Sitting of 3 December 1969

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  DEFENCE

    Libya
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of defence facilities in Libya.
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of British service establishments in Libya.
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the evacuation of British bases in Libya.
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about the future of training bases in Libya.
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Defence what negotiations he has had with the Libyan Government on the future of El Adem.
    Mr. Ramsdenasked the Secretary of State for Defence what agreement has been reached with the Libyan Government over stationing of British forces at Tobruk and El Adem.
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for Defence what decision he has taken about the future of British service installations in Libya.
    The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. Roy Hattersley): First, I apologise for the absence of my right
    1458
    hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is away on Government business.
    The negotiations with the Libyan Government envisaged by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in his reply to Questions on 17th November are expected to begin on 8th December. These negotiations will include, among other questions, our relations with Libya in the defence field. —[Vol. 791, c. 848.]
    Mr. Marten: Will the Minister particularly bear in mind in those negotiations the need to keep an alternative east-about air route for the Far East? Is the question of the supply of air defence equipment and Chieftain tanks in those negotiations, or is it being kept as a separate issue?
    Mr. Hattersley: The negotiations will include all aspects of our future and past defence arrangements with Libya. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that all the points he makes will be borne in mind.
    Mr. Farr: If the negotiations bring about the removal of our defence facilities in Libya, will consideration be given to their re-establishment in Malta?
    Mr. Hattersley: I do not want to make any comments on what might happen if one set of circumstances operates after the negotiations.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will the Minister apply his mind to the fact that both Malta and Gibraltar are anxious, willing and able to accommodate additional British defence forces of all three Service arms, and have often expressed their anxiety to do so in recent years?
    Mr. Hattersley: I will apply my mind to any point the hon. Gentleman makes to me, but I will not comment about it before the negotiations.
    Mr. Ramsden: Is it a fact that at present, pending the commencement of negotiations, some British forces and their dependants are virtually immobilised in Libya? Can anything be done about this as a matter of urgency?
    Mr. Hattersley: The description "virtually immobilised" is perhaps too extreme, but we accepted certain suggestions made to us by the Libyan Government. That, too, will be one of the things discussed on 8th December.
    Mr. Lipton: May we have an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not indulge in too much grovelling in return for unreliable favours from the Government of Libya?
    Mr. Hartersley: My hon. Friend can rest absolutely assured that we shall not indulge in too much grovelling.

    Military Equipment In Transit (Damage)
    Mr. Onslowasked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost, in each of the last three years, of damage in transit to military equipment and stores shipped from British ports to Service units overseas.
    Mr. Hartersley: The estimated costs were:

    £

    1966–67

    …

    …

    …

    5,800

    1967–68

    …

    …

    …

    5,500

    1968–69

    …

    …

    …

    3,100

    These figures do not allow for sums recovered from the shipping companies
    Mr. Onslow: What were the total sums involved? How much of the damage was plainly wanton?
    Mr. Hattersley: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a figure for the total involved. Virtually none of the damage was wanton.

    Multi-Rôle Combat Aircraft
    Mr. Onslowasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures relating to estimated costs of the multi-rôle combat aircraft which he gave to the Press non-attributably at the briefing held in his office on the afternoon of 14th May, 1969.
    Mr. Boothasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to be in a position to give the estimated research, development and production costs of the multi-role combat aircraft.
    The Minister of Defence for Equipment (Mr. John Morris): It is not the normal practice to publish cost estimates of this nature.
    Mr. Onslow: In that case, why did the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend give this information to a large number of journalists at the meeting to which I referred? Is it not scandalous that the
    1460
    House should be insulted in this way by being denied information by what is plainly an abuse of the non-attributable procedure and the disgraceful further extension of the misleading of the House by the Secretary of State for Defence?
    Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman is responsible for his own word "misleading" and the other matters to which he referred. He carries the full responsibility for that. I will not be drawn into discussing the credibility of Press statements or estimates. This is a matter that has been canvassed at length before.
    Mr. Booth: Is it not entirely unreasonable, in view of the way previous military aircraft estimates have rocketed, that the House should be asked to approve a continuation of this project without any estimate of what costs will be involved to the nation?
    Mr. Morris: As my right hon. Friend has explained to the House very fully, there are a number of distinct stages to the project, which will be looked at in turn to ensure that we have full and adequate control of the project. The number of phases that the project has been divided into will ensure this.
    Mr. Rippon: Will the Minister understand that there is grave concern about the matter? Why should Parliament not be allowed to have the figures which the Secretary of State has given to the Press?
    Mr. Morris: I cannot give figures for obvious reasons. There are security and contractual reasons, and the interests of at least two other Governments are involved. In any case, it would be very misleading to give figures at this stage of the project, when project definition is still in progress. I can give an assurance that I will certainly keep the House in mind, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will give it the maximum possible amount of information at the appropriate stages.
    Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the wholly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether plans

    1461
    for the development of the multi-role combat aircraft are going ahead as scheduled.
    Mr. John Morris: Yes, Sir.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are strong indications that the German Government are likely to place a lot of contracts for avionic equipment with United States companies and that this is a European aircraft which should be developed largely with European equipment?
    Mr. Morris: I would hope very much that this aeroplane remains a European one. I take account of the hon. Member's remarks. As he knows, avionics and that part of the development of aircraft are slower to develop, but I am assured that there would be no difficulty in British firms getting their fair share. In fact, the greater part of the avionics will be a national fit.
    Mr. Corfield: It is all very fine for the hon. Gentleman to say that he will take account of this, but what is he going to do about it? Over and over again we are losing out on design leadership, or if we get it in the engines we lose it on the avionics.
    Mr. Morris: We are part and parcel of every development of this very important aircraft. If the hon. Member looks at the history of the part we have played and the success we have had, in particular with the engines, he will see that we have no cause to be disappointed in any way.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence, to what extent agreement with the Governments of Western Germany and Italy for the joint development and production of the multi-rôle combat aircraft preserves to Her Majesty's Government control over costs and the right to introduce modifications.
    Mr. John Morris: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) on 25th June and to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) by the Minister of State, Ministry of Technology on 8th July.—[Vol. 785, c. 1504: Vol. 786, c. 228–9.]
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Government have decided a ceiling on the contribution that they are prepared to make to the project and, if so, what it is?
    Mr. Morris: The answer is, no, Sir.
    Mr. Rippon: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the anxieties expressed by the editor of "Jane's Fighting Aircraft"? Can he assure the House that, when developed, the M.R.C.A. will be up to the specifications and standard performance of the TSR2?
    Mr. Morris: I was not aware of the anxiety of the editor of "Jane's". I assure the hon. Gentleman that this aircraft will meet the needs of the British forces.

    Torpedo Control, Firth of Clyde
    Mr. Gordon Campbellasked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the arrangements for control of torpedoes in the Firth of Clyde.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Dr. David Owen): A comprehensive system of warnings and safety signals is used for the torpedo range in Upper Loch Long, and there are safety regulations in all other areas. Following the recent incident, torpedo firing in Lower Loch Long is at present suspended and I am having a detailed investigation made.
    Mr. Campbell: Can the Minister explain how a torpedo got loose in the Clyde three weeks ago? It caused considerable consternation amongst shipping there before it reached the end of its excursion.
    Dr. Owen: The torpedo to which the hon. Gentleman refers over-ran because the motor failed to cut out as programmed. I can understand the consternation it caused.

    Hebrides Rocket Range
    Mr. Gordon Campbellasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the latest position reached regarding the proposed extension of the rocket range in the Hebrides.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Ivor Richard): The latest position over the

    1463
    proposed extension and development of the Hebrides range is that the initial phase, involving improved instrumentation on South Uist, is almost complete. Development of the permanent installations on St. Kilda is well advanced, and work has started this month on houses for the permanent staff on Benbecula. Planning for the balance of the development set out in our public announcement made in November, 1968, is also well advanced.
    Mr. Campbell: Why did the Minister make a completely misleading statement on 15th October, when he claimed that the amount of civilian wages connected with the rocket range was running at five times the amount of the lobster catch, when since then it has been proved that the amounts are about equal?
    Mr. Richard: The hon. Gentleman knows that within 48 hours of having made the statement in the House I wrote to him and to other hon. Members most directly concerned in this matter correcting that. Not only that but I answered a Question, I think by the hon. Gentleman, within a few days. Any suggestion that anyone has been misleading the House by the slip that was made when I answered the first Question is, frankly, unfounded.

    Aircraft Carriers
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has reconsidered his decision to eliminate aircraft carriers from the Royal Navy.
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has for a British carrier force in the 1970s.
    Mr. John Morris: I have nothing to add to the answer my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) and other hon. Members on 7th May.—[Vol. 783, c. 440–2.]
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does that answer mean that the Secretary of State is not at all affected or concerned by the massive expression of disquiet by both professional naval and lay opinion about the weakness of the Fleet in the early 1970s without carriers? Will he not at least keep the matter open by providing for
    1464
    recruitment of Fleet Air Arm pilots to be maintained?
    Mr. Morris: As my right hon. Friend explained on 7th May, the present task of the carriers will be phased out after the ending of the Far East and Gulf commitments in December 1971. There are a number of options as to what can be done with them. They can either be scrapped, sold or given a new rôle. Each of these possibilities is still open for the carriers.
    Mr. Farr: Does the Minister realise that this statement means that there will be a complete power vacuum in the Middle and Far East when these carriers are withdrawn? Is he prepared to accept that, in view of the obvious expansionist policies of China and Russia in the immediate future?
    Mr. Morris: We have debated the issue of the carriers at length on a large number of occasions in this House. My right hon. Friend has made the Government's policy quite clear.
    Mr. Rippon: Are arrangements being made for tests of the Harrier from the aircraft carriers, and what is the point of having these tests if it is not intended to keep the carriers from which to use the Harriers?
    Mr. Morris: There is a separate Question on this. Perhaps we might wait until we reach it.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied that Great Britain has adequate over-flying rights in all circumstances and adequate available airfields from which the Royal Air Force can operate with certainty, once the aircraft carried force is phased out; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Member can rest assured that we shall not in future engage in major operations except in circumstances in which the facilities for their effective conduct are available to us.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Will the Minister say how many of these over-flying rights have ceased to become available since the decision to phase out the carriers and how many of the airfields available to the R.A.F. are no longer available? Will he publish the fullest information about this in the Library?
    Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Member's supplementary question seems to be based on the same supposition as that of his original Question, which seemed to suggest that we might undertake major operations without the co-operation of our allies. That seems inconceivable.

    Air Training Corps Cadet (Kingston-upon-Thames)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will order an inquiry into the arrangements made by Royal Air Force Station, Scampton, for a course for Air Training Corps cadets and to the failure to give proper care to a cadet attending that course as a member of No. 328 Kingston Air Training Corps, particulars of which have been sent to him by the right hon Member for Kingston-upon-Thames.
    Mr. Hattersley: No, Sir. I told the right hon. Gentleman in my letter of 27th November that I have been into this case very carefully and I am satisfied that the arrangements made for this cadet, both before and after his accident, were fully satisfactory.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his very courteous and detailed letter, which I acknowledge, may I ask him whether he is aware that on the facts as he indicates them this child was sent to hospital with severe head injuries in an ambulance containing no one other than the driver? Is that not a very unfortunate way to treat a child entrusted to his Department for training?
    Mr. Hattersley: I am not sure that the cadet would be flattered by the description of the right hon. Gentleman. He certainly does not regard himself as a child.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: He is 15.
    Mr. Hattersley: As to the seriousness of his injuries, no doctor who examined him either at the time of the accident or in hospital after it described his injuries as serious. The ambulance that took the cadet to hospital was one of those in which the patient and the driver—the driver being a competent medical auxiliary—were able to keep in close touch. I am informed that they were in conversation throughout the journey.

    Helicopters
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Defence what action he proposes to take to provide the necessary helicopters for the three Services subsequent to the cancellation of French participation in the WG13 helicopter.
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made on the three helicopters under joint Anglo-French development.
    Mr. Robert Howarthasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the three helicopters included in the Anglo-French military helicopter agreement.
    Mr. John Morris: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology gave a full report on the progress of the Anglo-French helicopter programme in a written answer to the hon. Member for Hal-tern price (Mr. Wall) on Monday, 1st December.
    I have nothing to add except that I am confident that this programme will provide the three Services with the helicopters they require.—[Vol. 792, c. 185.]
    Mr. Wall: While welcoming the statement that the right hon. Gentleman referred to on Monday, may I ask the Minister if it is a fact that the French have cancelled some part of the programme of the WG13 helicopter, and whether that will affect the total order and the cost of the aircraft?
    Mr. Morris: The French, for budgetary reasons, had to cancel their requirements for the so-called "Attaque" version of the WG13. They are continuing, with us, to develop the aircraft and their requirements for the naval variant. We have reached an agreement with the French about the next stage of the programme.
    Mr. Goodhew: Can the Minister say whether it is a fact that the original estimate for the WG13, for research and development, was £18 million but that this has now been revised to a level of £30 million? Does this not make nonsense of the Secretary of State's claim to have got his estimates right and realistic?
    Mr. Morris: I cannot give a detailed comment on the figures involved, but there has, as the hon. Member knows, been some cost escalation for a number of reasons. Some of these are inflation, changes in exchange rate and also some underestimation of the task. I am confident that the present arrangements for the whole of the programmes are under control.
    Mr. Robert Howarth: Can my hon. Friend say whether there is to be a change in the orders placed by the British Defence Ministry for the French part of this helicopter deal?
    Mr. Morris: The position as regards numbers is that because of the increase in costs we have had to revise our orders. As regards the SA341 the initial order for 250 for ourselves and 200 for France stands. I cannot give the figures for the WG13 at present.
    Mr. Corfield: Does the Minister appreciate that this is the only one of six collaborative projects with France in which Britain has the design leadership? Will he bear this very much in mind when negotiating further collaborative projects with France?
    Mr. Morris: The fact that the French are continuing with the variant that they require is an indication of the confidence they, too, have in the WG13.

    V.T.O.L. Aircraft
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of vertical take-off aircraft, such as the Harrier, at sea.
    Mr. John Morris: No decision has been taken whether fixed wing vertical and short take-off and landing aircraft should be operated at sea. But the question is one which is under study.
    The Harrier has been designed and developed for close support of the Army, and its performance characteristics are
    1468
    optimised for that rôle. Whether or not it could also be adapted for maritime operations as a worthwhile complement to sea-borne weapon systems and land based aircraft is something which we shall continue to study very closely, since the possibilities could be very attractive.
    Mr. Wall: As this aircraft has been tried from Italian cruisers, has it also been tried from the converted Tiger Class cruisers? Is it envisaged that it could be operated from guided missile destroyers or by specially equipped frigates?
    Mr. Morris: We have had a number of trials in this country and more are due to take place in the spring. The next one will take place on board H.M.S. "Eagle".
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a feeling that the full capability of this aircraft in its naval rôle is not getting quite the priority it deserves? Could he tell us whether the envisaged command cruiser, which I understand may have 12 Sea King helicopters or possibly Harriers, is now in the naval programme and likely to go forward as a replacement to the aircraft carriers of the future?
    Mr. Morris: I can assure the hon. Gentleman, who I know takes an interest in these matters, that the role of the Harrier has been fully investigated; a number of trials have taken place, and, as I indicated earlier, they will continue. But when the hon. Gentleman refers to the question of a new cruiser, I must remind him that the main purpose of these ships will be to carry command facilities and a force of antisubmarine helicopters to which he has referred, as well as to contribute to the anti-aircraft defence of the Fleet. In designing these ships we shall take into account any developments which may occur during their life, as in other weapons systems.
    Mr. Rippon: On the assumption that the trials are successful, do the Government have in mind operating the super Harrier from some form of ship? Until such time as the new generation of these ships is available, is it not obvious that we should use the existing aircraft carriers on the refitting of which the Government have spent nearly £50 million?
    Mr. Morris: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the Opposition's policy on carriers is a complete nonsense. It is one of the least cost-effective means of ensuring that we are able to have a naval presence. What I tell the hon. and learned Member is this—
    Hon. Members: Right hon. Member.
    Mr. Morris: I am sorry. I had no intention of being discourteous. The right hon. and learned Member must know, given his great military experience, that one of the possibilities is to use the Harrier on cruisers.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Judd.
    Mr. Rippon—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not call the right hon. and learned Member. Mr. Judd.
    Mr. Wall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the replies, I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Apprentice Group Instructors (Royal Naval Dockyards)
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the future conditions of service for apprentice group instructors in the Royal Naval dockyards.
    Dr. David Owen: The instructors were graded as industrials until 1967, when they were regraded into the technical class with the benefit of improved pay and conditions. I know they wish to be regraded as instructional officers, but there are strong arguments for the technical grading.
    Mr. Judd: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply and for the arrangements which have helped to facilitate the meeting with the Civil Service this evening, may I ask whether he understands that there is real concern at the long time that this dispute has gone on unresolved? Will he, therefore, ensure urgency on the part of the Government in coming to a satisfactory solution.
    Dr. Owen: I understand my hon. Friend's feelings and I can only say that we shall, with him, listen to the deputation
    1470
    from the staff later today. We can discuss the matter then.

    Royal Naval Dockyard (Technical Colleges)
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the future of Royal Naval dockyard technical colleges.
    Dr. David Owen: I have requested formal discussions with the local authorities concerned in the Portsmouth area on the possibilty of transferring the responsibility for the education of dockyard apprentices to the local education authorities. I have no plans to effect a similar transfer of responsibilities at Devonport, Chatham and Rosyth, but certain organisational changes are being considered with the aim of achieving full integration of educational and practical training.
    Mr. Judd: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that there is naturally a degree of anxiety amongst the staff at the technical college at Portsmouth Dockyard about their future status? Could he reassure them with all possible speed that a quick decision will be reached about their future so that they can make appropriate plans for their personal lives?
    Dr. Owen: The detailed terms of transfer will be a matter for negotiation, and every effort will be made to safeguard the position of the staff. As to timing, I hope to complete those negotiations with the local education authorities by Easter, 1970, in time for the transfer to take place by September, 1970.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the tremendous service which these colleges have done not only to the Royal Navy but to many other technical establishments outside the Service?
    Dr. Owen: I certainly pay tribute to the very valuable service they have given to the local community and to the Navy.

    Service Training, Dartmoor
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made in his discussions about the renewal of licences for the Services to train on Dartmoor.
    Mr. Hattersley: The Duchy of Cornwall, the National Trust, the Countryside

    1471
    Commission and the Dartmoor National Park Committee have all agreed in principle to a renewal of the licences, but the period for which they should be renewed is still under discussion.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the importance of this area to the Services for training facilities, and would he make certain that the licences are renewed for a proper length of time so that there can be a proper continuation of Service training?
    Mr. Hattersley: I am anxious to meet those points. Certainly we could only accept some of the short-term leases which have been suggested on the basis that it would be our intention to apply for their renewal when they fell in.

