from that area. That in turn brings about the death knell for the community. Too many small communities—and not only the remote ones—have died as a result.
We cannot go on ignoring the situation. Many islands are now all but depopulated of people of child-bearing age because there are no schools to encourage new blood to come in or old-family blood to return. Good village schools with good, enthusiastic teachers give children the best possible start. I have been led to believe that a child learns 75 per cent of what he will learn in life before he is eight years old. We should give children a chance at the start by giving them a good local school—a school that is not part of the urban jungle—where they can learn respect for others; where they can learn respect for property, both theirs and other people's; and where they can learn about self-respect, all of which is sadly lacking in our modern society. However, because of the small size of the school and the undeniable self-interest of the community, there is a chance for children to acquire those attributes at their local school in the middle of their local rural economy.
9.1 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, in common with all the other speakers I thank my noble friend Lady Linklater for initiating an excellent, all too brief—if rather one-sided—debate. Perhaps I can thank her also for leaving it until the very last moment to give me what is likely to be my last opportunity to talk about Scottish and Welsh schools, although the problem we are discussing is common to all the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. It is clear that it is not a Scottish or Welsh debate, but a rural debate.
The right reverend Prelate started something of a trend for personal confession in the debate. I must make a personal confession: my only experience of small rural schools lies in my fiancée's teaching practice some years ago in rural Kent. I suspect that that does not really qualify for tonight's debate—although I must say that I learnt a great deal during that period. However, I am very pleased to say that in 13 years as the leader of a local education authority I have had no experience of closing schools of any size but I have had experience of building and opening three new schools. I feel peculiarly unqualified for the debate tonight, except that I have learnt a great deal during my time as my party's education spokesperson and in conversation and discussion with many colleagues who have considerable experience of rural education.
Much has been said about the effects that the closure of small rural schools—usually primary schools, as others have said—on rural communities. I wish briefly to summarise some of the effects, some of which have been mentioned; others less so. The first effect is that of the necessity for much greater travelling. That entails greater transport costs for the LEA and often for the parents; it means less walking to school for the children, with the consequent effects on the health of the children and the health and environment of the community; and

775
it means usually a longer day for the child. But it is not a longer day learning and enjoying school; quite the opposite. Quite often it means that the child will have a lower level of participation in after school activity simply because of transport requirements and all too often it means correspondingly less participation by parents in school activities because of similar distance and travelling problems. As many noble Lords have said, its implications go far wider than just for the child and the parent, important though they are; it has implications for the community as a whole—the loss of an extremely valuable community.
The closure of a school can affect, if you like, the profile of the village. It is arguable how long parents with children will remain in a village that loses its school. It is unarguable that very few, if any, parents with small children will move to a village that does not have its own school. That has an obvious effect over time—and not a very long time.
It has been clear in the debate—it is true in the country generally—that there is now a general consensus in favour of rural schools. Many noble Lords have asked—I will ask again—what are the Government doing to back their fine words, words that I accept in the good faith in which I am sure they were intended. The Minister said in his much quoted speech—the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, rightly quoted it—that all proposed rural school closures would be referred to the Secretary of State. I am interested to know how many have been referred to the Secretary of State since that time. I am even more interested to know what decisions have been taken on them. I am interested to know what will be the role of the Secretary of State in England now that we have school organisation committees—which we and others opposed when the matter was discussed in your Lordships' House—and adjudicators, who have some role to play in this.
The Liberal Democrat view is that if we must consider proposed school closures, they should be judged on three criteria. First, the quality of education provision for children. It has already been said that the old assumption that small schools are unable to provide the necessary breadth and quality of education is being increasingly challenged and increasingly there is evidence to show that all too often the opposite is the case. Of course there are bad rural schools, but I suspect there are a lot more bad urban schools. Very often that is not because of size but because of leadership and quality of teaching.
Secondly, the social and community implications of closure, which have been the subject of much debate today. Thirdly—inevitably in a time of much-pressurised budgets— the financial implications. I question whether closing a school is necessarily a financial saving. I have referred already to increased transport costs; there will probably be increased costs in the receiving schools, not to mention the more important but harder to quantify costs to the community as a whole.
A much more imaginative approach is now needed to review the importance of schools in the local community as a whole. I hesitate to use a phrase that I have come
776
to loathe but this Government love, but what is needed is "joined-up" thinking. The approach should not be the narrow one of the LEA budget. The matter should be viewed holistically, for the benefit of the whole community.