    Training Exercises, West Malaysia
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Secretary of State for Defence when it is proposed to hold training exercises in West Malaysia in 1970; what units will be involved; and for how long.
    Mr. Hattersley: I have nothing to add to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) on 15th October. —[Vol. 788, c. 380–381.]
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is it not a fact that there is a large-scale exercise to be held in April? Is it not a fact also that units are going out from this country and that because of the acclimatisation problems they are having to wait for over six weeks before they can be committed to jungle training? Does this not point a moral?
    Mr. Hattersley: Those facts are dealt with in the answer to which I referred. As to the conclusion, that must be the hon. Gentleman's own.
    Mr. Tapsell: Will there be combined training exercises in which Australian forces will also take part?
    Mr. Hattersley: The answer to that question was also in the original answer.

    Five-Power Defence Talks (Kuala Lumpur)
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Gilesasked the Secretary of State for Defence what
    1472
    progress was made at the Five-Power defence talks at Kuala Lampur in which the United Kingdom took part, which ended on 6th November.
    Mr. Hattersley: Officials of the countries represented at the Five-Power Conference on Far East Defence held in Canberra in June met in Kuala Lumpur from 4th to 6th November. They examined the requirements of an air defence system and agreed upon the need for the various elements to be knitted together. The officials also considered a number of matters affecting naval co-operation. Progress was made in both these areas. Further detailed work will proceed in the joint-Service and single-Service Advisory Working Groups. The meeting was also briefed on the good progress made with the planning of the Joint Commonwealth Exercise in 1970.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Is the "knitting" which was done at Kuala Lumpur fully satisfactory to the Australians and Malaysians, and are the requirements of these Governments fully taken into account?
    Mr. Hattersley: I think that on reflection the hon. and gallant Gentleman will realise that questions about the satisfaction of other Governments are not questions on which I can properly comment.

    H.M.S. "Hermes"
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Gilesasked the Secretary of State for Defence what role is planned for H.M.S. "Hermes" after 1970.
    Mr. John Morris: No decision has yet been taken about the future of H.M.S. "Hermes" after she has been phased out of her fixed wing flying task.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Without some ships to carry aircraft to protect the Fleet at sea, for what purpose will the command facilities in the new cruisers be used?
    Mr. Morris: We have canvassed this matter on a number of occasions. It will be important to have command facilities. The helicopters, the co-ordination with the fleet submarines and other ships—all these will make it necessary to have a command ship.
    Mr. Rippon: If no decision has yet been taken, how can the hon. Gentleman say that it is nonsense for the Opposition to suggest that they might still have a rôle?
    Mr. Morris: What I said was that the Opposition's policy for the carriers is nonsense. I also emphasised that there are three possibilities for the carriers. They are, as I said earlier to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, to scrap them, to sell them or to give them a new rôle. Each of these possibilities is still open. I said this in reply to an earlier question, and I wish that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been listening.

    Europe (Disengagement)
    Sir T. Beamishasked the Secretary of State for Defence what recent initiatives he has taken towards disengagement in Europe; to what extent the Government's proposals have been agreed with Great Britain's North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hattersley: My right hon. Friend has made no such proposals for reducing the permanent level of forces in Europe.
    Sir T. Beamish: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the mutual reduction of force strengths in Europe would only be acceptable were there to be an entirely watertight system of verification? Will the hon. Gentleman say why the House has not been informed about the Government's attitude to the European security pact being discussed this week in Brussels? Will a statement be made next week?
    Mr. Hartersley: I am sorry that I appear to be uncommunicative, but I must say that questions about mutual force reductions are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

    Reserves (N.A.T.O. Obligations)
    Sir T. Beamishasked the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has for strengthening the reserves to match Great Britain's obligations to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hattersley: Measures to strengthen and improve our reserves were
    1474
    announced by my predecessor on 28th November, 1968. During the course of the year, those changes have been consolidated, whilst future requirements have been kept under review.—[Vol. 774, c. 739–48.]
    Sir T. Beamish: Why are the Government so complacent about the fact that our military reserves, both Regular and volunteer, in relation to available manpower are the weakest in all the N.A.T.O. countries?
    Mr. Hattersley: The word "complacent" is absolutely wrong. The Government have made sure that the anxiliary reserves which we now possess are a great deal more effective than they were four or five years ago.
    Mr. Ramsden: Once the reserves currently being planned by the Government are committed in the role intended for them by the Government, with what is it planned to support the Regular forces in the United Kingdom in those roles for which the Government are now raising a new territorial force in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Hattersley: I have said to the right hon. Gentleman on previous occasions, and I am happy to reiterate now, that of all the roles for which a territorial force—of his sort or of mine —might be inappropriate, its use in Northern Ireland in the present circumstances is the most inappropriate.

    Indian Ocean Islands (Military Use)
    Sir E. Erringtonasked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps have been taken in regard to the British Indian Ocean Islands to develop them for military purposes; and if he will make a statement as to their future use.
    Mr. Hattersley: The British Indian Ocean Territory remains available for the construction of defence facilities by the British and United States Governments under the agreement signed with the United States Government in 1966. Whether, or how, they will be used is a matter which is being kept under review by both countries.
    Sir E. Errington: These are uninhabited and uninhabitable islands. Has

    1475
    nothing been done? Has no decision been reached? Have consultations taken place with Australia and South Africa about their possible help in the use of them?
    Mr. Hattersley: All the consultations to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and consultations with the United States, have taken place. The importance of this group of islands is that they are there at our disposal should they be needed for the purpose which was originally envisaged.

    Overseas Funerals (Attendance of Relatives)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements are made for parents to attend the funeral of a son who dies when serving overseas.
    Mr. Hattersley: The general rule is that only the next of kin and one companion may attend a Serviceman's funeral overseas at public expense.
    Mr. Tilney: The Minister is aware that the father of one of my constituents who died in Germany was unable to attend his son's funeral because he was not met when the train which he had been instructed to take arrived at Euston. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that in similar unhappy circumstances the relative will be given a telephone number at which an official able to give advice can be reached?
    Mr. Hattersley: That is a good suggestion, and it will be ensured. I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises from the letter whioh he had from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Defence for the Army that the shortcoming in this case wat not the rules which govern the transit of next of kin; it was simply a breakdown in the arrangements, for which the Army and the Ministry of Defence are very sorry.
    Mr. Howie: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that his hon. Friend is pursuing with diligence his inquiries with the Foreign Office into the case of Corporal Herbert, late of Luton, who was killed accidentally in Aden about three and a half years ago?
    Mr. Hattersley: That is an entirely different question.

    Projects (Departmental Control)
    Mr. Corfieldasked the Secretary of State for Defence what study he has made of the report by Dr. Geoffrey Williams, of Southampton University, copy of which has been sent to him, on the cancellation of the TSR2; if he is satisfied that the control over project now exercised by his Department ensures that such projects are re-appraised in the light of all the evidence available; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Morris: I have read Dr. Williams' report with interest. Current procedures provide for major projects to be reviewed regularly so that any factors, such as slippage in time scale, increase in cost, or technical problems, which may affect the viability of a project, can be properly evaluated and appropriate decisions taken at the earliest possible stage.
    Mr. Corfield: Is it not abundantly clear that Dr. Williams' conclusion that the industrial and technological lessons of the TRS2 have not been learned or incorporated in the current system of decision-making is well founded, and is this not exemplified, in particular, by the fiasco of the Fill and the reduction of the R and D budgets of both the hon. Gentleman's Ministry and the Ministry of Technology?
    Mr. Morris: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's strictures. As regards the TSR2, Dr. Williams accepts in the preface to his report that the decision was correct. Since that time, especially as regards the current development of the M.R.C.A., our procedures for control of projects have been developed and refined. The M.R.C.A., for example, is a collaborative venture in which the defence budgets of more than one country are involved. Our expertise in these matters has been improved in the last few years, and we have recently adopted the recommendations of the Downey Steering Group.

    Military Equipment
    Mr. Corfieldasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the total value of orders for military equipment, including the net cost of the cancellation of orders for the Fl 11 placed in the United States of America over each of the last five years, and the total value

    1477
    of United States military procurement from the United Kingdom over the same period.
    Mr. John Morris: The information on the value of contracts for military equipment placed in particular years with the United States is not readily available. The related expenditure figures for the years in question and for 1969–70 were, however, given in my replies to the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) on 1st May, 1968, and 10th November, 1969: the figures in the latter reply took account of the latest position on Fill cancellation costs as given by my right hon. Friend in a reply on 10th June, 1969. I estimate receipts from the United States for military equipment to have been at least 70 million dollars in the five years 1964–65 to 1968–69.—[Vol. 763, c. 198; Vol. 791, c. 41; Vol. 784, c. 246.]
    Mr. Corfield: Is it not clear that this unfavourable balance is never likely to be put right while the United States insists that any piece of equipment purchased from abroad—I have in mind the Harrier —shall be manufactured under licence in the United States? What representations are Her Majesty's Government making to the United States Government on this line of policy, which is so damaging to this country?
    Mr. Morris: As regards the Harrier, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the issue has not yet been completed, and Congressional approval has not yet been fully given to what we regard as this attractive sale to the United States. As regards general purchases from the United States, we are making, and industry is making, an intensive effort to increase our sales there. Our Head of Defence Sales has been over there on more than one occasion with a team, and I have myself been to see senior United States Ministers to try to ensure that we have a fairer crack of the whip.
    Sir T. Beamish: Apart from the damage done to British industry by the placing of such excessive orders in the United States, why have the Government left it to a Tory Government to pay most of the bills?
    Mr. Morris: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, we inherited a number
    1478
    of projects from our predecessors. As regards payment for what we have had to buy in the course of our period of office, the whole matter was canvassed at length on the Bill which we brought before the House and the method of buying was fully explained.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Defence if, in view of the increase in cost of imports of military aircraft and missiles from the United States of America from £43 million in 1967 to £146 million in 1968, and to £164 million for the first three quarters of 1969, he will revise his policies to avoid this expenditure, particularly in view of its effect on the balance of payments; and if he will estimate this expenditure for 1969, 1970 and 1971.
    Mr. John Morris: The figures to which my hon. Friend refers represent the value of imports of Phantoms and Hercules and associated missiles and equipment rather than net dollar expenditure by the United Kingdom. The loan arrangements for the finance of the initial dollar cost have the advantage of spreading net dollar expenditure over thirteen years.
    The value of outstanding imports is about £45 million, of which about £20 million will fall in the last quarter of 1969, £20 million in 1970 and £5 million in 1971.
    Any future proposals for the purchase of equipment from the United States of America would be a matter for fresh consideration.
    Mr. Allaun: Which other Ministry would be allowed to incur vast American imports on this scale? As these have increased five-fold in the last two years, what compensating cuts does the Ministry of Defence intend to make in order to honour its undertaking that there will be no increase in total arms spending?
    Mr. Morris: I can answer only for the Ministry of Defence. My hon. Friend knows that the position is quite clear. These were purchased, under agreements, over a number of years. It is not significant that the increases in the actual imports have taken place in the last year or so. This is because the order was made some years ago and the aircraft have now come off the stocks and come to this country. That is the position. The method of payment was canvassed

    1479
    before the House and a Bill was presented and passed by the House as long ago as May, 1966.
    Mr. McMaster: Does not the Minister agree that the cancellations of British aircraft, including the TSR2 and the 1154, have been a complete disaster.

    Phantom Aircraft
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many Phantom aircraft have now been delivered, and at what total sterling cost; what is the balance outstanding for delivery to complete the 170 aircraft in all; including spares, what will be the total net cost, excluding Rolls-Royce engines; and when the contract will be completed.
    Mr. John Morris: All 170 Phantom aircraft have now been delivered. The sterling cost of Rolls-Royce engines, initial spares and other items of United Kingdom production for these aircraft is about £200 million. The remainder of the cost, including initial spares and support, is about £300 million in dollars.
    Sir G. Nabarro: May the House have an assurance that this is the last American contract which will be placed for military aircraft and that orders for any future requirements will be placed in this country, where we are perfectly capable of manufacturing our own military aircraft?
    Mr. Morris: I can give no such assurance. As the hon. Gentleman knows, as regards the major project to which I referred earlier, on which we are now in the middle of the project definition stage, we are engaged in a collaborative venture with other countries. This is the choice open to us. On some matters we can go it alone, on others again we can have a collaborative venture with other countries. We cannot be expert in all things, and we cannot produce everything which our armed forces need; otherwise the R. and D. expenditure would be colossal.
    Mr. Snow: Can my hon. Friend say, without notice, when this contract was originally signed?
    Mr. Morris: As regards the Phantoms, the decision in principle on the naval version was taken by our predecessors, and on the Royal Air Force version the decision was taken by ourselves.

    South Africa (Arms)
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions have been given, following the recent appointment of a new arms salesman, about the sale of arms to South Africa for external defence purposes.
    Mr. John Morris: None, Sir. The function of the Head of Defence Sales is to promote the sale of British defence equipment within the Government's policy, and, so far as South Africa is concerned, that policy has been made clear time and time again.
    Mr. Goodhew: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that Her Majesty's ships are accorded full facilities at Simonstown and other South Africa ports? Is there not, therefore, both a legal and a moral obligation on Her Majesty's Government to fulfill their responsibilities under the Simons-town Agreement and provide those aircraft, ships and weapons which the South Africans need for the defence of the Cape route?
    Mr. Morris: I am well aware of the facilities to which the hon. Gentleman refers. He will be awareߞunless I have to remind him now—of the United Nations resolution calling for an embargo on the sale of arms to South Africa and making no distinction between offensive and defensive arms. All these matters were taken into account in the statement which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made to the House.
    Mr. Corfield: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that with the closure of the Suez Canal the sea route round the cape is absolutely vital to this country? On what possible ground can the Government refuse to export Nimrods, for example, to South Africa?
    Mr. Morris: Nimrods would, of course, be considered like any other arms proposal which came within the context of Her Majesty's Government's policy towards South Africa, but any matter of this kind should be referred to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
    Mr. McNamara: Will my hon. Friend try to explain to hon. Gentlemen opposite that any item which increases the armed forces of the Republic of South

    1481
    Africa, whether for external or internal policies, invariably strengthens that regime which many of us find reprehensible? Will he further explain to hon. Members opposite that in making the Buccaneer in the constituency of the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) manufacturers are already hard-pressed to find sufficient men to fulfil obligations to the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy and—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be reasonably brief.
    Mr. Morris: All relevant factors were fully considered and explained to the House on 18th December, 1967, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated that after examination of the problems the Government decided that their policy of adhering to the United Nations resolution remained unchanged.
    Mr. Goodhew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Hong Kong (Helicopters)
    Mr. Robert Howarthasked the Secretary of State for Defence, how many helicopters the Royal Air Force has at Hong Kong; what is their age and serviceability rate; and what proposals he has for replacing them, and when.
    Mr. John Morris: The Royal Air Force has one squadron of Whirlwind Mark 10 helicopters permanently stationed in Hong Kong. It is not customary to disclose the size and operational capabilities of front-line units. There are no plans at present to replace the helicopters with another type.
    Mr. Howarth: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is well known that these are very old helicopters and the R.A.F. has great difficulty in keeping them flying regularly? Will he look at this again with a view to replacing them very quickly?
    Mr. Morris: I shall certainly take into account the comment of my hon. Friend, who, I understand, has been out to Hong Kong. Apart from difficulties of serviceability at some time this year, I am not aware of general dissatisfaction with these helicopters.
    Mr. Wiggin: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm the extremely useful role which helicopters can play in an internal security theatre? Will he take action to see that these helicopters are brought up-to-date as soon as possible?
    Mr. Morris: Yes, Sir. Helicopters perform a very useful réle in the operations in Hong Kong.

    Duke of York's Royal Military School, Dover
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual cost of maintaining the Duke of York's Royal Military School, Dover; and on which Vote the cost falls.
    Mr. Richard: Staff salaries and wages are about £170,000 annually. No separate record is kept of other running costs. Expenditure is borne on normal Defence and M.P.B.W. Votes.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it now appears that something over 80 per cent. from this school do not join the Armed Forces? Is it realistic to put the cost of this school, which is approximately the equivalent of maintaining a single army battalion, on to the Defence Vote now that there is a civilian headmaster and the great majority of the school is entirely civilianised?
    Mr. Richard: As the hon. Member will know, the object of the school is not to produce recruits for the Regular Army. It was originally provided to provide care and training for orphaned sons and daughters of Regular soldiers of the British Army. It has a very fine record. Although in principle I am in favour of removing all such expenditure from the Defence Vote as quickly as possible, in all the circumstances I do not think that possible in this case.

    Army Recruitment
    Mr. Allasonasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the figures for re-engagement in the Army.
    Mr. Richard: The prolongation rate for men who originally enlisted on a 6-year engagement was 50 per cent. in the last financial year. This compares with

    1483
    35 per cent, in 1964. Last year the prolongation rates for the 9- and 12-year men were 53 per cent. and 91 per cent, respectively. This is on the whole satisfactory.
    Mr. Allason: The figure of 50 per cent. for the six-year engagement can obviously be improved upon. Has the hon. Gentleman thought that it might be a good idea to tell the forces what their pay will be next year?
    Mr. Richard: On pay, no doubt the hon. Member has read the report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes. On the first part of the supplementary question, of course it could be improved. I am happy to say that we have improved it by no less than 15 per cent. since 1964.
    Mr. Allasonasked the Secretary of State for Defence what new steps he is taking to improve Army recruiting.
    Mr. Richard: I have nothing of substance to add to the reply by my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration given on 15th October. I am glad to say that Army recruiting is much improved since last year.—[Vol. 788, c. 77.]
    Mr. Allason: Nevertheless the figures for this year are very worrying. Has the Minister considered employing anyone of the capacity of the late Sir Frederick Hooper, who did so much for Army recruiting eight years ago?
    Mr. Richard: I think it much too early to get any accurate assessment of how this year's figures will compare in total with last year's. On the figures so far available there is a substantial improvemen and we are hopeful that it will be maintained.
    Mr. Ramsden: Is it not a fact that there are to be considerable increases in the current and prospective expenditure on the recruiting effort? If this is true, would it not have been better to have made the increases two years ago before we got into the present rut?
    Mr. Richard: It is certainly true that the Army is looking at ways and means of increasing the recruitment figures but to do that now against a background of relative success seems more appropriate than it was perhaps two years ago.

    Hercules Aircraft (Fuel Tanks)
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent the fuel tanks fitted to the Royal Air Force C.130 Hercules aircraft have suffered corrosion; what is the cost; what action is being taken; and at what estimated cost.
    Mr. John Morris: The fuel tanks of virtually all R.A.F. Hercules have suffered some degree of corrosion. The extent of the damage varies widely. In a few aircraft replacement of part of the wing structure is likely to be needed. All the aircraft affected will be repaired over the next year. To make good the loss of transport capacity while repairs are being carried out, some Argosies will continue in service longer than planned.
    The cost of repairs cannot yet be precisely estimated but is likely to be about £¾ million.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Was any advice given to the R.A.F. by the Lockheed Aircraft Company about this corrosion problem? If its advice was given, why was it not followed; and if it was not followed, whose decision was that?
    Mr. Morris: As regards our relations with Lockheed's, we bought this aircraft through the United States Air Force and we are in contact with it about the contractual position. Perhaps it would not be right for me to comment further.
    The Royal Air Force has for some time used a fuel additive as an icing inhibitor for aircraft liable to icing, and this additive inhibits fungal growth. In view of the special lining of the integral fuel tanks, it was not at first thought necessary to incur the cost of using this additive to check fungal growth in all Hercules aircraft.
    Mr. Robert Howarth: Who designed and produced these tanks? Were they made in America or in this country?
    Mr. Morris: These are integral tanks which are part of the structure of the aeroplane and part and parcel of the aircraft which we bought from the United States.
    Mr. Rippon: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson). Was

    1485
    any advice given as to how this matter should be dealt with? If so, what action was taken on that advice?
    Mr. Morris: Whether the advice came from Lockheed's or the United States Air Force is not relevant. What is relevant is the judgment which the Royal Air Force exercised, with or without advice. I will certainly look into whether advice was given. In view of the special lining which these tanks contain, it was, unfortunately, deemed not necessary.