I am convinced that if there is the political will, a way will be found. A way is being found in many rural communities. I particularly welcome the clear and firm commitment from the right reverend Prelate on behalf of the Anglican Church. I hope and expect that we shall shortly receive an equally clear and firm commitment from the Government to support rural schools.
9.8 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, not only for introducing the debate but for her excellent opening remarks. It has been an incredibly good debate.
I was born in urban Britain, and lived most of my adult life in rural Britain. Like a number of noble Lords, I was a member of my local county council, and for eight years was chairman of what was then known as the toddler and play group, which served six villages in my county.
In terms of impact on rural communities, schools are central. The implementation of the class size pledge is one such issue. It also has a specific impact on schools, Evidence is coming in which confirms our fears about the application of a well-meaning but rigid policy.
Schools, especially those in rural areas, would rather have the money to provide flexibility to ease pressure! on class size. The present policy ignores the distinction between a class with a single age group and one with a mixed age group. For example, a school in the countryside with 80 children will have three classes, a wide range of ability, and often three age ranges in each class. Instead of bussing one or two children to other schools simply because the magical figure of 30 has been exceeded, if the school had the money it could provide for those children. The pressures in junior schools are now increasing, and the choice of schools is being limited.
I cannot emphasise too strongly the importance of pre-schools, which are members of the Pre-School Learning Alliance, and of private nursery provision. All those involved are concerned. The Pre-School Learning Alliance in particular has reported its concerns about the closure of its schools.
In the debate in another place on 28th April, the Minister, Mrs. Hodge, said:
"We know that pre-schools are concerned about closures; we know that they blame closures for the loss of four-year-olds to maintained nurseries; we know that they are worried about the minimum wage. We do not agree with them about the figures relating to closures, but my officials are holding discussions with the Pre-School Learning Alliance to see how we can reconcile our two views". —[Official Report, Commons, 28/4/99; col.300.]
Does the department believe the Pre-School Learning Alliance? After all, those are the people who are out. in the community, while DfEE officials are cocooned in Whitehall.

777
Criticism of the voucher scheme will not impress. Yes, there were some problems with its introduction. But the Government could have modified the policy rather than making matters worse. Many more pre-schools and private nurseries are under threat as a result of present government policies. The Pre-School Learning Alliance claims that about another 1, 700 of its schools are at risk of closure.
In the same debate, Mrs. Hodge said, at col.300:
"In my view, it does not matter where children are; what is important is the experience that they undergo, the qualifications of those who work with them and the adult-child ratios involved".
Again, that statement totally ignores the issue of whether the placement is appropriate for the child.
The Government's own figures for January 1998 indicate that of four year-olds in local authority, private and/or voluntary sector provision, 60 per cent were in infant classes in maintained schools and a large proportion of those were not in nursery classes at all.
There are other issues that impact on rural communities. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, spoke of the financial pressures on LEAs. There has been a shift of moneys this year from rural authorities to urban areas. The difficulty for many county councils covering rural Britain is the way in which the Government are launching—and re-launching-spending commitments which involve massive top-slicing of funds at national level. They have placed relentless bureaucratic burdens on local authorities which also must retain the funds to meet their additional legal obligations, all of which impact on school budgets.
I wish to put a question to the Minister. My local authority is agonising over this issue. It spends well above its SSA on education. When money is passed down from the Government and they say that every pound must be passed on to the schools, and when another Minister in a different department insists that an authority should spend more on social services, what is the authority to do? Is it free to make its own decisions? Or is there now an unofficial but rigidly applied ring fence?
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, referred to closure decisions. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, took up that important point. It will not be the Secretary of State who makes the decision. It will be organisation committees and the adjudicator. Whatever be the tougher conditions proposed by the Minister, I hope that the distinction between schools will be that advocated by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege; namely, that it should be based on the quality of the school, the education provided and its value to the community, but not its size.
9.14 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, for allowing us to have this debate. I also join with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in congratulating the noble Baroness on the forceful manner in which she made her points. To
778
bring in Scotland and Wales two-and-three-quarter hours before polling day commences deserves commendation.