    Polaris Nuclear Submarine "Renown" (Incident)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recent incident in which the Polaris nuclear submarine "Renown" was involved in an accident with another ship.
    Dr. David Owen: H.M.S. "Renown" collided with the M.V. "Moyle" while carrying out work-up exercises in the Irish Sea on the night of 13th October. There were no casualties. Both vessels suffered some damage but the "Renown" was operational again the next day. H.M.S. "Renown's" commanding officer is to be tried by court-martial.
    Mr. Allaun: Although no missiles were aboard in this case, does not my hon. Friend agree that this was an entirely unforeseeable and a one-in-a-thousand accident and that therefore the same kind of accident could happen to missiles on board a Polaris submarine, or the thousands available elsewhere, despite the safeguards on them?
    Dr. Owen: Naturally, any accident at sea is a subject for concern, and the role performed by the Polaris boats calls for extraordinary vigilance against any possibility of a mishap. However, I should remind the House that, in the unlikely event of a nuclear weapon being involved in a collision, there would be no danger of a nuclear explosion.
    Mr. Monro: Was this submarine carrying lights in this busy shipping channel, and why was not the accident reported so that the search could have been called off much sooner?
    Dr. Owen: I have written to the hon. Gentleman about some other points in
    1486
    his letter. I think that the House will agree that, in view of the impending court-martial, I would be wise not to comment on any other aspects.

    British Forces, West Germany (Cost)
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the net cost to date, since the signing of the Paris Agreement, of maintaining British forces in Federal Germany after taking into account the Federal Government's off-set payments.
    Mr. Hattersley: About £390 million of overseas expenditure.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Does not my hon. Friend agree that that is a staggering figure and that it has made some contribution to the economic and financial difficulties through which the nation has passed over the last few years? Does he not think that it is time that we made it perfectly clear to the Germans that if they are not prepared to meet these costs, we will bring home the forces necessary to provide the compensating amount?
    Mr. Hattersley: Of course any overseas expenditure contributes towards the problem to which my hon. Friend draws my attention, and of course the Government are anxious to minimise the cost, but my hon. Friend should not ask questions which imply that this is not money which is well spent; I think that it is.
    Mr. Rippon: When considering these offset arrangements, will the Government take steps to ensure that we do not count in these figures stocks bought by the German Government in this country, which benefit the balance of payments this year, but which the next Government will have to repay in the 1970s?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Milne: Is not my hon. Friend aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) is perfectly entitled to ask these questions and equally entitled to ask for a reply, and that the answer to his question, instead of being helpful to the cause of European unity, is the reverse?
    Mr. Hattersley: I was not suggesting for a moment that my hon. Friend should not have asked that question in that sense. Having worked with him for two

    1487
    years in happy harmony in the D.E.P., that would be the last sort of suggestion which I would dare to make to him. I was only struggling to make the point, which I must now repeat, that there are many of us in the House who do not agree with the supposition that this is not money well spent.

    R.A.F. Station, St. Mawgan (Demonstration)
    Mr. Pardoeasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the demonstration held at the Royal Air Force, St. Mawgan, on 14th August, 1969.
    Mr. Hattersley: During the afternoon of 14th August, 1969, whilst my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Home Department were meeting at R.A.F. St. Mawgan to discuss the situation in Northern Ireland, a group of about 35 persons, carrying placards and shouting slogans, attempted to reach the building in which the meeting was being held. They were stopped by R.A.F. personnel before reaching the building and later left after being advised to do so by the civil police. The demonstration was non-violent; no arrests were made and no charges preferred.
    Mr. Pardoe: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. I do not deny the possible beneficial effects of anarchist demonstrations on the Prime Minister, but does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, in view of the wish of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to confer about a national emergency, it would have been better to ensure that the demonstrators did not actually get to the building inside the perimeter of the R.A.F. station?
    Mr. Hattersley: I have no doubt that we were right to use the absolute minimum of force towards these demonstrators, and they were turned back, if not amicably, peaceably. I hope that in future circumstances will not make it necessary for the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister to meet within a few miles of an international conference of anarchists.

    R.A.F. Station, St. Mawgan (Aircraft)
    Mr. Pardoeasked the Secretary of State for Defence when the replacement
    1488
    of Shackleton by Nimrod will be completed at the Royal Air Force, St. Mawgan; and what esimate he has made of the difference in decibels, measured at ground level, during landings and takeoff.
    Mr. John Morris: The answer to the first part of the Question is early 1971; I cannot yet give an accurate answer to the second part, but I shall write to the hon. Member when the information is available.
    Mr. Pardoe: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, particularly for the date. While we welcome the presence of the R.A.F. station at St. Mawgan, the noise level gives us reason for concern. Will the hon. Gentleman make every effort to ensure that it is kept to the minimum during the holiday season?
    Mr. Morris: I am aware that in some respects the Nimrod is noisier than the Shackleton. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall be conducting trials of the relative noise levels as we gain experience with the aircraft in service. I shall write to him when results are available. I point out that the noise of jets engines, unlike piston engines, can be reduced by attenuating equipment during ground running checks, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that this equipment is being installed at St. Mawgan.

BILL PRESENTED
  FOOD AND DRUGS (MILK)
  Mr. Alfred Morris, supported by Mr. J. E. B. Hill, Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie, Mr. Derek Page, Mr. John M. Temple, and Mr. Kenneth Marks, presented a Bill to authorise the treatment of milk by the application of steam: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 59].

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
  Ordered,
  That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Peart.]

BROADCASTING (MOTION AND AMENDMENT)
Mr. Speaker: A point of order. Mr. Hugh Jenkins.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I wish to raise a point of order on today's business, and to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the Amendment to the Opposition Motion on broadcasting is in order.
In common with other hon. Members, I signed the Motion. At a later stage, when I saw it, I also signed the Amendment. On presenting my name at the Table Office, I was informed that it was impossible for an hon. Member to sign both the Motion and the Amendment—[Laughter.] Hon. Members are right to laugh, because the assumption behind that is that the two are incompatible.
But my point of order, perhaps, will remove the smiles from hon. Members' faces. I suggest that the Amendment is out of order for the reason that it is not incompatible with the Motion. I wish to pray in aid Erskine May…
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will put his point of order briefly. For the moment, it suggests to me a crisis of conscience in his mind.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The assumption must be that a Motion and an Amendment are incompatible, that they are mutually exclusive and, therefore, that hon. Members cannot reasonably sign both. Presumably, any hon. Member doing so would be in error.
There are two questions, Sir—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Briefly.
Mr. Jenkins: First, my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) has succeeded in signing both the Motion and the Amendment. May I ask you how this occurred in his case and why I was not allowed to do the same?
My second question is a more serious one, and on it I wish to draw your attention to Erskine May. Chapter XVIII is concerned with the process of debate and, on page 414, under the heading
"Object of an amendment and effect on debate",
1490
Erskine May says:
"The object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability"—
I do not think that anyone will suggest that the Amendment is for the purpose of increasing the acceptability of the Motion—
"… or to present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original question."
This is not an alternative to the original Question.
The two propositions are not mutually exclusive. The Motion says:
That this House regrets that the policy of Her Majesty's Government will cause a serious deterioration in the quality of broadcasting.
The Amendment opposes proposals for private enterprise commercial local radio stations. The two are not mutually exclusive. It is reasonable and proper for hon. Members to be in favour of both.
In the circumstances, I respectfully suggest that you should rule the Amendment out of order, and that the debate should take place on the Motion, so that hon. Members have an opportunity of voting for or against it.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose…
Mr. Speaker: Order. Dr. Winstanley, I understand, on the same point of order.
Dr. Winstanley: Mr. Speaker, it will be within your knowledge that for several weeks hon. Members have requested an opportunity to debate the B.B.C.'s plan "Broadcasting for the Seventies" and the Government's policy in relation to it. Several answers have been given to the requests of hon. Members by the Leader of the House and, on Thursday of last week, the House was informed that an opportunity for such a debate would occur today.
Is it not a fact, however, that the Amendment on the Order Paper which, presumably, we shall be asked to debate, is on a totally different subject? While I feel sure that we shall be allowed to discuss various matters, will it not prevent us expressing our opinions in the Lobby on the urgent matter of the B.B.C.'s plan and the Government's policy in relation to it?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we shall not waste too much time on points of order.
The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) asked whether the Amendment on the Order Paper is in order. He has referred me to page 414 of Erskine May:
"The object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability …."
That means its acceptability to some Members in the House.
"… or to present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original question."
On both counts, the Amendment is in order.
Mr. Wilkins Mr. Wilkins rose…
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am dealing with a point of order.
This is not the first time in history that hon. Members have found themselves in difficulty in deciding whether to vote for a Motion or an Amendment. It is probably not the first time in history that hon. Members have wished to vote both for the Motion and for the Amendment.
The hon. Member for the High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) adopted the unusual course of putting his name, that of a Government supporter, to an Official Opposition Motion, and then seeking to put his name to the Amendment of his own side of the House. I understand that he was advised by the Table that he must choose which. That was unusual, if not unique in the history of Parliament.
I have to rule that the Amendment is in order. I have selected it, but my selection of the Amendment in no way cramps the debate on the B.B.C. and broadcasting.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether, in the circumstances, there will be an opportunity for hon. Members to vote both for the Amendment and for the Motion? Will it be possible for those who are in favour of both to vote for both?
Mr. Speaker: The Question will be. That the Amendment be made. The hon. Gentleman will have to decide whether he votes that the Amendment be made, or against the making of the Amendment,
1492
or abstains from voting. That is why I suggested that his was a crisis of conscience. There are only two methods of voting on any Question before the House —plus abstention.
Mr. Wilkins: Mr. Speaker, arising from that point of order, and following your request to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) to be brief, I imagine that you will remember the very famous occasion when a point of order was raised by an ex-colleague of ours, the then Member for Oldham, West, on ritual murders, in the course of which he addressed the Chair for 20 minutes and was not ruled out of order. Indeed, when hon. Members sought to have him ruled out of order, the Chair ruled that he was in order.
My point of order is this. When an hon. Member raises a point of order, is he restricted in the length of time that he can occupy, in view of the precedent that I have cited?
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that everyone has very precious memories of Mr. Leslie Hale. However, I am not sure that one would take Mr. Hale as a precedent for everything.
All that I did was to request the hon. Member for Putney to put his point of order briefly. Side by side with order is the economy of time in the House. I try to preserve both.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: You said, Mr. Speaker, that you did not want points of order to waste the time of the House. I feel that this matter ought to be pursued, because it is not wasting the time of the House. You read out a quotation from Erskine May, as did the hon. Member Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), but you did not give any Ruling. I should think that many Members in the House would put the same interpretation on the words as did the hon. Member for Putney.
The wording of the Motion and the Amendment strikes me as being an abuse of the procedure of the House, because the Amendment completely alters the nature of the debate compared with the main Motion. I should think that any interpretation of the words read out from Erskine May by the hon. Gentleman would mean that it is not truly an Amendment. If it is not an Amendment, then

1493
it ought not to have been accepted by the Chair as an Amendment, because it completely changes the nature and subject of the debate.
Looking behind the reasons for it on this occasion, it means that, on an issue where the House has asked to be put in a position where it can give a clear indication to the Executive of what it wants, this is making it hazy. It is because of the haziness that I say it is an abuse of the procedure of the House.
Mr. English: Further to that point of order. Is it not the case that your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, was entirely correct for the simple reason that my hon. Friends or hon. Gentlemen opposite could, if they wished, have tabled Amendments to the Amendment? Surely, the cause of this difficulty, as is often the case, is that the Opposition Motion was put down at so late a date that any Amendments had to be tabled at a very late date. Am I not right in my belief that it would have been possible for my hon. Friends, or hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they wished, to have tabled a further Amendment compounding the two, and upon which the House could have voted?
Mr. Speaker: On the very narrow issue, with which the hon. Gentleman completed his support of the Chair, for which I am grateful, it would have been possible for hon. Members to put down Amendments of their own to the Amendment dealing with the problem which has, quite seriously, confronted the minds of some hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) seemed doubtful whether I had ruled. I have ruled that the Amendment is in order.
Mr. Thorpe: Further to that point of order. I wonder whether you can help us, Mr. Speaker. We are about to debate a subject selected by the Opposition for their Supply day. This is traditionally an opportunity for the Opposition to debate an aspect of Government policy. Therefore, it is a valuable constitutional right enjoyed by the Opposition. But instead of being in a position to express an opinion for or against some aspect of Government policy, we now find ourselves faced with a totally different situation because the Government, for their part, turn round and say to the House,
1494
"What we would like you to vote on is not our policy, but what we believe to be the Opposition's policy on this subject".
I am not particularly interested in what the Official Opposition's policy may be on broadcasting. They are entitled to their particular view. I am more interested, as I believe is the whole House, in debating the actual policy which the Government of the day are intending to implement before a General Election which will, therefore, be the policy with which this country, for better or worse, will be saddled.
Therefore, I ask what protection we have when the Government, rather than meet the challenge to their own policy, turn round and, as I see it, use their only weapon of defence to turn on the Opposition and say, "We would much rather not discuss our policy, but your policy, because we do not like it".
Mr. Speaker: I have some respect for the right hon. Gentleman's submission, but it is in order for the right hon. Gentleman or anybody else in debate to advance the fact that he prefers the Government's policy to that of the Opposition, or that he has no time for either. The Ruling that I have given does not preclude any hon. Member from discussing any aspect of broadcasting policy. There is no cramping of the debate.
Mr. Ian Gilmour: On a point of order. Is there not a general point of considerable importance here? Your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, means that, if they wish the Government can prevent, until the end of this Parliament, the Opposition ever having a vote on a Motion which they put forward, because the Government can always put forward an Amendment about our policy or about some other matter. Surely it is an abuse of parliamentary procedure that the Opposition should not be allowed, on their own Supply day, a vote on their own Motion.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Opposition cannot expect, on their own Supply day, as an unquestionable right, the right to table a Motion and also to forbid the Government the right to table an Amendment to that Motion. This in no way hurts the right of the Opposition to

1495
choose the topic, to debate it as they will, and to vote in the end for their Motion by voting against the Government's Amendment. This is not a new phenomenon in parliamentary procedure.
Mr. Tomney: Further to that point of order. To facilitate business, it would appear that our colleague on this side who supported the Motion and the Amendment has a split political affinity. Could we not allow him a split vote?
Mr. Speaker: That would be a unique phenomenon in the history of Parliament.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [3RD ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

  BROADCASTING
  3.47 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Heath: I beg to move,
  That this House regrets that the policy of Her Majesty's Government will cause a serious deterioration in the quality of broadcasting.
  The Opposition selected this subject to give the House the opportunity of debating the whole sphere of broadcasting; that is to say, both the public service and the commercial aspect of television and the whole range of radio. This, we believe, was really in accordance with the wish of hon. Members in all parts of the House because of the views which have been consistently expressed Thursday after Thursday by hon. Members of all parties.
  This debate is being held in Opposition time, as the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) very forcibly pointed out to the Leader of the House last Thursday. I respectfully suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that this is a major area of Government responsibility. There are important financial decisions involved both for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and for the members of the public who pay their licence fees. There are also political considerations which, I think it is fair to say, have obviously been taken into account in these matters. Both the financial and the political will govern the organisation of broadcasting in this country while this Government are in office. It is, therefore, a matter of great importance for the House of Commons.
  Looking at it from the outside point of view, acute anxieties have been constantly expressed about "Broadcasting in the Seventies" as a statement of policy and also about the statement of the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications—we can always expect the Labour Government to use 14 syllables where six have done for several centuries—by the staff, by those who follow these matters, and by many actually working in the broadcasting systems who are connected with the arts.

  1497
  According to many Members in the House, this matter should have been discussed in Government time, but we have provided the opportunity. The points of order which we have just heard have shown that the Government are deliberately denying to the House, although we accept Mr. Speaker's Ruling, the opportunity of expressing a view directly about "Broadcasting in the Seventies" and the Government's policy on it. Of course, we can express our views and we hope that the Government, the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. will take full note and act upon them. Nevertheless, as a result of deliberate Government action in the framing of their Amendment, we are being denied the opportunity of expressing a view about broadcasting policy as a whole, in particular, that put forward by the B.B.C. and the Minister's statement upon it. It is a matter of the greatest regret.
  The Government have refused to face the issues. For this reason, they have constantly refused to provide time for a debate. And today they are still seeking to evade the issues. This is because they know that there is widespread agreement in the House with the Motion. The mere fact that they themselves are not prepared to allow us to reach a decision upon this is a condemnation of their own policy which they themselves are admitting. If they had confidence that the policy of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. and the Government would not lead to deterioration in broadcasting, it was open to them to advise the House to vote down the Motion and vote it straight.
  That would have been the normal way of behaving on a matter of substance of this kind. But they were not prepared to do that because the Leader of the House, assisted by the Patronage Secretary, judged that the Motion would get widespread support throughout the House. Thus, my main point is that, generally, the view is that there will be a deterioration in the standards of broadcasting as a consequence of this policy.
  I wish to speak briefly, because a large number of right hon. and hon. Members want to make contributions to the debate. To all of us this is a vitally important subject. It is one with which we can all have acquaintance and on which we can
  1498
  all have views which matter. I want to concentrate, first, on what I regard as the really basic issues in the structure and purpose of broadcasting and then, in the light of this, look at the B.B.C.'s proposals, the plight of commercial television, the proposals for commercial radio and the Government's policy.
  First, I deal with the broad structure. It seems to me of importance that in this House we should come to the position which obtains today and cease any longer to fight the battles of long ago. We have now a combination of what is called public service and commercial broadcasting. It is in many ways an artificial description, because both provide a public service. One is supported by the licence and the taxpayer and the other is run, it hopes at a profit, by private enterprise, which makes a very large contribution, which must now be in the region of £40 to £50 million a year, to the Exchequer itself. But the description has become established as public service and commercial broadcasting.
  I am quite prepared to accept this description, but the point I want to make is that this is now a complementary system which can give us the best radio and television network in the world, properly handled. I would have thought that it was the objective of the House now, the battles having been fought and the dust having settled, to accept that this is the system which the country has and that the purpose of any Administration must be to maintain a balance between the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. which will give us the best of so-called public service and commercial broadcasting, and to see that, whether we do it through the licensing system or through the balance of levy and taxation imposed on the I.T.A., both have the opportunities to maintain that quality and variety which we require.
  I make my position clear. In the early 1950s, I was one of those who not only wanted but was determined to do all I could to break the monopoly of the B.B.C. I believed that it was unhealthy. I was not one of those, so vividly described by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), whose views I respect, as being under the pressure of commercial interests. I did not

  1499
  then, and do not now, have any financial interest in any commercial television project of any kind.
  I was interested in breaking the B.B.C. monopoly because I believe that it was unhealthy for the corporation to have a monopoly of this powerful medium, growing in power, in news presentation, in current affairs, and in interviews—including with Members of the House. I believed that it was unhealthy to have a monopoly of employment, not only of performers but of creative artists, whether in drama, music, or any other form. I believed that it was unhealthy from the point of view of the B.B.C. itself, particularly for its technical development.
  These were the reasons why I wanted to see the B.B.C. monopoly broken. It seemed to me at that time—the early 1950s—that the B.B.C. had lost the dynamism of its early years, which was tremendous and had produced results of a very high quality, and that it badly needed a fresh inspiration both technically and from the creative point of view. Looking back over the 15 years since, I think that any fair-minded observer would agree that this is exactly what the B.B.C. has got through the establishment of commercial television and that the fears and anxieties expressed on both sides of the House, and which were deep and genuine, have not materialised.
  Mr. John Mendelson: The right hon. Gentleman says that everyone assumes that. But quite a number of hon. Members and members of the general public say, and provide evidence, that the programmes of murder and violence have been much more on commercial television channels first and that "Auntie" B.B.C. has been forced by the competitive position to live up to that to a very large extent.
  Mr. Heath: I do not accept that argument. When one takes into account the other factors at work in our society which have themselves done a great deal to propagate works of violence, I would not put the blame on commercial television. Also, I do not accept that the B.B.C. is, in any case, under pressure to do likewise; and this is a fundamental part of my thesis to which I shall return.
  The other point about this is that commercial television has made a genuine
  1500
  regional contribution to our life. The B.B.C. makes one as well, but the programme companies have gone to considerable efforts to make a regional contribution of consequence and this is appreciated in their regions.
  At the same time, as a result of this competition, we are seeing much more highly-developed techniques, much greater speed of operation and range of coverage. I do not believe that this would have come about if the monopoly had remained. I believe that there are better news media today in both the I.T.A. and the B.B.C, better entertainment value, much greater sporting coverage and, at the same time, because we have this combined system, we have so far had the wishes of minorities adequately catered for.
  Since, in some respects, I recognise that I am myself a minority in the arts, I appreciate the fact that, through the B.B.C, I, as a minority, am catered for. At the same time, I regard this as a reason why the licence is paid—for this public service organisation to cater to a large extent for the requirements of minorities.
  I accept, and have never debated this argument, that commercial organisation does not to the same extent cater to the minorities. That is why I want a combined system and want to get the best out of that system as a combined working. I do not believe, either, that the fears which so many people held have really materialised.
  Mr. Christopher Mayhew: The major fear expressed was that commercial television would not cater for minorities. This was contested bitterly by hon. Members opposite at that time, but now the right hon. Gentleman himself accepts it.
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman has missed the original point of the change, which was, first, that the monopoly would not exist; secondly, that this would produce a more stimulating B.B.C.—and no one would challenge that it has done so; and, thirdly, that, in a complementary system, a public service system can cater for minorities while, at the same time, the commercial system is providing mass entertainment, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to call it that, for large numbers of viewers.
  Mr. Mayhew Mr. Mayhew rose…
  Mr. Heath: I cannot give way again. I am trying to be brief. The hon. Member can express his own view.
  Could we not therefore agree that we have this combined system, and that it is to the benefit of the country? The B.B.C. and the I.T.V. long ago accepted this, as did the country, and for us to go on fighting about it in the House of Commons is out of date. We should recognise what is the future of this complementary system. I want to refer to "Broadcasting in the Seventies" and to consider B.B.C. policy in the light of this document.
  Lord Hill says, in the instruction:
  "Whatever else happens the public service which the B.B.C. provides should be complete, nationally and locally."
  That is the first question that we have to ask about the B.B.C.: is it right to say to itself, "Whatever happens in television or in radio we must always be in every aspect of it to the fullest possible extent"?
  I have said that I want to talk about the broad structure of broadcasting because that is the first important aspect that we should consider. The governors —if it is their responsibility—may be criticised for apparently taking the view that no matter what development takes place in television or radio the B.B.C. must be in it and must have the resources to go into it, and those resources must come either from the licence fee or from the Exchequer. I fully agree—indeed, I challenge anybody to say otherwise—that the B.B.C. should remain dependent upon the licence fee, and, if the Government wish it, dependent upon the contribution made by the Government. I do not want the B.B.C. to have advertisements, because of the particular role which I think that it should play.
  The B.B.C. should ask itself: what are our priorities in the fields of radio and television, taking into account the fact that the Authority exists? It should also take account of the fact that there are proposals for commercial radio, but that is a comparatively small part of the argument. That is why the House regrets that the Leader of the House has made it the major part of the Government Amend-
  1502
  ment. The B.B.C. should ask itself: what priorities ought we to follow?
  What "Broadcasting in the Seventies" does is to change the past priorities of the B.B.C. That is what has caused so much alarm to those who watch and listen to it, and work in it. I do not want to enter into an argument about the consultations which have gone on with the staff, and so on; that is a matter for the B.B.C. What I want to discuss is the fact that there is at any rate some alarm among them, and that, so we understand, their morale is low.
  This document represents a complete change in priorities from what the B.B.C. has done in the past. In my view, the B.B.C. should go for programmes of quality—for creative and original work, whether in music, drama, poetry, speech making, or whatever it may be—and go for the interests of the minorities. I put those as the three major priorities for the B.B.C. in the public service field.
  Mr. John Mendelson: And leave everything else to the commercial organisations.
  Mr. Heath: I hope that the hon. Member will contain himself and listen to my arguments.
  If the B.B.C. concentrates on those priorities it will not be necessary for it to leave everything else to commercial organisations, but it can take account of what is provided by commercial organisations, instead of saying that no matter what happens it must do not only everything that the commercial organisations do but carry on the three other projects that I have emphasised.
  The B.B.C. has made it plain that it accepts competition. I am fully prepared to take it at its word, and to take it that it will accept competition in sound radio as well as in television. The argument, therefore, is not with the B.B.C.; it is with the Government themselves, who are opposed to any further competition in sound radio. Our Motion says that there will be a deterioration in quality. That will be so in respect of radio, unless these proposals are altered, and it is also true in television, especially in commercial television.
  I said that there had been a great change in B.B.C. priorities, and I want to examine this aspect in connection with

  1503
  the B.B.C.'s proposals which will lead to a deterioration in quality. The pamphlet. "The B.B.C. and the Arts" states:
  "The B.B.C. has long been recognised as the most powerful single influence in British musical life. Composers, orchestras, choirs, festivals and individual performers in this country look to it constantly for support and publicity, and in some cases would be virtually lost without the help that it is able to give."
  That is true. Those who go to the Festival Hall on Sunday or at any other time and see the hundreds of young people flocking there know that they are going there largely because of the work done by the B.B.C. in music in the last 25 years, combined with the work of schools and musical institutions. That statement is unchallengeable. Sir William Haley said:
  "Broadcasting must encourage the young, keep filled the pool of talent, and generally so arrange its patronage that it draws not only upon the masters of today but trains by use and experience the masters of tomorrow."
  Sir Hugh Greene said:
  "If we are not creators, we are nothing."
  I agree with every word. That is what I want to see brought about by the B.B.C.
  We must, therefore, consider the document "Broadcasting in the Seventies" and see to what extent the B.B.C. will match up to these objectives, so admirably set out in its pamphlet and by Sir William Haley and Sir Hugh Greene. The new proposals do not match up to these objectives. That is what is causing alarm and despondency among people both inside and outside the House.
  It is proposed that the regional programmes should end after a transitional period and that the regions should be divided into eight areas. This will mean that there will no longer be the opportunity for creative work in the regions to go on the air in the same way as it has in the past. The B.B.C. itself does not deny that there will be a reduction in that respect; it acknowledges that there will be. To the extent that it is not encouraging creative talent and putting it on the screen and on the air there will be a deterioration in quality.
  Radio 3—the music programme—is to be on V.H.F. only. We have heard that the B.B.C. may hold its hand on this. The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications himself announced these proposals
  1504
  in August and we should like to hear from one of the Ministers how many are now firm decisions and in respect of how many is it just a question of the B.B.C.'s holding its hand in the meantime to allow for consultations or until it can obtain further revenue.
  The fact that the B.B.C. could say that Radio 3 would be broadcast only on V.H.F. was a major blow, which showed that there must have been a complete transformation of B.B.C. thinking. Those of us who listen to serious music value above everything Radio 3, as do those who listen to new creative drama, because Radio 3 has been the one place that they knew they would get it, and they were immensely grateful for it. They are minorities, and they accept that. But it is the job of the B.B.C. to cater for minorities.
  Three orchestras are to be disbanded and the training orchestra is to go. The training orchestra is probably the greatest obligation that the B.B.C. has taken on outside its normal sphere of operations. Some of us who are concerned with the training colleges of music were disturbed to begin with because we found that our students were going off to join the B.B.C. training orchestra before they had finished their work at college or academy. This has now been righted.
  I should be sorry to see the training orchestra go, because it is a training ground for the major symphony orchestras —the five in London and the most prominent, the B.B.C's own orchestra. The cost this year has been £500,000, which is a small sum compared with the total sums used by the B.B.C. The decision that the three orchestras were to be disbanded came out of the blue. There is a case, particularly in Scotland and Wales, for the B.B.C. to say to the national orchestras, "We shall work our orchestra and your national orchestra together. You will then not have two orchestras which are constantly facing difficulties and uncertainties." The B.B.C. could commission performances on radio and television with contemporary music just as with classical music.
  There is an argument for saying that. There is no argument whatever for saying out of the blue, "These three orchestras are to go. Three others are held in a state of suspense and we shall

  1505
  abolish as much as we can." This indicates a style of thinking which was so alien to the corporation in the past that it disturbs us.
  There are to be more records, fewer live broadcasts on Radios 1 and 3, and a reduction in the time devoted to so-called minority programmes. It was the fact that the corporation could put forward this as a programme for the 1970s that in itself undermined confidence in the corporation's attitude and approach to its real work and priorities in the coming decade.
  On top of this the corporation said that it will add 14 new local radio stations. I respect the corporation's view that it wants to be in local radio because it thinks that the future of radio lies largely in small stations in cities and towns. The corporation may be right and it can cite American experience to a certain extent. However, I doubt whether in a country of our size the corporation is right.
  The important point is that under the corporation's arrangements its local radio stations can never make up the creative and original work—nor can the areas, as far as I understand the proposals for their staffing—which the regions do for the corporation at present.
  This is what immediately leads us to ask: has the corporation got its priorities wrong in saying that it will move out of regions and into areas and local stations, which will lower the quality of broadcasting and the opportunities for creative work by artistes, whether they are musical or dramatic? I put this to the House as fairly as I can, because this is what we mean by saying that these proposals, although we understand the corporation's line of thinking, will damage the quality we want to see.
  Then there is the related question of the financing of local radio. The Director-General has said that the B.B.C. would have got nothing if it had not accepted local radio commitments. This means, in other words, that the Government put it to the corporation that if it wanted further aid it had to accept immediately a greater expansion of local radio. As we see it, the corporation has got very little as a result of accepting local radio. It will get £5·6 million from the addi-
  1506
  tional licence, of which £5·2 million, in 1971, will go to local radio.
  The Minister for Posts and Telecommunications says that the corporation will be helped by the licence anti-evasion measures which are being taken. The Select Committee is very doubtful as to whether all this revenue will come from the anti-evasion measures. The Director-General says that the corporation will be in deficit by £7 million. Therefore, the Government appear to have forced at least this number of local stations on the corporation earlier than was necessary, but have not dealt with the basic financial problems of the corporation. As a result of this, the corporation will be in debt in 1971 and will pursue plans of this kind, adjusted to a greater or lesser degree, which will lead to a reduction in the standard of broadcasting. This is what we mean by our Motion.
  Dr. M. P. Winstanley: The right hon. Gentleman has predicted that the corporation will receive £5.6 million in April, 1971. Do I understand it to be a commitment on his part that, if the Tory Party is then in power, it will honour this promise to increase the licence fee at that date?
  Mr. Heath: I intend to deal with that question later in the general context of the corporation's financing. I was using the Minister's figures. My point is that the Government are not facing up to the corporation's financial problems and are not facing up to what is required to maintain the standard of programme that we want.
  I come now to the question of commercial radio stations. As the House will have seen from my general thesis that we can have a system of commercial and public service radio, I see no objection whatever to having commercial local radio stations. The corporation accepts this.
  What are the arguments put against it? They are, first, the old arguments which were levelled against commercial television, that it will lower the standards. Where has the real demand for local radio come from? Everybody knows that it sprang largely from the pirate stations. It was when those were abolished, under a European Convention to which we as a Government were a party, that a demand

  1507
  came from the localities to have their own local radio. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then let us differ about it.
  The corporation reacted by proposing its own pop-like music programmes. Most people will agree that they do not match up to what it was possible to do by pirate programmes, for the simple reason that the system and the outlook are different. There is nothing to be ashamed of in saying that.
  So, if the corporation has local radio stations, I see no reason why there should not be commercial radio stations as well. There is no reason at all why the corporation, just as it makes films and documentaries and exports them, should not supply new services to commercial radio if both sides wish it. There is no reason why the local Press should not have holdings in local radio in the same way as the national Press has holdings in commercial television. There is no reason why these complementary systems should not exist together in local radio without damaging each other, in exactly the same way as this is possible, in our system of television.
  We reserve our position on the question of the corporation's local stations, because they must be taken into account with the other programmes of the corporation and the extent to which they are meeting what I have outlined as their first priorities.
  Mr. Mayhew: The right hon. Gentleman concedes that commercial broadcasting does not cater for minorities. So why does he advocate a local radio setup which does not cater for minorities?
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is producing an unnecessary intellectual confusion. In a town or area of, say, 250,000 people there is every inspiration for a local radio station, whether commercial or B.B.C., to cater for the population, because in the commercial field it is a combat area where its viability depends. This is why it will look after that area of 250,000 people. If the hon. Gentleman would return to the original concept that the B.B.C. as a local station can cater for minorities—which it intends to do, anyway, so I am told—there can be a commercial station also catering for the area as a whole.
  Mr. Mayhew: That is not what the right hon. Gentleman said a few minutes ago.
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I said that, qua the B.B.C.'s local stations, we reserve our position for the future to see whether it is possible for the corporation to carry out its other priorities. This is what the House and the public must face up to if they want a public service television or radio arrangement.
  I want to deal next with the question of the programme companies, because this is another aspect of broadcasting as a whole, where standards are undoubtedly being depressed—not at the wish of the companies or of the authority, but by the financial burden placed upon them by the present Government recently. [Interruption.] The Tory Government introduced the levy in 1964. Like all these measures, if pushed too far it damages the institutions themselves. There is no doubt—the chairman of the I.T.A., formerly a very distinguished member of this Government, has said so in very plain language—that the position of many programme companies, particularly the smaller ones covering the different regions, is precarious. That is the plain fact. It is due to the additional burden of the levy placed on them.
  The position was made more difficult by the way in which I.T.A. handled the franchise on the last occasion. It undermined confidence. During my visits to Wales I have not found all that number of people rushing up to me and saying what a great improvement the present company is on its predecessor. I do not find people in Scotland rushing up to me to tell me how much better the present situation is as a result of the rearrangement of the shareholding. This has undermind confidence within the present programme companies and has caused them to ask themselves whether six years is a sufficient franchise in order to put in the necessary capital investment, with the rapidly changing camera techniques and the requirements of colour placed on them. This, then, is the damage which is being done as a result of taxation and the levy and too short a period for the franchise and the capital requirements which are inescapable.

  1509
  It has occurred to some that when the Television Act went through those who are now on the Government benches were bitterly opposed to it. It is reported that the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) said that Labour would like to abolish it. However, when they came to office they did not take this action, but accepted the situation. After all, it was 10 years after the Act was passed. There are some who think that the levy is being used as a means of dragging down the programme companies and commercial television and to put them out of business. I hope that the Government will repudiate that. I am prepared to accept that that is not their intention.
  Mr. John Mendelson: Why say it?
  Mr. Heath: Because it is undoubtedly the thought in the minds of many of those operating the companies.
  In that case, the Government must face the question of the burden of the levy, together with corporation tax and selective employment tax, on the finances of the programmes companies. The authority is well aware of it, and there will undoubtedly be a lowering of standards unless it is handled. This affects us in one particular way. I believe that the 10 o'clock programme of Independent Television News is one of the best half-hour programmes of news and current affairs which we can watch, or which exists in any Western country. When the finances of the programme companies are undermined, they are bound to say, "What reduction can we make in the contribution towards news for the 10 o'clock programme on Independent Television?". That is inescapable. This will be damaging, against their will, to the news and current affairs programmes of commercial television.
  There are some who say, "Why not centralise all the current affairs coverage and economise in that way?" This would lead to a lowering of regional coverage by companies like Granada and Tyne Tees. There would be another lowering of quality. So I do not want to see that happen. I want the programme companies to be in a sufficiently stable financial position to be able to go on giving full support, and indeed increased support if required, to Independent Television News.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Would the right hon. Gentleman address himself to two possibilities? The first concerns the application of the levy. Should not the levy be applied after taking into account programme costs instead of on the gross advertising revenue? The second possibility is the recommendation in the Pilkington Report that the authority and not the programme companies should receive the advertising revenue.
  Mr. Heath: The latter point was discussed when the Television Bill was going through the House. We felt that that would remove an incentive from the programme companies.
  On the first point, I have examined various proposals of this kind, and I am advised that the administration which would be required to deal with the problem in the manner suggested by the hon Gentleman, namely, by ascertaining programming costs before making calculations, would be so elaborate that it would not justify the change. It is much simpler to reduce the levy itself and deal with the problem in that way. This is the advice which I have received, and the best that I could get.
  Mr. George Brown: The right hon. Gentleman and I both like "News at Ten". I understood him to say that he has reason for believing that the companies would say to themselves, "Let us reduce what we spend elsewhere to enable the people who run 'News at Ten' to run it better." [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] In that case, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to repeat what he said. As I understood the right hon. Gentleman, he said that the companies should give more to "News at Ten" by taking some from the popular programmes.
  Mr. Heath: I said that when the finances of the programme companies are undermined, as they are, by a combination of factors—the levy, corporation tax, selective employment tax and the fact that in the present economic situation advertising has been reduced—inevitably they reach the point at which they are unable to make the contribution which they would wish to make to Independent Television News. This is a danger which we shall have to face in future unless

  1511
  their finances can be put on a more viable footing. I should like their finances to be put on such a basis that Independent Television News could have greater scope should it want it. That is my general approach to the question of the provision of news by the companies.
  Some hon. Members have said, "Should not we have a Select Committee to go into this matter?". There has been some comment in the Press that the Government may set up a Royal Commission. The charters do not expire until 1976. There can, therefore, be little justification for setting up a Royal Commission at this stage to go into the question of broadcasting and television, the programmes, the authority, the corporation, and so on. We would not have any sympathy with a proposal to set up a Royal Commission now when the charters are due for renewal in 1976, and we would not feel bound by it.
  There is, however, a deeper point. There is no problem in broadcasting and television which cannot be settled amicably and sensibly with the corporation and the authority by any Government. They can do this on their own. All the information is available. The decisions could be taken by the Government or they could be taken by us when we returned to office. But there is little justification for once again pulling it all up by the roots in order to have another good look at it. Think of the amount of time consumed in working out memoranda, passing them internally between departments, the amount of time which high executives and creative artists would have to devote to compiling evidence for a Royal Commission, which sits for two or three years.
  Everything would have to be reexamined. People's attention, energy, skill and creative efforts would be taken from television and radio and channelled into putting evidence before the Royal Commission. That happened with the Pilkington Report. It is unjustifiable now, because the decisions which require to be made can be made by a Government or by a Minister with the support of his colleagues without going through all this process. I do not believe that those in the corporation and the authority
  1512
  who deal with these matters want to go through it all again.
  I sum up by saying this. In view of the proposals discussed by the Minister and the Exchequer's attitude towards the levy, there will be a deterioration in broadcasting—in sound radio and in television on the commercial side and, to some extent, in television on the B.B.C. side. This is to be regretted and is against the wish of all of us in the House. The action which the Minister has announced will not solve the B.B.C.'s financial problems.
  I was asked whether we are committed to the licence. Obviously, we are not committed to financial measures taken by this Government. We are committed to ensuring that the B.B.C.'s finances are put on a sound footing, and I do not see how that can be done except by an increase in the licence. I say that quite frankly. I wish that the Government, who announced that they will put up the licence in April, 1971, had faced realities and said, "We shall put it up now because it is necessary to deal with the B.B.C.'s finances". But I accept that the money for a public service broadcasting system must be provided by the licence. At the same time, I emphasise that a proper balance should be kept between commercial television and the opportunities given to commercial radio. This, I know, is acceptable to the corporation and ought to be acceptable to this House.
  As the Government have so far failed to solve the problems of the corporation or of the authority we must vote against the Government tonight. Most of all we regret the House not having been given the opportunity, which it ought to have, to express its own view about the deterioration in quality which we all fear during this coming decade.
  4.30 p.m.
  The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. John Stonehouse): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "conscious of the contribution made by the British Broadcasting Corporation as a public service to the development of broadcasting in this country, rejects the Opposition's proposals for private enterprise commercial local radio stations."