Rather like the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I have been searching for an experience to place before the House to qualify me to speak on this very important issue. Apart from being an addict of "The Archers" (which is made in Birmingham), as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, suggested, I attended a rural primary school for two years and I do not believe that it did me any harm. I learnt from it the value of small rural schools both in educational terms and in terms of their contributions to communities. Tonight we have heard clearly and forcefully of the serious impact that the closure of a village school can have on its community. The village loses a vital focus; children spend longer travelling to other schools; and young families come under pressure to move elsewhere. School closures can have a knock-on effect on other services such as village shops and begin a spiral of decline.
Apart from the confession of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn—I suspect that many of us involved in large bureaucracies over the past 20 or 30 years should confess to certain inadequacies in dealing with the issue of "small" versus "big"-I was struck by his comments about the closeness of parish priests to their own local communities, in particular, his advice to schools to anticipate the future and focus on their contribution to their village communities.
We take this matter very seriously indeed. For that reason, in February 1998 we announced that all proposals to close rural schools would be called in for decision by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and that the presumption would be against closure. We did not say that no rural school would ever close, because all such proposals must be considered on their individual merits.
Noble Lords will also be aware that later this year we shall move to local decision-making. The statutory guidance to school organisation committees and adjudicators will ensure that the presumption against closing a rural school is maintained. The precise effects of the closure of a school will, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, said, differ according to the circumstances of the community. In some cases there may be a perfectly acceptable alternative school within easy reach that offers additional facilities and improves the quality of education on offer. In such circumstances, particularly if numbers in the village school are very small and unlikely to increase, everyone may agree that closure makes sense. On the other hand, if there is no alternative school within reasonable travelling distance and the school is an important community resource that would no longer be available, closure would have a much more serious effect. Those factors would need to be taken into account when considering the proposals.
At this stage it may be helpful if I review the procedures involved in closing a school. First, no such proposals originate with the Department for Education and Employment. For obvious reasons, they rarely originate with the governing body of the school in question. Almost always they are brought forward by

779
the local education authority. Clearly, this is something that local education authorities do not take lightly. They know that such proposals are not popular but they have a duty to deliver education in a cost-effective manner. They are aware that to maintain empty school places diverts resources away from areas where they could be put to good use. They must keep the balance of provision in their areas under review.
In order to publish proposals to close a school an LEA must first consult in the area and take into account any points made by those consulted. If it decides to go ahead with proposals, it must publish them by a notice in the local newspaper and by notices at the entrance to the school and in at least one other conspicuous place in the area. The notice must set out the procedure for making objections to the proposals and in addition state clearly what is intended. Any objections will then be taken into account by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in arriving at a decision on the proposals. In addition, the advice of Her Majesty's inspectors will always be sought.
Although, as I have said, each case is considered on its individual merits, it may be helpful if I rehearse briefly the main factors which would normally be considered relevant to the decision. These are the overall supply of school places in the area and the likely future demand for places; the standard of the school that is proposed for closure and the standards of the alternative schools; the accessibility of alternative schools; the overall effect of closure on the local community; the relative costs of the possible options; and the views of parents and other interested parties. I believe that noble Lords will see that in considering proposals the effects on the quality of education and on the local community are kept very much in mind.
Both the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Coity raised the issue of the quality of education provided in small rural schools. There are effective and weak schools in rural areas as elsewhere. Ofsted inspections show that there are many effective small schools and that they do not disadvantage pupils in terms of the curriculum or standards. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, reinforced that point. The good, effective small school will have good management and teaching. It is also likely to be characterised by a number of other factors including supportive parents and the community, the effective use of funds, good accommodation and resourcing, a supportive LEA and other networks. It is significant that seven rural schools were considered by Ofsted to be in the top 1 per cent nationally of schools inspected during 1997–98. From that one can conclude that although small schools sometimes find it more difficult to offer the range of activities available in larger schools, there are many examples of small rural schools which, with imagination and flair, offer a whole and wide range of experience. I agreed very much with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on that point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, asked about the support that can be given to small schools, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. Of course, we recognise the burdens and resourcing
780
problems faced by small schools. I believe that there are imaginative approaches that can be adopted. Some small schools might wish to pursue the option of federating under a single head. That could enable schools to share services that are not cost effective for one small school such as financial support, facilities management, technical support and professional development.