  1513
  Last time the House debated broadcasting, over four months ago, I said at the end that the debate on broadcasting would go on. That has been the case, because there can be no final conclusion to an important subject like this even when we have reached the stage of some decisions being made. It is quite obvious that the dialogue between the broadcasting authorities and the public will go on. Indeed, this is one of the healthy aspects of our society, that the broadcasting authorities do take into account views expressed outside Broadcasting House and the programme companies, and, as a result, we have the best broadcasting service in the world.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) referred to the prospects of a Royal Commission. I must admit that I have been considering whether the debate should not be widened in that way. I have not reached any conclusion about this, but I think it right to inform the House that I have been considering the prospects of some commission or committee of inquiry into the long-term future of broacasting after 1976, when the franchise of the I.T.A. and the Charter of the B.B.C. expire, because there will be mammoth implications to be considered, and I think it important that those considerations should be borne in mind well before the time of that expiration.
  It is not only a question of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. themselves. It is a question of the new, exciting technologies now being invented which will be available to us in the late 'seventies and certainly in the next decade, and which will open up an explosion in communications. It will be possible by a small wire or through microwave transmission for communication of 100 channels or more to go into every home in Britain. This will give a new opportunity for communications that will put the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. into a real dilemma. We also have the invention of the cassette, which is also feasible, which can record and play back programmes and will soon be available to the ordinary viewer so that he can build up a library of his favourite programmes and play them at times which suit him.
  The TV set will then certainly become the best teaching machine there is. But it is not only that. The cassette idea can be developed, and there can be a com-
  1514
  puterised library of the world's best performances which will be available to any individual viewer simply by dialling through on one of the communication links I have referred to. These are opportunities which the new commission or inquiry, which we have to consider, will itself have to consider for the future because they will transform the opportunities of communications in Britain, and in many ways this inquiry will be more important than Pilkington.
  As the House knows, I announced in August the results of our consideration of the various proposals which had been put to us by the B.B.C. In July, when we had our last debate, I said that I would not be prepared—
  Mr. John Mendelson: On the point of the inquiry, surely the demand which has come from the Campaign for Better Broadcasting, supported by some hon. Members on both sides, is not for an inquiry into what will happen after 1976 but for an immediate inquiry before the proposals now advanced by the B.B.C. are ever applied in practice.
  Mr. Stonehouse: I have, of course, considered this request, but I do not think that it is appropriate. It is for the board of the B.B.C. to decide what it does in terms of the budget available to it, and I certainly do not think that it would be appropriate to have a long-running commission or committee of inquiry which would hold up the B.B.C. from going ahead with its plans, particularly —and this is the point I want to come to—particulary as, after the debate we held in this House in July, the B.B.C. agreed quite firmly to amend the proposals it had brought before us.
  The Leader of the Opposition himself referred to the original proposals. Perhaps he is not aware that the B.B.C, as a result of the concern which was expressed on this side of the House, and by myself in particular, and also on that side of the House, about the future of the orchestras, has agreed to maintain the employment of the musicians. The orchestras to which he has been referring will be retained. This was one of the arrangements I came to with the B.B.C, and I am very grateful to the corporation for responding—
  Sir John Rodgers: Due to pressure.
  Mr. Stonehouse: —to the views expressed both in this House and outside.
  I announced in July that the local radio station experiment had been a success, that 40 stations would be established, that the B.B.C. would protect the position of the musicians and that it would ensure that Radio 3 continued on the medium wave as well as v.h.f.
  The question arose how to provide the money required by the B.B.C. to undertake these responsibilities as well as all its other responsibilities. We decided on this side that the appropriate thing to do would be to increase the combined licence fee from April, 1971, by 10s. and to abolish the sound-only fee at the same time, so producing a net increase to the B.B.C.'s income of some £5½ million a year.
  This, we think, is quite sufficient to satisfy the B.B.C.'s requirements during the next few years and there is no question of the B.B.C. plans in "Broadcasting in the Seventies" being cut down because the corporation is short of money. What it has said is that most of the proposals it put forward for changing the form and structure of broadcasting would have been put forward any way, irrespective of the cash consideration.
  Mr. John Mendelson: This is the first time that we have heard that.
  Mr. Stonehouse: I know that the B.B.C. says that by 1974 the deficit would have accumulated to about £7 million, but let us get this sum into proportion. It is out of a total income, over five years to that date, of £525 million. So it is 1½ per cent. It is a very small amount which will be easily extinguished by the increase in the colour T.V. set sales which are now beginning to boom and also by the success of the counter-evasion campaign which I am conducting and about which I want to report to the House in a few minutes.
  One aspect of the announcement I made in the summer which, I think, met with general approval was, the abolition of the sound-only fee. It is, in fact, true that the number of sound-only fees has dropped from 11·8 million in 1950 to only 1½ million today, but that 1½ million households who still do not have T.V. sets includes people who are old and who are poor. I think that it is generally welcome that the sound-only fee, in April, 1971, is being abolished.
  1516
  I have given consideration to what should be done in the run-down during the last year to that date, and I have decided that there should be a pro forma reduction month by month so that, for instance, a person paying the fee in September or October of next year will not have to pay for the full year.
  Sir J. Rodgers: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but he has, in fact, answered my question. I wanted the clarification that he has made that if one only has a car radio one will not in future have to pay any fee whatsoever, and that that goes for old folk, too.
  Mr. Stonehouse: That is true.
  We are satisfied that the B.B.C. has sufficient finance and the B.B.C. is satisfied with the arrangement to which we have come with it. When the right hon. Gentleman complains about this Administration failing to give the B.B.C. the finance it requires, I remind him that in this year the B.B.C. income is no less than £93 million. In the last year of a Conservative Administration that income was £47 million. So the income of the B.B.C. is double what it was five years ago.
  Further, whereas the Conservative Government ran away from the problem of increasing the fee, we have stood up to it. During 13 years the Tories authorised only two increases in fees, whereas during the five years of our responsibility we have authorised three increases. It lies ill in the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman to accuse this Government of denying money to the B.B.C. The corporation's income has been going up at a faster rate under us than it did under the Tories, and we have had the courage to announce an increase in fee which right hon. Gentlemen opposite were not prepared to do. Even though they had authorised the B.B.C. to go ahead with B.B.C. 2, they did not provide it with the money to do it.
  Mr. Paul Bryan: We can explode that balloon with a very big bang. The Estimates Committee—which, presumably, is an independent Committee—tells us that the B.B.C. finances have been under pressure only since 1962. Therefore, they were presumably under pressure for two years of our Administration, but they have since been under

  1517
  pressure for many years—for as many years as this Government have been in office.
  Mr. Stonehouse: The facts stand up for themselves. I submit that we have provided the B.B.C. with more than enough finance to do the job it has to do, and we have arranged this increase in the fee from April, 1971, which will help the B.B.C. to go on with the job of developing its programmes.
  That brings me immediately to the details of the announcement I made in August. Anyone analysing that announcement will see that it runs directly counter to the right hon. Gentleman's Motion, because if that announcement meant anything it is that the quality of broadcasting will be maintained and improved in the future and will not deteriorate.
  What I announced in August was that the radio system will be improved by the establishment of 40 local radio stations. Twenty of these are already in existence or have been announced, and they will cover about 70 per cent. of the population of England. The other 20 will be set up in Scotland and Wales as well as England, and about 90 per cent. of the population in England will then be able to receive these programmes.
  This service will be set up in Wales as well, but I am not quite sure off the cuff what percentage of the population will be reached. It depends on where the stations are established. There is an undoubted case—
  Mrs. Renée Short: My right hon. Friend has just said that there is no difficulty about the B.B.C. having enough money. He has also said that by 1974 we shall have 40 additional local radio stations. Will he, therefore, tell the House how much money the B.B.C. is to have with which to run each of these local radio stations so that we can judge whether or not the corporation will be short of money?
  Mr. Stonehouse: The cost of each station will be about £60,000 or so to establish, and up to £100,000 a year in expenses.
  The local radio experiment was an undoubted success. It showed that people in the communities in which it was carried out were more willing to hear it, even on V.H.F. than they were some of the other
  1518
  sound programmes. It has given an opportunity for community participation. Local organisations have had access to an entirely new medium of communication, and many community activities have been encouraged and developed as a result.
  Mr. Peter M. Jackson: My right hon. Friend having said that, would he not agree that these local radio stations are being run on the cheap? I draw attention to the fact, and I am sure that he will not dispute this, that the local radio stations will cost about £16 an hour—that is all they are budget-ting for—as compared with what I understand to be a standard £622 per hour on the Third. That indicates the quality of broadcasting which one can expect from local radio stations.
  Mr. Stonehouse: As these stations are intended to serve very much smaller communities than do the large networks it is appropriate that the cost should be less. I do not believe that they are being run on the cheap at all: I do not accept that suggestion in any way.
  What I announced in Angust about the future of musicians in B.B.C. employ also showed that the quality of broadcasting was to be maintained and, indeed, improved, so that the announcement was directly counter to what is now being put to the House by the party opposite. We had a reaffirmation of the quality of broadcasting, which will be done on sensible and realistic and, I believe, on socially conscious lines.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Can the Minister help the House on this issue? If he has such confidence that standards are to be maintained under the proposals of which he is now speaking does he not think that the House is entitled to a straight vote on the issue tonight?
  Mr. Stonehouse: I shall come in a moment to the terms of the original Motion. It is a very curious Motion, indeed, having in mind the views held on the other side. But I should say that if hon. Members want to support the original Motion the best thing they can do is to vote against the Amendment. It is as straight forward as that—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There is nothing new in this particular form of Amendment, so I am advised.

  1519
  The programme I announced in the summer for the local radio stations was not sudden; it came after a lot of consideration. We were very glad that the experiment had turned out to be a success. There was only one aspect in which it was not a success and that was the securing of a guarantee of income from the municipalities concerned with the experiment. I very much regretted that there was not some way in which finance could be obtained from that source. I considered the prospects of a mandatory rate, but had to turn it down because of the mass of problems involved when a broadcasting station emits to the territories of several authorities. It may be, however, that a minor part of the future income required for the extension of broadcasting activities of these particular stations can be obtained from this source after the Maud provisions have been considered, debated and brought into effect.
  We rejected the idea of commercialisation of local radio because we believe that all experience in other countries demonstrates that it does not provide the local community service that we feel ought to be provided. The experience in the United States of America has been absolutely outstanding in this direction. Every one who visits America agrees that commercial broadcasting there is ghastly. We have had a visit this year from one of the seven Commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission, who said
  "… all of our radio is operated on a profit-maximising basis, which means that you put absolutely as little money as possible into the programming."
  He added:
  "so you—in the United Kingdom—avoid that problem."
  All I ask is that we continue to avoid it, because we think that if we set up commercial radio what we do is to establish another product to be sold, and the product is not community participation but good advertising time. The advertisers have to pay for it. They have to be sold the idea that there are so many members of the public anxious to hear a particular programme.
  The people who run Radio Luxembourg have their fingers on the subject when they say, quite honestly, "We are after the 'teeners' and the housewives." They have said that from time to time.
  1520
  They are not ashamed to say that they are after the "teeners" and the housewives and a particular group who have money to spend, but this community broadcasting service which we have allowed the B.B.C. to establish will not only serve teenagers and housewives, but old-age pensioners, local clubs and organisations which may not have money to spend. They will not have a commercial approach to broadcasting; its responsibility will be to the community in which it resides.
  I am very proud of the announcement made in August (1) because it showed that the B.B.C. was willing to respond to the announcements and ideas expressed outside Broadcasting House and (2) because we have been able to get going on realistic financial terms a radio development that will help our communities in Britain, in London, in the towns and cities of Wales and Scotland as well, to develop. I should have thought the whole House would have been delighted about that.
  Sir J. Rodgers: I apologise for making two interventions in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but the point he has made is of such importance that I should like to intervene on it while I have it in mind. Does he recall that hon. Members opposite used exactly the argument he has advanced when they opposed the creation of I.T.A—
  Mr. W. A. Wilkins: And they were right.
  Sir J. Rodgers: And now they say they were right, but they will not abolish it and Lord Aylestone—
  Mr. James Dickens: On a point of order. Is it not a long established custom of this House that hon. Members should declare a clear commercial interest in any matter which is under debate in which they participate? Should not the hon. Member for Seven-oaks (Sir J. Rodgers) do so now?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): It is the general practice.
  Sir J. Rodgers: I do not know what my interest is in this matter since there is no commercial radio, and that is what we are talking about. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Director-General of the B.B.C. said that he is

  1521
  not afraid of, indeed he would welcome, commercial competition in the local sphere?
  Mr. Stonehouse: The Director-General of the B.B.C. did not say that he welcomed competition; he said that if the Government decided that there should be commercial broadcasting the B.B.C. would be in a position to compete with it. I think that is fair enough.
  I want to go on to the counter-evasion campaign because the Leader of the Opposition in his speech poured cold water on it. He said that it would not succeed, and he did not expect very much from it.
  Mr. Heath: I said that a Select Committee of this House did not expect much from it from the figures which the right hon. Gentleman produced.
  Mr. Stonehouse: The right hon. Gentleman quoted that with some approval.
  Mr. Heath: Would he not quote with approval what a Select Committee of this House has said?
  Mr. Stonehouse: I do not agree, because the facts show that the counter-evasion campaign is beginning to succeed. For the right hon. Gentleman now to take an interest in evaders is extraordinary because he was a member of an Administration which did not even know how many there were. His Government were not concerned with the problem in 1962, 1963 or 1964. They did not do anything about it. It was left to our Administration to deal with this. One of my predecessors introduced the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1967, which enabled us to obtain the names of all those hiring or buying T.V. sets from dealers. This gives us a wonderful weapon to attack evasion. Since 1967 the number of evaders has dropped by 1 million, which is a sizeable performance. The percentage of evaders has been reduced by over 5 per cent. of those who have television sets, from 12 per cent. to 7 per cent. This is a remarkable achievement.
  I started just before October a new campaign to reduce evasion. I am glad to be able to tell the House that in the Metropolis, where we began this campaign, in the first week the number of television licences taken out for mono-
  1522
  chrome sets went up by 207 per cent. In the next week it went up by nearly 200 per cent. In the whole month of October over the whole of the United Kingdom the number of new fees paid, in addition to old ones, was 122,000— more than double what it was in October of the year before. I think we can claim that we are beginning to make big inroads into the vexatious problem of evasion. I believe this will also make a very substantial contribution to the financing of the B.B.C.
  I recognise that there has been a lot of criticism of the B.B.C.'s proposals, particularly from among the staff and from those who represent them, including my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) whom I am glad to see in his place this afternoon. Now that the B.B.C. has gone into some detail in explaining what its programmes will be, I believe that a lot of the opposition will die down. I have the staff journal of the B.B.C. here. It includes a statement by Mr. Gerry Mansell, the Controller of Radio Programmes. He says that there is a
  "myth (that) … B.B.C. radio is 'abandoning mixed for generic broadcasting.' If this is true then it happened quite a number of years ago with the creation of the Music Programme—and not many of the one million people who listen to it at some point every day would agree that that was an undesirable development. The result of that development was that in day time Radio 4 has become almost entirely a speech network. But that doesn't make it any the less mixed in character —no less mixed than are the tastes of vast numbers of people who like in turn to be moved, amused, challenged, and informed at many levels and right across the range of human experience. The network changes that are being planned aim to extend this pattern to the evening to the extent that this is possible without sacrificing some of the unique contributions made by the Third Programme in the area of Drama and the discussion of ideas. So, even in the evening, Radio 3 and Radio 4 will remain mixed programmes, offering as much mental stimulus and as many opportunities for the raising and widening of mental horizons as in the past but in a different setting and, it is hoped, to larger audiences."
  There is nothing there about
  "deterioration of the quality of broadcasting".
  What these plans are designed to do is to improve the quality of broadcasting, to make the quality programmes available to a wider audience. We are anxious that the B.B.C. should succeed in this escape from the elitism of the Third Programme and should manage to get itself

  1523
  across to the wider audience, of which Radio 4 in particular is an example. Mr. Mansell points out that on Radio 3
  "there will still be two major play spots each week which will be used both for staging world classics at full length and for new writing. Much of the Third's present output of drama, features, documentaries and discussions will move to Radio 4, but there will still be some three hours a week, in addition to the air-time devoted to Drama, in which Radio 3 can continue to play its part in reflecting new thinking, new ideas …"
  Mr. Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that particular point?
  Mr. Stonehouse: That does not suggest that the imaginative and creative part of radio broadcasting through the B.B.C. will decay. On the contrary, it suggests that it will be given new opportunities for expression. I am certain that, once the staff have had an opportunity of reading and examining these assurances, and once right hon. and hon. Members have read and considered them, their objections to the B.B.C.'s plans will decline.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Does not my right hon. Friend recognise that what Mr. Mansell is giving there is an able defence of the B.B.C.'s decisions? Although, by that playing with words, Mr. Mansell may have convinced my right hon. Friend, he has not convinced many other people.
  Mr. Stonehouse: He is not playing with words at all. If he gives an assurance that there will still be two major play spots each week on Radio 3, surely that is a clear assurance to the members of Equity that they will have room for employment.
  Mr. Bryan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the employees of the B.B.C. have considered those very points and that very document and they have circularised us with their document entitled, "Memorandum on 'Broadcasting in the Seventies' from B.B.C. Midland Region Staff"? They have received absolutely no comfort at all, or very little.
  Mr. Stonehouse: If he catches the eye of the Chair, the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make those points during the debate. For my part, I am prepared to accept the assurances of the board of the B.B.C. that it is not anxious
  1524
  for the quality of broadcasting to be diminished in any way.
  Mr. Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Stonehouse: The board of the B.B.C. has been appointed from among men of high repute and character. I believe that we can accept the assurances which we have from them in this official release which they have put out.
  The right hon. Gentleman made great play of regional broadcasting. Again, we are given an assurance by Mr. Mansell that the regional centres will not be deprived of the opportunity to make a creative contribution to the networks. There will be plenty of chance for them and sums of money available to them to initiate experiments. There is, therefore, no case to be made out against these proposals on that ground.
  The same applies to television. The B.B.C. is making great investment in television outside the Metropolis. The area network which will be established to replace the regions will produce about 400 programmes, as compared with the 150 so-called opt-out programmes which the regions are producing per year now. It does not sound as though activity in the regions will be diminished. On the contrary, it will be increased.
  In the same document, talking about the local radio experiment, Mr. Ian Trethowan makes a point about standards—and this answers, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson)—
  "Lowering standards? This is really rather snobbish, and pays no respect to the enthusiasm and idealism of the local staffs. No one will be so complacent as to say there is no room for improvement in any corner of the B.B.C, and, of course, the style of a local station will be very different from a national network. So it should be: they are providing very different services. But if by 'standards' is meant those qualities of decency and integrity which we regard as fundamental in the B.B.C, then the local stations can fully hold their own."
  Hon. Members: What about quality?
  Mr. Stonehouse: The B.B.C.'s document makes the point—I think it worth repeating—that the amount of public interest in its proposals has been small. Fewer than 1,000 people have written to the Corporation about the proposals, and my Department has received about

  1525
  250 letters. In fact, there have been fewer complaining about this set of proposals than complained about the demise of "The Dales".
  I have had opportunity to see a speech made by the Director-General of the B.B.C. in Cardiff last Monday. He made a powerful case for the Corporation's plans and showed that the criticism of them was not justified. Referring to sound broadcasting, he said:
  "… leaving music aside, each of the three regions offers about 400 hours of programmes to the networks every year. What will happen in the future? The level of programmes offered by the regions to the radio networks will continue on roughly the same level".
  That is an assurance from the Director-General of the B.B.C. as late as last Monday. It demolishes the case of those who have argued that these changes will mean a substantially smaller contribution from the regions to the network. The Director-General gives the example of a local station such as Birmingham which will offer 1,250 hours a year consisting mainly of news and current affairs, which will actually treble the amount of news and current affairs available in that part of the country. There could be no complaint about that.
  As regards television investment, he points out that in Manchester the B.B.C. is spending £5 million, in Birmingham about £7 million—in fact, it is spending more outside the Metropolis than in it. It is even to close a studio in London to make room for facilities for production outside the Metropolis. He goes on to say:
  "This demonstrates why we are so anxious to make sure that these production facilities"—
  those outside the Metropolis—
  "will be used to the full—even to the extent of making us close one of the older television studios in London to bring this about. The plain fact is that we cannot afford to invest on this scale and not get a reasonable return on our money. There was a time when the B.B.C. could afford to invest in the possibility that talent might develop in a regional centre, and to provide production facilities on this hypothetical basis. We cannot now afford to take these gambles. We must invest in certainty. That certainty is represented by planned activity producing for the national networks. If necessary, that planned activity will have to be initiated from London, but what we would like is to see much of the initiative coming from the regional production centres themselves. As I have said, that is one
  1526
  of the responsibilities of the new Controller of English Regions—to ensure that this initiative develops."
  The Director General of the B.B.C. is thus putting his flag to the mast of regionalism. He wants creative ability and talent in the regions to be developed. I believe that, once this becomes clear to those who have been concerned in the various campaigns which have been set up on this issue, there will be far less concern than there is today.
  Mr. Stratton Mills Mr. Stratton Mills (Belfast, North) rose—
  Mr. Stonehouse: I shall not give way now, I really must get on.
  The right hon. Gentleman has put down a Motion in curious terms. I shall come back to that in a moment. It does not lie with him to attack us for seeking, as, apparently, he suggests, to reduce the future quality of broadcasting. Under this Administration the quality and range of broadcasting are better than they have ever been before. I have the number of television broadcasting hours. The actual broadcasting hours in 1963–64 were 3,555. In 1968–69 they were 6,486, a very substantial increase, partly due to B.B.C.2 having been developed, which I admit was a decision of the outgoing Administration, but for which they made no financial provision. The hours of sound broadcasting have been increased from 21,000 to 29,000 in the two years which I am now comparing.
  It can be suggested that it is not the hours with which we are concerned, that it is the quality. That is exactly right. I, too, am concerned about that. When we look at the serious music output, for instance, about which many hon. Members are concerned, the output in 1963–64 was 3,400 hours, and in 1968–69 5,200 hours, a very substantial increase.
  The radio news and current affairs programmes increased from 5,800 to 7,100. The television news and current affairs programmes on the B.B.C. increased from 700 to 1,200. Drama output increased from 1,100 to 1,600 on sound and from 380 to 550 on television in this last year.
  This all demonstrates that it is not only the hours of broadcasting that have been extended, that it is also the quality of broadcasting that has been improved,

  1527
  and the Government wants this improvement to continue. Indeed, we are determined that it should go on. It certainly does not come well from right hon. and hon. Members opposite who have a much more miserable performance than we on this side of the House, to suggest that it is our intention to reduce the quality of broadcasting.
  The same is virtually true of I.T.V. I have the details of the first quarter of this year compared with the first quarter of 1964. The amount of broadcasting in 13 weeks has gone up from 63 hours to 77 hours—an increase of more than 20 per cent. The entertainment and music in this period as a percentage has gone up from 9 per cent. to 12 per cent. The number of feature films—the old films—has gone down from 18 per cent. to 11 per cent., and plays, dramas and serials have increased from 16 per cent. to 19 per cent. There is nothing in those figures to indicate that the quality of broadcasting is going down.
  The right hon. Gentleman made great play about the position of the independent television companies and the ways in which they are being affected by the decisions which my right hon. Friend announced during this year. I know that some of them are being affected, and I am waiting for the detailed figures from I.T.A. so that I can examine them. Within a few weeks I shall be discussing with Lord Aylestone the significance of these results.
  I gave an assurance, a quite unprecedented assurance, at the end of the debate when the House considered this subject. I said that if the figures showed that the programme companies' results were substantially worse than had been expected, we would consider the question very seriously indeed. I believe that no such assurance has been given before. I am prepared to honour that assurance to give this matter very close consideration because it is our anxiety that the programme companies' health and viability over the long term should not be too gravely impaired.
  The figures with which we were concerned—the last available financial results —are rather outstanding. There is one company which had a return before tax of 66 per cent. There is another one in the last financial year for which I have
  1528
  the figures in front of me; it had a return of 57 per cent.; another one of 42 per cent., and another of 60 per cent. Nobody can suggest, in the light of these figures, that the programme companies were exactly starving. When my right hon. Friend made his decision it was on the basis of these figures. If in the light of experience they turn out to have been wrong, we are prepared to consider the position.
  There is another thing that I want to make absolutely clear. The right hon. Gentleman made great play of the fact that because the programme companies are going to be hard up, the quality of programmes will be reduced. That is absolutely untrue and I am glad to be in a position to deny it. The managing directors of all the programme companies, when they came to discuss this question with me, gave me the clear and unequivocal assurance that on no account would the quality of programmes put out on independent television—this includes the position of I.T.N.—be affected as a result of these developments.
  Why did the right hon. Gentleman put down the Motion in the terms that we have before us today? I believe it is because he did not have the courage to bring forward a Motion which clearly expressed the views of his side of the House, of his shadow Minister and of himself, on commercial broadcasting. I believe that if they were to bring forward such a Motion it would reveal a distinctive split on their side of the House. The right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), for instance, in a noteworthy contribution to the July debate, made his position clear. I believe that there are many right hon. and hon. Members opposite who are against commercial broadcasting and who would not be able to bring themselves to vote for a Tory Motion advocating the setting-up of commercial broadcasting in Great Britain.
  Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman, given this golden opportunity of a Supply Day debate on broadcasting, ran away from the real issue that the country is discussing: should the local radio business be run by the B.B.C. or by local commercial firms in one form or another? That is the real issue, and the right hon. Gentleman has behaved in a most hypocritical fashion in regard to it. The only conclusion one can come to is that

  1529
  he is a funk. He has failed to face the issue because he does not have the courage of the support of his own side of the House.
  The hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) made a speech at the Tory Party Conference when he made the position a little clearer. He said:
  "In any case, we think it is right to break the B.B.C. monopoly in radio, as we did in television"—
  note his words—
  "as a start by introducing local commercial radio."
  That is the official policy of the Conservative Party.
  That is their policy, that they intend to break the B.B.C. sound monopoly, first by introducing commercial radio to undermine the B.B.C, and gradually extending it to pop music programmes to give the pirates a status; all the chaps who were running the pirate programmes will be encouraged to join the B.B.C. stations—
  Mr. Heath: What is the difference in having pop music on the B.B.C. Radio 1 network?
  Mr. Storehouse: I am suggesting that we should get the issue clear. I have made clear my position on commercialism. I think this side of the House is almost if not completely unanimously opposed to commercial broadcasting on sound because it would reduce standards considerably if we were to have commercial sound broadcasting. That is why we are against it. We know our position. What we want to get clear is the position of the Opposition. We want to know, if they really believe in this stuff, why they have not brought before the House a Motion enabling us to have a proper debate on that proposal so that they could test the views of hon. Members on their own side of the House.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Howden will seek an opportunity in the debate to deny a very disturbing report in yesterday's Sheffield Morning Telegraph with the headline:
  "Scrapheap threat to local radio. We hold no responsibility for jobs future—Bryan"
  In this article the broadcasting correspondent is reporting the shadow spokesmen on broadcasting as saying that the radio stations of the B.B.C.
  1530
  "might not fit in with our plans. It is against our policy for the B.B.C. to run local broadcasting."
  Then comes what sounds very much like a threat. He
  "warned that anyone who went into local radio now did so 'at their own risk'."
  Does this mean that the Corporation's opportunity to run these programmes, should the Tories win the election, which they will not, will be withdrawn? We must have clarification of this, because particularly in this area this report must have caused great concern among the dedicated staff who have served well and who are now anxious to go ahead and do a good job.
  Lying at the basis of this debate and our approach to broadcasting is the difference in philosophy between the two sides of the House. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has strong views about culture, but he is anxious to give way to his right hon. and hon. Friends who support the commercial lobby. He is also anxious to give way to the many interested commercial businessmen in the country who are anxious to get their money into this gravy boat of commercialism.
  The real distinction between us was revealed by a former Conservative Postmaster-General who went through all this before. We on this side believe in the public service concept and in the wonderful job that the corporation has done and is doing. We believe that it must be given an opportunity to go ahead. We are against the dead hand of commercialism. The Tories are anxious to introduce the lower standards which commercialism in sound broadcasting will bring.
  The former Postmaster-General said this about discussions he had with his colleagues at the country home of the then Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Macmillan:
  "I did not enjoy that Sunday. I felt that some of my colleagues were out of touch with reality. With one or two honourable exceptions, whom I shall not name, most of them seemed obsessed by material values. Of course these are very important but they are not all important. I felt then that they did not understand that the younger voters were deserting the Conservative Party because it was so preoccupied with materialism, with easy money, with big business, to the exclusion of what, for want of a better word, I will call idealism. One or two of us said

  1531
  so, but we might have been speaking a foreign language."
  I believe that those words of a former Conservative Postmaster-General sum up the Conservative Party's approach to commercialism in sound broadcasting. This is why we on this side will support the Amendment and oppose the Motion.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): In view of the very large number of hon. Members wishing to speak, I appeal to hon. Members to keep their speeches brief.
  5.25 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Noble: Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I shall try to obey your precept I will say to the Minister only that he can look forward tomorrow to having a glass of beer with Mr. Mansell, because, just as nobody will believe a word that Mr. Mansell says, so nobody who listened to the Minister can be in the least impressed.
  Like the Minister, I accept that the B.B.C. is a public service and that in many ways it has done a great deal for broadcasting. I shall direct my short contribution to a theme which is of great importance in my part of the world and in most country areas. When the Minister made his statement last week I asked him if he would explain to me how I was to tell my constituents that the B.B.C. was to spend all this extra money on local radio stations when there was no money available for them. Within the context of question and answer, I could not pursue the matter.
  The House should understand the situation in large parts of the West Coast of Scotland and in many other parts of Britain. The country is by nature difficult for broadcasting. Let no one make any apology for that. There are high hills and deep valleys and it is not easy to serve the area adequately.
  I am unable to praise the B.B.C's television service any more than I can praise I.T.A.s, because I can receive neither. That is a natural state of affairs in my part of the world. We live in comparatively small and scattered communities. We are not enormously rich. Most people cannot afford the great expense of erecting special poles on the hill with long leads down to one or two houses in order,
  1532
  not to improve quality, but to get any reception.
  For centuries there has been a high emigration rate from our part of the world. This is a disgrace to the whole area. Many of us, as private individuals or as part of private enterprise, have struggled for years in an effort to correct this. It is right that our efforts should be supported. I have mentioned in the House before the paradox in the whole question of communications that, if it is made easy for people to leave areas, they will stay. This concept applies just as much to television, radio and the telephone as it does to good roads, good piers, and airfields. If the outside world is brought into scattered communities, the inhabitants feel part of the world and do not feel so isolated Then they stay.
  In our area we have exactly the same problems as those that exist in the rest of the country. We have a high proportion of old people. We have a certain number of sick. We probably have a higher than average number of disabled, because many people went from these areas to fight in the wars and were injured.
  We have infinitely fewer means of entertainment in the evening than are available in cities. We do not have cinemas, bingo halls or the other forms of entertainment which apparently are so highly regarded in more populous places. Whatever one's personal view may be of the merit of such forms of entertainment, the general public wants them.
  In the remoter areas we must provide sufficient education and entertainment and all the things which the B.B.C. and the independent companies can provide if the population is to be retained. We have splendid ceilidhs and all sorts of entertainment. Village halls are booked practically every night for them. But they are often three or four miles from the cottages, and people without cars— the old, the sick and the disabled—cannot enjoy the entertainment.
  Hon. Members representing the Highland area and myself bombarded the Postmaster-General, in the days when he wore that hat, the B.B.C, the television companies and the Highlands and Islands Development Board with this problem. On every occasion I was met with courtesy and great sympathy was expressed.

  1533
  But what it boiled down to was, "We are very sorry. There is no money to help. It is expensive to give these people the service that they need." Therefore, not unnaturally, we switched the form of attack last year. We said to the Postmaster-General, as he then was, "If it is true that there is no money to provide us with a proper service, and if it is right that people who are lucky enough to get half a service"—and that is what it amounts to because during part of the year some people cannot get a service at all and many thousands of people have no service—"can have nothing done for them, should not they pay a smaller tax?".
  There should be a differential. People who receive services should pay a higher rate, and people who get no service should pay nothing. I know the difficulties. I did not expect this line of attack to work. But it was a fair question to ask, and the answer which we received plainly was "no".
  Last week, the situation again changed. The Minister announced that over the next few years £5½ million or thereabouts of extra money would be spent by the B.B.C. on providing local radio in 40 major cities. Speaking on behalf of, not only my constituency, but many others, I must ask the House to give us justice. Why should people who have no service or, at best, a very poor service be once again last in the queue? The Minister talked about the wonderful new means of broadcasting that we would have in the 1970s and 1980s and said that by the provision of a small line every house would be able to receive a service. We do not believe it. Many houses in my constituency have no electricity. Vast numbers of houses have no telephones. It is time that the House and the Government gave priority where it is due.
  The B.B.C, backed by the Government of the day—and I am not being party political—thought that Radio Scotland and Radio Caroline should be suppressed. By pure chance—and I do not understand why—Radio Caroline was the only audible station in a large part of my constituency. Radio Scotland was appreciated by a vast number of people who could not get anything else. I do not care whether the new B.B.C. pop music programme is better or worse. The fact
  1534
  is that it cannot be heard. This is an absurd situation.
  The B.B.C. decided, of its own volition, to provide a new channel and later to produce colour programmes on it. What use is that to the huge area which I have in mind? People in it will not get colour television programmes for years. The Government and the B.B.C. are getting their priorities seriously wrong.
  At this point we in my area revolt. We are not prepared to take it any longer. Jam tomorrow may be all right for our great grandchildren, but the wonderful developments of which we have heard will not come about in our lifetime. I ask the House, by its vote, clearly to indicate that the Government's priorities are wrong.
  The Minister of Technology asked some of us to meet him to discuss the route over which Concorde is to be tested. I gratefully accepted his invitation. We were given a great deal of confidential information. It was clearly arguable and right that the route of this wonderful new plane should be up the West Coast of Scotland, practically slap through the middle of my constituency and many others. I accept that this is right if it is best in the interests of the development of the aircraft and for the safety of the crew who will fly it.
  I assured the Minister that I would do everything that I could to help him if this is the route which is finally chosen. The reason for this choice is that this area is the least populated in the country. As always, we are prepared to accept our share of the risk in something which the country needs. But we are not prepared to see our country depopulated by wrong priorities and stupid action by the Government and the B.B.C.
  5.36 p.m.
  Mr. Christopher Mayhew: Strong feeling has been expressed on both sides of the House that the cultural standards of the B.B.C. must be maintained and that they are threatened by the new plans of the B.B.C. I agree with both points. I was not wholly convinced by the defence of the Minister. But we must also blame ourselves, the politicians. We have been far too cowardly in the past about giving public service broadcasting the money which it needs.