Some schools might wish to go further towards the concept of a one-stop community service bringing together education and other public services on a single site. I agreed very much with the point made by the noble Baroness about the clusters of support. More generally, arrangements for co-operation and support between rural schools are to be much encouraged. The right reverend Prelate asked about their promotion and suggested ways in which school links with the local community could be improved. The department is working with the Community Education Development Centre to produce a toolkit to encourage and promote school links with the local community and community use of school premises. Clearly, making schools more accessible and welcoming to parents and other village residents is an important part of that process.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, and the noble Earl, Lord Stair, raised the issue of information technology in schools. I confirm that we are committed to bringing the superhighway to schools as quickly and cheaply as possible. Making services affordable is just as important as providing new money. We are pioneering arrangements with BT and the cable companies to wire up schools to the superhighway free of charge. Oftel and the telecoms industry have now reached agreement on how the commitment will be implemented. Schools will have a choice of free connections and technologies. On-line charges will be as low as £1 per pupil per year. That low-cost package is intended to cover rural schools as well as those in urban areas.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, raised the important issue of how the views of parents will be taken into account. The views of parents are one of the key factors that the Secretary of State would take into account in deciding any proposal to close a rural school. We would expect LEAs to pay careful attention to their views when considering possible changes. We are ensuring that parents will continue to be able to make their views known under the new local decision-making process through commenting on the school organisation plan, objecting to proposals, and by inclusion in the school organisation committee.
I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that parents are in a position to use the information about the performance of schools which is more readily available.
The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, spoke about the dangers of forcing pupils to chase school places elsewhere, and the pressures that might come from local education authorities. There is a balance to be weighed up by LEAs about the quality, educational value and overall contribution that a rural school makes to the community with the cost of maintaining places and the need to

781
ensure overall value for money. Getting the balance right is the major challenge for LEAs. But I am convinced that the announcement by my right honourable friend in February 1998 of a presumption against closure will provide a framework for greater stability in the future.
I have much sympathy with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, about the implications of rural school closures on transport issues. The LEAs should take full account of the long-term home-to-school transport implications of any proposals to close rural schools. The Government are also convinced that more can be done to integrate public and school bus services.
A number of points were raised about funding. It is an important issue. The Government increased education SSAs by £1.1 billion this year—5.7 per cent more than last year. There will be further increases of 6 per cent in each of the next two years. I understand the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, about the extent to which the funding issues of rural schools are recognised. I suspect that no formula in terms of funding public services will ever be right. We accept that there are valid objections to the current formula. We are reviewing the system over the next three years to find long-term solutions to the problems that we inherited.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, raised the issue of teachers' pay. The Green Paper, Meeting the Challenge of Change, sets out the Government's proposals for the better rewarding of teachers, among other things. It proposes a close link between pay and appraisal. We intend to move towards a system of pay that attracts and retains good quality teachers in all schools, rural as well as urban.
I take the point about the need to strengthen leadership through new headship qualifications. The Green Paper mentions that we are to set up a national college for school leadership. I also take the point about governing bodies. We wish to support governing bodies and to see LEAs support them through training and guidance.
782
I noted with great interest the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Stair, and the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, about the differences of approach in Scotland. Clearly in the future those are matters for the Scottish Parliament. However, notwithstanding the differences, we see an emerging consensus about the value of rural schools in all the countries concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked about the number of schools closed since the announcement by my right honourable friend Mr. Byers, in February 1998. Seven proposals to close rural schools have been decided since the announcement in February. For five of those proposals the LEA was able to make a convincing case that closure of the school was in the overall educational interest of pupils in the area; and the proposals were therefore approved. Two of the proposals have been rejected. I understand that there are four undecided cases. Perhaps I may say also that there is some evidence, since the announcement, that LEAs have been considering particularly carefully proposals to close rural schools and bringing them forward only when there was a particularly strong case.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, mentioned the issue of class sizes. Our policy of reducing class sizes is central to our drive to raise standards in schools. Where, under the Government's class size policy, an isolated school finds that it has 30 children in infant classes and another child seeking a place for whom there is no alternative school within a reasonable distance, a place will be made available and any necessary funding for additional teachers will also be made available.
In relation to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, regarding the comments made by the Pre-School Learning Alliance, at this stage I merely echo the words of my honourable friend Mrs. Hodge in another place that discussions are taking place to provide the best possible vision for early years through partnerships and local plans.
Time moves on. I hope that I have answered most of the points that have been raised. I hope that, through the relatively brief but extremely interesting debate, I have convinced noble Lords that the Government are indeed very much aware of the value of small rural schools and are doing all they can to support them.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before ten o'clock.