  1535
  It is worth reflecting that in 1971, when the 10s. increase comes into force, there will be no more sound-only licences. Thus everyone who pays the television licence or pays for sound broadcasting will own or hire a television set. A low rental for a television set is 10s. a week. Every listener and every viewer will be paying £26 a year plus £6 on the existing licence, which comes to £32 a year. What the Government are proposing to do is to increase the cost of B.B.C.1, B.B.C.2 and Radio 1, Radio 2, Radio 3 and Radio 4 and local radio from £32 a year to £32 10s. That is the extent of the burden —1½ per cent. more.
  I have heard it argued by hon. Members opposite that an increase of 10s. will not be enough. Let us assume that all the calculations go wrong and 10s. increase is not enough, and we are in a spot and have to raise the cost to the viewer and listener from £32 10s. to £32 15s. or even £33. To say that this is a terrible burden and that because of it we should commercialise radio is cant. Admittedly, if the Tories were returned to office and they were handling the economy, possibly the standard of living would slump and the extra 5s. would matter. But we are talking about an increase of 1½ Per cent, or, at the maximum, if everything goes wrong, an increase of 3 per cent. We politicians should have the courage to stand up for public service broadcasting and give it the money which it requires. If we had done this in the past, some of the just criticisms of the B.B.C. which we have heard would not have been made.
  I have slightly criticised my right hon. Friend the Minister but at least his position is logical. This afternoon, we heard three propositions from the Leader of the Opposition. The first was that we must safeguard minority programmes and cultural broadcasting. He put it very well and I agreed with almost everything he said. The second was that commercial broadcasting suppressed minority programmes and cultural programmes. The third was that we needed more commercial broadcasting.
  It may be said, as I have been saying and as hon. Members opposite say, that we want high broadcasting standard. That is fair and that is a point of view. It
  1536
  may be said that we want commercial broadcasting, and that is a fair point of view. But to say that we want both is complete humbug, and that is the true basis of the case put forward by the Leader of the Opposition.
  One is bound to ask how far the campaign by hon. Members opposite is seriously preoccupied with cultural standards —how far it seriously wants the B.B.C. to maintain its high standards of programme—and how far it is simply interested in clearing the field of popular local broadcasting for the commercial interests which lie behind the Conservative Party.
  Mr. Bryan: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously think that that is what was in my right hon. Friend's mind?
  Mr. Mayhew: I am speaking more of the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan), who is the Opposition's spokesman on broadcasting, than the Leader of the Opposition. When the Leader of the Opposition was speaking about high standards of cultural broadcasting, he was good and I was persuaded. When the hon. Gentleman speaks, he gives me the impression of looking on broadcasting as a business, as regarding it as a doctrinaire believer in private commerce and not as a man greatly experienced in or deeply caring about broadcasting, and in this I distinguish him from the Leader of the Opposition.
  One thing was said by the Leader of the Opposition which was striking and which has not often been said by hon. Members opposite—that commercial broadcasting suppresses minority programmes. This is the whole basis on which many of us opposed commercial broadcasting many years ago, not in defence of the B.B.C. monopoly, but, at any rate in my case, in defence of having a second public service corporation. Granted that we want high standards of broadcasting and minority programmes, why the insistence on commercial broadcasting? The Leader of the Opposition prided himself on having insisted on and fought for I.T.V. in 1954; he did. But is he suggesting that it was not a blow to the idea of minority broadcasting? Of course it was, and by his own admission.
  There is another point about minority broadcasting which has not been made

  1537
  clear. It is suggested that minority programmes are somehow highbrow programmes. This is completely false. Programmes on cooking, gardening, swiming, basket ball and a whole number of other things cannot possibly be called highbrow, but are minority programmes. The broadcasting organisations make what they call appreciation reports on whether a programme was enjoyed by those who saw it; another type of report shows simply how big the audience was.
  It will be found that those programmes which have the smaller audience because they are addressed to a person as an individual have a higher appreciation index and are most keenly enjoyed by those who saw them. Broadly speaking, the larger the audience to a programme, the less keenly it is appreciated by those who see it. That is natural, in the same way that we prefer a tailor-made suit to a suit off the peg. Commercial broadcasting which suppresses minority programmes, as the right hon. Gentleman said, is not doing something which offends highbrows only, but is depriving viewers and listeners of all kinds of those programmes which they most keenly enjoy because they are addressed to them as individuals and not as members of a mass.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the House, but he has founded his entire argument on a misquotation of what my right hon. Friend said. My right hon. Friend did not say that commercial radio or television suppressed minority programmes. What he said was that the B.B.C. was rather better able to cater for minority tastes; that is quite different.
  Mr. Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman must read HANSARD. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition did not use the word "suppress", but he said that commercial radio and broadcasting did not deal with minorities, or were biased against minorities. Let the hon. Gentleman read HANSARD and see.
  I now come to the complete fallacy of commercial local radio, which I tried to suggest to the Leader of the Opposition, although I think that he did not understand the point. Granted that commercial radio will not cater for minorities,
  1538
  and that was accepted by the Leader of the Opposition, in these circumstances it could not provide anything which could be called "local" radio.
  Why should a commercial radio station in Manchester, which is trying to get the maximum audience, be different from a commercial station in Leeds, which is also trying to get a maximum audience? We all know the formula for getting the maximum audience. It is to put on national and international pop programmes. That is what produces the big audience. There may be different disc jockeys in Manchester and Leeds, but there will be nothing specifically Mancunian about the one or specifically Leeds-like about the other, because as soon as Manchester starts to broadcast something to do with Manchester—schools, or football, or personalities, or hospitals, it will be a minority programme. Under that system, we would have a whole series of stations which might be geographically separate, but which in content would be absolutely identical, a network of mass-appeal pop programmes. It might be good and it might be bad, but it would not be local broadcasting and it would be a complete misnomer to call it local.
  The economics of the matter would drive all the stations together. Why should they not all have exactly the same programmes as the pirates did and as Radio Luxembourg did, and as even B.B.C. 1 does? By all means have this if that is what is wanted, but it cannot be called local. The Leader of the Opposition did not think of this and it was perfectly plain when I raised it with him that he did not understand the whole basis of the matter.
  I except the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, but the rest of hon. Members opposite are not primarily concerned with cultural standards. What they want to do is to push the B.B.C. out of popular local broadcasting to make room for their commercial friends. That is why they are suddenly interested in culture. I do not say that there are no cultured people in the Conservative Party, but there are not in the broadcasting group of the Conservative Party.
  Let us face it—there are financial intrests behind all this. I have here the Local Radio Association's plans, and it is the main vested interest behind all

  1539
  this. We have here the Fens Broadcasting Company and the London Broadcasting Company, and a dozen or so others. A number of big concerns like Ranks are interested. Ranks have registered 30 local companies, which is more than any other concern. One cannot help noticing that it is Ranks who, through British United Industrialists, have just made a donation of £25,000 to the Conservative Party. I am not suggesting for a minute that there is any connection, but how unfair it would be of the Conservatives, after receiving £25,000, to give nothing back; that would be a great mistake.
  The names I have read—these are the people who are interested in the B.B.C. becoming cultured. They are the fellows who want it, because that would clear the ground for them. That is what it is all about and it is to these people that we should listen, not the politicians in the Opposition. The politicians opposite are just a front, just the stuffed shirts concealing the vested interests.
  Mr. Noble: This is totally outside the scope of the debate, but does the hon. Gentleman argue that the Government are giving in to the trade unions because of the trade union contribution?
  Mr. Mayhew: I have strong views about that which are not as far removed from those of the right hon. Gentleman as he might think. However, I will not discuss them at the moment.
  The local sound radio people are not the only vested interests. There are the big advertising companies, for example, the Beecham Group. Why should commercials for Beechams powders be confined to television? Why not have them on radio as well? After all, the Beecham Group pays £20,000 a year to the Conservative Party.
  Mr. Archie Manuel: Is that all?
  Mr. Mayhew: Is it not entitled to some return? Let me take another example. Why is Dettol advertised only on television and not on radio? Reckitt and Colman pays £20,000 a year to the Conservative Party.
  What we are debating today is not the music of Bach but the jingles of
  1540
  Beechams. Johann Sebastian Bach never contributed a penny to Conservative Party funds, but Beechams powders lubricate the Tory machine to the extent of £20,000 a year. That is really what we are discussing.
  The fact is that commercial local radio would not be local. If it was true to its own principles, automatically it would become a networked national pop programme. To the extent that it deviates from that and pays some attention to some minority group in its locality, it violates the nature of commercial broadcasting, which is wholly motivated towards the maximum audience. That is why I say that this Tory campaign is humbug.
  There is a political principle involved here. This is a genuine matter of political if not ideological principle on which the two parties are divided. What a rarity! What a luxury! Let us enjoy it, and, with respect to one or two of my hon. Friends, let us have no deviation on our own benches. Let us show up this Tory campaign. We will find that a surprising number of the public is with us. Let us support the Government tonight.
  5.52 p.m.
  Mr. W. F. Deedes: I will not be tempted into following the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) too far, for reasons of my own. I thought that some of the latter part of his speech was better suited to local sound radio than to national broadcasting.
  However, I agree at least with what he began by saying. We have failed altogether to provide financially what a public service corporation should have and, therefore, to a great extent the sins which we now attribute to the B.B.C. are shared by us in this House.
  Before I wade into that, there is a subsidiary issue on which I seek the guidance of the right hon. Gentleman. It concerns not so much the structure of broadcasting as its content. There is always a risk that in broadcasting, as in education, we dwell entirely on structure and too little to content.
  The issue that I wish to raise is that of violence on the screen. I do it not in a critical manner but in a purely interrogatory frame of mind. There is

  1541
  public concern about it. In some remarks reported today, Lord Aylestone attributed it to a minority and claimed that I.T.A. exercises restraint. I will not enter that argument, but I want to establish the facts.
  In 1962, the Home Secretary of the day, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, set up the Television Research Committee under Mr. Fraser Noble, the Vice-Chancellor of Leicester University. The task of that Committee was to initiate and co-ordinate research on television's impact. After six years' work and spending £250,000 of I.T.A. money, it concluded that this was a subject on which more research was needed. That is frequently the end-product of such studies.
  As I understand it, the whole effort has now been transposed from the Home Office to Leicester University's Communications Centre, from which we may get further results. What is the Government's policy in this important matter of research into the impact of television, putting special emphasis on violence? Do they believe that it is susceptible to research? I am sure that they will not deny that violence in our society and anything which bears on it is a serious matter.
  They may have decided that violence on television is not a relevant factor. That would be surprising, in the light of American findings. Only a few weeks ago, the National Commission on Causes and Prevention of Violence declared that television provided a "contributing factor" to violence in the U.S.A. It said:
  "Violence on television encourages violent forms of behaviour and fosters moral and social values about violence in daily life which are unacceptable in a civilised society."
  I would not be surprised if that was not also established by our own research. It may be that the Government have decided that this is a difficult subject in which to be involved and that it is better left to Leicester University.
  Do the Government take this seriously? If they do, do they believe that research is profitable? If it is profitable, what is the proposed course of action? I think that it is fair at this point to put that series of questions.
  I turn, then, to the main issue before us. I share the view of my right hon.
  1542
  Friend who felt that we ought by now to accept the complementary or dual systems which have been established. However, I stress his further words. He added that it was incumbent upon us to maintain a balance and provide an opportunity to both public service and commercial broadcasting to maintain quality and variety.
  Have we done that in respect of the B.B.C.? Without wishing to be too controversial, I found the speech of the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications in this respect staggeringly complacent, in marked contrast to his speech in July. In July, we had a different speech in which he set out the six or seven factors which must be weighed in considering the needs of the B.B.C. Today, what he said was in complete contradiction to what he said in July about comparative standards in Europe. He pointed out in July that our combined licence fee is cheaper than that of any European country. Today, he compared our licence fee not with Europe's, but with what the Opposition have done compared with what the Government have done. That is not really relevant.
  Mr. John Mendelson: Yes, it is. How can the right hon. Gentleman let himself down to the extent of denying the Minister the right to refer to the performance of a Government of which the Leader of the Opposition was a member?
  Mr. Deedes: I am suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman's argument in July about Europe was more relevant.
  The longer that I study the subject, unaided by the B.B.C, the more convinced I become that the aspects of the proposals for broadcasting in the 1970s which worry us most are attributable to the shortage of money. However people try to dodge that issue, I return to the point. Our broadcasters are short of money because none of us has been willing to permit or urge an increase in the licence fee. I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend end by saying that the licence fee should be increased now. I am sure that that is right. April, 1971, will not supply the needs of the B.B.C. The persistent policy of both sides of the House has been too little, too late. I say that of this side of the House as much as I say it of the Government. So April, 1971, will be too late.

  1543
  On the cut rates that we are paying by means of our combined licence, what right have we to expect anything but a cut-rate service? We can all arrogate to ourselves the desire to have the best public service system in the world, but we know that we are extracting the lowest licence fee. This makes no sense.
  We know that, for political and social reasons, this is an infernally difficult licence to increase. We know the reasons why, but we do not say what they are. Instead, having denied the B.B.C. the money that it should have, we engage in diversionary and rather critical arguments about its shortcomings in its own proposals. So there is an element—and here I take up what was said by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East—of self-deception with which I cannot go along. In fairness to the B.B.C, I must add that it does its best to obscure the issue. Though it admits to being short of money, it insists that the pattern of broadcasting in the 'seventies would still be much the same if it had plenty of money. The Minister supported this.
  I not only question that, but in certain regards it can be proved manifestly wrong. I suspect that the B.B.C. is rationalising bankruptcy. It began, probably on the advice of the McKinsey consultants, winding down its patronage of orchestras. I know that this is controversial. I listened to what my right hon. Friend said, and I agree with him.
  Why did the B.B.C. wind down its patronage of orchestras? On the ground that they were not giving direct cost-effective benefit to its listeners, its consumers. Who else but McKinsey would put forward a line of thought such as that? Why were the McKinsey consultants there at all? To clean up the Augean stable of the B.B.C.'s finance? I think not.
  If we examine the work of the Select Committee, we find that it reports not altogether adversely on the internal economy of the B.B.C. McKinsey was put in to assist the B.B.C. in its main objective, which is to give £1 worth of value in return for every 15s. that it gets. It is high time that we realised that that is a very difficult task. It is almost impossible to accomplish.
  Bluntly, we have determined that the B.B.C. shall be run on a shoestring. I
  1544
  confess that I find the attitude of the Government more surprising than our own. We broke the television monopoly against the B.B.C.—rightly, I believe with my right hon. Friend. We are about to seek to break the sound radio monopoly—I will not dwell on it, but my hon. Friends know my views—wrongly, in my view. I will not make heavy weather of that. My right hon. Friend was right to say that it is a relatively minor issue. The Government are wrong and have got their priorities wrong in attempting to make it a principal issue in the debate. If it gives them any small satisfaction, I shall not vote against their Amendment.
  But where do the Government stand? Why are they not more valiant on the B.B.C.'s behalf? I will not suggest, because I am trying to put forward a serious argument, that the shadow of past quarrels darkens their view of the B.B.C. But there is a marked lack of warmth. I noticed this in the Minister's remarks in July, and since. To an extent that it has not experienced since the Corporation was formed, the B.B.C. is out in the political cold.
  I can only conclude by pressing, once again, what I have repeatedly urged—a change in the system of administering B.B.C. finances. Until this is done we shall get no further on this perennial question of the licence fee.
  It has always seemed intolerable that an independent Corporation should be required to go cap in hand to the Government for funds—seeking, like some penurious divorcee, to squeeze money from a reluctant hand. It is bad for us, because implicit in this system is the danger—and it is a real danger—that more funds, which require a higher licence, may be conditional on the good behaviour of the B.B.C. That is something which touches relationships between the Government and this Corporation closely.
  It is for that reason that we declare that local radio should not be financed and controlled by local authorities. That is a sound precept, because we do not want local authorities putting pressure on local radio. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
  Between Government and B.B.C. there must be an independent body required, from time to time, to assess and pronounce on the financial need of the B.B.C.

  1545
  and, if need be, the level of the licence. No Government would be bound by it, but at least the facts would be known and we should have ended this game of make-believe, round which so much debate and argument on the subject of broadcasting continues to waltz.
  6.5 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: To follow the point made by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) in his interesting speech, if poverty is not the explanation, the situation is even more serious. It is one thing to be driven out on to the street because there is no alternative, but a process of self-prostitution without need would be a more serious state of affairs. We must hope that the B.B.C.'s reason for the course of action which it has taken is poverty. If it is taken out of conviction, we are indeed in a bad way. This is a consideration which will move many of us. We must hope that the B.B.C. has been driven to this course of action and has not voluntarily taken it out of mistaken conviction.
  "Broadcasting in the Seventies" is a false prospectus. The Government, the B.B.C, the Advisory Committee and my right hon. Friend are perhaps now beginning to realise that they have brought a pig in a poke. My right hon. Friend put an excellent face on it this afternoon. But I wonder whether he is quite so happy with "Broadcasting in the Seventies" and all that will follow from it as he led us to believe. Is he now realising that what he thought was a silk purse is in fact something of a sow's ear?
  I have had many letters about this subject, but no one has put it better than a lady who wrote as follows:
  "As one of the 1,000 people who did write"—
  it will be remembered that the B.B.C. said they had less than 1,000 letters about the proposed changes
  "you might be interested in what happened. As the whole trouble was obviously financial"—
  the lady is charitable—
  "I wrote to Harold Wilson and John Stonehouse as well as to the B.B.C. The letter to Wilson was forwarded to the P.M.G. and then both letters were forwarded to the B.B.C. When I pointed out that the B.B.C. did not decide how much money it got or how it was raised and therefore to send the letters on to
  1546
  that body was pointless, all I got was a shrug off ('We do not understand your point')."
  This is the most pertinent point in the whole debate, and this lady has put her finger on it.
  Her letter continues:
  "The correspondence reached the point where it became obvious that the B.B.C. were going to be lumbered with not only their own plans but the financial causes which properly belong to the P.M.G. and Treasury as well. After a couple more tries I eventually gave up."
  I should like to quote the final paragraph from this lady's letter because this, again, has excellent relevance:
  "I think the B.B.C. have been nuts not to have admitted that the underlying cause of their new plans was a shortage of cash plus the wish to go ahead with local radio and that of course the quality of radio would go down as a consequence. Now the problem is compounded by the added difficulty that in the course of 'selling' Radio in the Seventies the B.B.C. have come to believe in the plan as a good plan, instead of the least worst they could think up in the circumstances."
  That is the explanation of the situation in which we find ourselves today. I believe that hon. Members on both sides who have said that the problem is lack of political courage to tackle the question of the financing of the B.B.C. have put their fingers on the reality of the situation. At least I hope that is the explanation.
  These are the questions which need to be answered. First, why is it that the staff of the B.B.C. is overwhelmingly opposed to "Broadcasting in the Seventies"? Is it the case that there is only, apparently, a handful of people to be found at the top of that huge corporation who have anything but doubts and fears and concerns to express about this plan? Why are all the broadcasting unions against it? They are not groups normally renowned for easily working together, but on this issue they take the view that a mistake is being made. Why did the whole idea have to be introduced with such stealth? Only now are the true implications becoming apparent.
  No one who knows anything about the subject, no one who has studied "Broadcasting in the Seventies" in detail, no one—still more so—who has heard the B.B.C. spelling out the implications of the policy, believes the policy to be anything other than harmful. It is not a development which fills those directly concerned with broadcasting with enthusiasm. If

  1547
  it is true that public concern about this matter has not been—at least possibly until this debate—at a very high level, it is because every possible endeavour has been made to play down the consequences of "Broadcasting in the Seventies".
  Who does support it? The Chairman of the B.B.C., the Director-General, Mr. Ian Trethowan and Mr. Mansell—the two who, I think, dreamed the whole thing up, so I think that one could reasonably suppose that they might be in favour of it. I think that a rather unwilling supporter is the B.B.C.'s Director of Administration, Mr. John Arkell, because it is his job to administer the policy mistakes of others.
  In its anxiety to spread out, to be universal, to be not only the National Radio Corporation, but also the voice of the regions and the street corner oration in every large town, the B.B.C. has been prepared to sacrifice quality for quantity. Quality radio is to be cast down. Instead of the great creative medium it has been and still can be, it is to become the universal audible wallpaper. That is the process on which the B.B.C. is embarking.
  Mr. Storehouse: Rubbish.
  Mr. Jenkins: My right hon. Friend may say "rubbish", but once this process starts it is difficult to arrest. Once the business of winding down standards begins, it is extraordinarily difficult to stop. I greatly fear that, although, as my right hon. Friend has said, the initial impact of "Broadcasting in the Seventies" and the policy of straining to go beyond the B.B.C.'s capabilities on its inadequate income may have been less severe than originally proposed because of the public outcry, unless this process is reversed the quality of the B.B.C.'s national radio programmes must inevitably decline. It is an unalterable course of events.
  I think that the quality of national radio programmes must inevitably be reduced, and the spelling out of how this reduction is going to take place has begun in private conversations with the unions. The trouble is that once the process has started it is extremely difficult to stop.
  Mr. Storehouse: My hon. Friend is basing his argument on the false premise
  1548
  that the B.B.C. is somehow going out of its way to reduce standards, and that is not the case. There is no move in that direction. Furthermore, the B.B.C. has sufficient finance at its hands to meet all the responsibilities put upon it.
  Mr. Jenkins: My right hon. Friend says that there is no move towards that end. The whole process was spelt out in "Broadcasting in the Seventies", which public outcry prevented. But that was only the tip of the iceberg. There is the rest of the iceberg underneath which the B.B.C. has been discussing, and in detail. There is 10 per cent. off here and 20 per cent. off there. There has been deterioration in the quality of national programmes, and this is admitted by the B.B.C. In the Midland Region, it has been described as a 5 per cent. reduction in quality. I repeat that once one starts such a process it is tremendously difficult to arrest. It is against the whole original concept of the B.B.C. That is what we are on about, and it greatly concerns many of us.
  I was going to say something about the B.B.C.'s house magazine, Ariel, but I shall not do so in order to save time, except to refer to one point—the B.B.C.'s reply to criticisms by its own staff. Mr. Ian Trethowan claims that facts have been overlooked. I think that he himself has overlooked the most significant fact of all, which is that only now is the B.B.C. beginning to say in specific terms what its detailed proposals are. The only ones which were specific in "Broadcasting in the Seventies" concerned the orchestras and the removal of Radio 3 to V.H.F., and these have been abandoned in the face of public protest. Mr. Trethowan says that only after acceptance in principle can the rest of the proposals be worked out in detail. This seems to me an extremely alarming proposition. It is an extraordinary management technique which claims to make proposals which are going to have very large financial savings without doing any accurate costings before hand, apparently, as to how it will work out. This is another worrying aspect.
  I think that the future of broadcasting is not a matter for the B.B.C. I suggest that it is a matter for the Government and this House—
  Mr. John Mendelson: And the general public.
  Mr. Jenkins: —and, as my hon. Friend says, for the general public. It is not a matter solely for the B.B.C. to bring forward a whole programme for broadcasting in the 1970s, on its own initiative, coming from its Chairman, debated only in Opposition time, decided in August, when we are all away from this House, and discussed once again today in Opposition time. At no point has my right hon. Friend come to us with a series of Government proposals in relation to broadcasting, except to react to propositions put down by the Opposition.
  Mr. Stonehouse: The reason we did not bring forward proposals was that I did not want to make an announcement before we had a debate. We had the debate in July and I made our position clear on the proposals, and, as a result, a number of them were changed. We cannot complain about the way this has been conducted.
  Mr. Jenkins: My right hon. Friend has not really answered the point—that at no time has he come forward to this House and said, "These are the Government's plans for the future of the whole range of broadcasting in this country." That is what the Government should have done and what they have failed to do throughout the whole of this sad story.
  Even at this late stage, I urge the Government to encourage the B.B.C. to continue the previous style of programming attitudes on the whole line of broadcasting policy. The process upon which it is now engaged is against all that the B.B.C. has stood for in the past. The change of policy at the B.B.C. means that other changes must take place. If it were felt that the B.B.C. was so committed to the present line of policy that it was impossible for it to change its mind and go back without the sacrifice of the Chairman, some of us would be able to withstand that loss. Indeed, I feel that there are even some hon. Members opposite who might be able to withstand it. If it involves the appointment of new personalities, well and good. I appeal to the Government to change their mind. This is not a straight issue of commercial radio versus public service broadcasting. I suggest that my right hon. Friend should anticipate the Royal Commission which he has been thinking about by setting up a Select Committee, and should
  1550
  charge that Select Committee with the duty of looking immediately into the British Broadcasting Corporation. It could later look into a wider sphere. The advantage of a Select Committee is that it has a continuing existence. It could initially be asked to examine the immediate problem of the B.B.C. and remain in being to make further recommendations about the general future of radio and television.
  Do this, and the Government can maintain the status of the B.B.C. and can rescue itself from the charge of being wagged by the corporation tail. If the Government do not do this the decline of the B.B.C. will be measured from this moment and the blame for that decline will be laid at the door of this, our own Government. That would be a tragedy.
  I urge my right hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment so that we can have a straight vote on the Motion—which is the real issue. I assure my right hon. Friend that I am anxious to go into the Lobby with him tonight. In fact, I shall insist upon doing so. Those who oppose the Motion can vote for the Amendment but, as I explained earlier, that is not the case with me. The two issues are not mutually contradictory. I am bitterly opposed to commercial radio, and nothing will persuade me to go into the Lobby in favour of it, but that does not mean that I am not deeply concerned about what the B.B.C. is doing in relation to its own programmes. It is on this issue that I urge my right hon. Friends and the Government in general to have second thoughts.
  6.22 p.m.
  Mr. Angus Maude: If the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) will be so kind as to hear out what will be a short speech, I may be able to help him with the problem which was exercising him in his closing sentences. There is a technical answer to his dilemma, which is one that faces me as well, and for not dissimilar reasons.
  I shall confine my remarks entirely to sound radio. I echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said about the two speeches made by the Minister—in the last debate we had in the summer and in this debate. They were very different speeches. My sympathy with and affection for the

  1551
  BBC have always been great. My sympathy with the B.B.C. has never been greater than when I heard the right hon. Gentleman's speech in our last debate. He—and some of my hon. Friends—lectured the B.B.C. in a very high-minded way about its duties to the community, to musicians, to actors, to the public and to culture in general. There was a remarkable shortage of suggestions as to where the money was to come from.
  Mr. Stonehouse: The hon. Gentleman must be fair to me, and what I said in the last debate. I said in my speech in July that it followed from all that that the community must provide the wherewithal for the B.B.C. to finance all these activities, and in August I announced that the fee would go up.
  Mr. Maude: The right hon. Gentleman announced it in August, but in the meantime, having made this high-minded speech lecturing the B.B.C, and without saying at the time by how much the licence fee would go up, or giving a firm commitment that he would raise the licence fee, he had in the meantime changed the B.B.C.'s policy in respect of broadcasting in the 'seventies.
  My complaint against the right hon. Gentleman is that he changed it in the wrong respects. The changes the B.B.C. had announced in "Broadcasting in the Seventies", which seemed most reasonable to me, were precisely the ones which he persuaded the B.B.C. to drop, while the ones in "Broadcasting in the Seventies" which alarmed me most of all are the ones that survive. I agree with the hon. Member for Putney: the B.B.C, having originally taken its policy decisions for economic reasons, have now begun to believe them. That is a pity. It is all very well to say that the B.B.C. has a duty, as patron, to maintain orchestras. Has it a duty to maintain orchestras over and above what are needed for the purpose of its broadcasting functions? That argument has never been made.
  I appreciate entirely the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Putney on behalf of Equity. A substantial reduction in the number of jobs for actors on the B.B.C. is virtually synonymous with a reduction in the amount of drama broadcasts. There is no inconsistency in putting this line—trade union line
  1552
  though it may be. In the case of orchestras and musicians, there is a complete inconsistency. If it is necessary to retain in being orchestras which are not needed for the broadcasting of a given amount of quality music, it is the business of somebody else to act as patron and not the B.B.C. If it is necessary that these orchestras should remain in being, it is a matter for the Arts Council or for local authorities, but it cannot be the duty of the B.B.C. to take out of the licence fee sufficient money to keep in being orchestras which it does not need for broadcasting purposes and which are required entirely in the cause of culture for quite different purposes. Yet this is one respect in which the right hon. Gentleman has persuaded the B.B.C. to change its mind.
  There are others. But the thing about "Broadcasting in the Seventies" which worried me most—and I am not yet wholly satisfied that my doubts were not justified—was a further big measure of retreat from the policy of mixed programming which was the essence of the Reith public service ideal. It is possible to exaggerate what is happening. It is possible to exaggerate the extent to which the process will accelerate. But we must face the fact that it is what is happening, and it is possible to entertain doubts whether this is a good idea—and it is right that those doubts should be expressed.
  The virtue of mixed programming—I know that it has its disadvantages—if it is intelligently done, is that people whose cultural horizons have been narrow are from time to time dragged up against a new idea, a new conception and a new pleasure. Their horizons are extended, and they may actually catch a liking for it. That this has happened we have seen over and over again during the years of broadcasting. Anything which reduces this possibility is bad. In the Third Programme a kind of cultural quarantine ward was established, but some effort was made to diversify this, and Radio 4—the old Home Service—has been a mixed programme of considerable versatility and very great cultural value.
  It is essential that the Music Programme should be preserved. That was another matter in respect of which I thought the right hon. Gentleman was a little hard on the B.B.C. He persuaded

  1553
  it not to make a gradual change over of the Music Programme to V.H.F. There is much to be said for moving the Music Programme to V.H.F. From the technical point of view good music, properly broadcast, should be listened to on V.H.F. It is technically much more satisfactory than it is on the medium waves. It would release medium wave channels which are badly needed for overseas broadcasting and other purposes. Provided that the changeover was made slowly and gradually as sets began to be obsolete, this would have been an excellent thing to do, and I hope that in the long run it will be done.
  I am still far from convinced that the move in the direotion of further compartmentalisation and specialising sound broadcasting programmes is a good thing. I am aware that the B.B.C. has tried not to make Radio 1 simply a solid stream of pop records. I am aware that it has tried—I am not sure with how much success, and I would like to see some research figures on this—having got its teenage audience with pop records, to do something with it beyond the mere infliction of more pop records. It ought to go further. This programme should be more diversified than it is. For a public service corporation to get a teenage audience of that size, hypnotise it in the way that it has, is something of an achievement. It ought to be able to make good use of the audience from a public service point of view. There are possibilities here which I hope will be fully used.
  The other respect in which the Postmaster-General was a little hard on the B.B.C. was to do with finance. It has already been said that the increase in the licence fee was inadequate and the recommended date for it too late. This is true, but I also have serious reservations about the abolition of the sound licence fee. This is placing the sound radio service in the position of a poor relation. One of two things is bound to happen. Either, since it is comparatively a minority service, though it is none the less popular with those who listen to it for that, the lion's share will always go to the popular service and sound radio will tend to get what is left or what is doled out, or else the proportion of the licence income which happened to obtain when the licence fee
  1554
  was abolished will be ossified and become permanent.
  Sound radio, whatever its needs, will always tend to get the same proportion of the television licence fee income which it is getting at the time of the changeover. This is not only inflexible, but it makes no provision for possible expansion, and there are possibilities for expansion in sound radio broadcasting services. An overwhelming majority of the letters which the B.B.C. receives about programmes, leaving out requests for gramophone records and so forth, is in respect of sound radio. The sound radio audiences are more appreciative, perhaps more literate, certainly more interested, than television audiences. They take the trouble to write more letters, and in many ways to the person who has not got a television set the radio set can be infinitely more important. For example to the blind person, someone who cannot read newspapers or books or look at a television set, it is almost his only link with the world.
  My feeling is that the sound radio services have considerable expansion possibilities, and it is desirable that they should be given their own independent licence fee income, raised from a sound licence fee. It is not only that our combined fee is almost the lowest in Europe, but our sound fee is one of the lowest in Europe too. There is no reason why a sound radio licence of 30s. should not be imposed and an attempt made to make the sound radio services as near independent as may be, to give greater freedom for experiment and improvement to those who want to make this an even better service than it already is.
  I do not have much to say about local radio services. I think it was a pity that the B.B.C, with the encouragement of the Postmaster-General, went nap at once on 40 local radio stations. I cannot believe that it was not an attempt to pre-empt the market in view of the possibility that a Conservative Government would introduce commercial stations. I am by no means satisfied that the need for local radio on this scale is yet established, whether commercial or public service, although I do believe that some local stations have been a great success and, for example, in respect of educational programmes have provided a very useful

  1555
  service, dealing with local history, geography, archaeology and so on.
  On the question of local commercial radio, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), I cannot bring myself to vote for any system of commercial sound radio. I lived in Australia for three years and I have listened to enough in America to confirm me in my views. I do not believe that it is possible to make it commercially viable except on a basis of cheap, almost non-stop pop music, and I do not believe that it is possible for any public service element to remain.
  Having said that, it will be observed that I find myself in a dilemma similar to that of some hon. Members opposite because of the Government's determination to prevent a straight vote on their broadcasting policy generally, through the moving of their Amendment. I would like to suggest to the hon. Members for Putney, Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) and Smethwick (Mr. Faulds)—
  Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman must not mention me in this connection, because I have no difficulty in voting tonight.
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Member for Putney, then, and perhaps the hon. Member for Smethwick. There is a solution to their difficulties which is also a solution to mine. While it would be impossible for me to vote against the Government's Amendment if it comes as a second vote tonight, just as it would be impossible for the hon. Member for Putney not to vote for it, a vote against the Question "That the Amendment be made" is simply a vote in favour of having a division on the substantive Motion as moved by the Opposiiton. I shall therefore vote on the question, "That the Amendment be made", which is a vote in favour of having a division on the straight Government policy of broadcasting. I shall then abstain on the second vote, and I recommend the hon. Member for Putney to do the same in reverse.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I express the hope that he will have the opportunity of voting as he wishes when the time comes? I fear that he may not.
  6.39 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: Some of the recent speeches have been of a particularly high order. They have drawn attention to the crucial point, namely, the need to ensure that if we demand a high quality of service from the B.B.C. it has funds to provide it. I welcome the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude), which directed our attention to this issue.
  It is a great pity that my right hon. and hon. Friends have not had courage enough or determination enough to accept the challenge of making an increase in the licence fee much earlier than they have proposed. We should face this challenge. It is clearly the desire of hon. Members that this should be done. I want the development of local sound radio to be carried out by the B.B.C. on the lines which it proposes because they tie in very closely with our desire to find ways of encouraging people to take a greater part in the activities of their area, just as we are trying to encourage people to play a greater part in planning. We want people to express their opinions.
  The local sound radio experiment has proved that local radio is a practical way of getting people to express off-the-cuff opinions on local issues. There is a good deal of evidence that many of the local sound radio stations have had a large number of people calling on them wanting to express opinions on certain matters.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: There are those of us on this side of the House who, while being firmly opposed to commercial radio, do not accept that it automatically means the maintenance of the B.B.C.'s monopoly of sound radio.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: My hon. Friend has his opinions on this issue. This is another matter. I am satisfied that this function in local sound radio would never be performed by commercial interests. I am therefore wholly in favour of the B.B.C. carrying out its experiment in local sound radio, but I do not want to stop the development of regional broadcasting and the encouragement of artistic work which undoubtedly has been

  1557
  the great pride of the B.B.C. Some of the critics of the B.B.C. have overstated the case. I do not believe that the damage done to the quality of the B.B.C. programmes is of the character which some of my hon. Friends and some hon. Members opposite have expressed. I do not think that it is as serious as they have made out.
  But I accept that, because of the shortage of money, there is a danger of some programmes being cut back. They may be minority programmes, and one of the purposes of the B.B.C. is to provide opportunities for their development. I want regional broadcasting opportunities to increase. I accept that that means the expenditure of more money. This is why I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends, in spite of the decisions which they have taken, to offer further resources to the B.B.C. so that the regional programmes can be developed more rapidly.
  I very much welcome the B.B.C.'s proposal to extend the existing number of regional stations from three to eight. Those of us who live in the North-East of England have complained of the dictatorship of the existing regional set-up in the B.B.C. We believe, rightly or wrongly, that it has denied many original writers the opportunity of having their work performed which they might have had if they had been in other parts of the country. Therefore, if there is a fairly rapid development of the extension of regional stations to the eight referred to by the B.B.C, no one will be happier than I. However, I recognise that this is an expensive issue and a matter of cash. The extension of facilities in television as well as sound broadcasting is bound to be expensive. It involves not only the premises but expensive equipment which must be fully used. But this is precisely why I am disappointed that my right hon. Friend the Minister has not accepted the necessity for providing the resources which I believe are needed.
  Some of the criticisms of the B.B.C.'s proposals are exaggerated. There has been criticism of the extension of specialised programmes. But the experience of the Third Programme encourages us to feel that this is a reasonable line to follow, particularly if we want to ensure that there is a wider audience on the fourth channel for a good deal of the material
  1558
  used on the Third Programme. Experience has shown that this would provide a much wider audience for what has been available only to a relatively small number.
  I can see the dangers. I well understand the reasons for the anxiety which has been expressed. I do not resent that. But I believe that it has been exaggerated. The proposals, now that we are seeing them more clearly, are shown to be a good deal less frightening than some people thought they might me. If we are serious about our demand for high standards in the B.B.C, it is up to us in the House to ensure that the necessary resources are made available so that what we are demanding can be met. It is hypocritical of us to attack the B.B.C. because we fear that it may not do what we want it to do if we do not provide the necessary resources. That is the demand which I should like the House to present to my right hon. Friend the Minister.
  6.47 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: The Minister, on this subject, was not able even to convince his Parliamentary Private Secretary, who resigned because of what has happened. It is therefore scarcely surprising that the right hon. Gentleman was unable to convince the House today. He scarcely tried. To spend much of his time reading out extracts from a polemical document put out by the B.B.C. was to reduce himself to being a public relations officer for the B.B.C but in no way answered the criticisms of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
  Mr. Stonehouse: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that the B.B.C. is entitled to have its point of view heard in the House. I believe that the House does not realise that any group of people, given the responsibility of spending the B.B.C.'s income, would find their own way of doing it. We must respect the integrity and honesty of the men in the B.B.C, from the Board downwards, who are accepting this responsibility and stop the continual carping against their proposals. It was for that reason that I gave an opportunity for their point of view to be heard in this debate. The House is entitled to hear it.
  Mr. Gilmour: It is all right for the point of view of the B.B.C. to be heard, but the Minister should maintain some

  1559
  objectivity and not become the spokesman of the B.B.C. The case which he put forward scarcely needs an answer, because it was answered in advance by his own behaviour in tabling the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of Technology knew perfectly well that if the Opposition's Motion had been left as it was and had been put to the vote it would probably have been carried, despite the strong-arm methods which the Patronage Secretary now uses.
  Forty-nine Members of the party opposite, led by the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who, I understand, is Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, and the hon. Members for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) and Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) and myself, put their names to a Motion criticising the B.B.C.'s proposals and pointing out that they would lead to a deterioration in the standard of broadcasting. The right hon. Gentleman knew that perfectly well, and he was, therefore, not prepared to face the straightforward issue and was not prepared to face a vote in the House on this subject. He tried to get out of it by some silly shouting. Having spent many weeks in debate on the Post Office Bill he knows I am not a detractor of his debating skills but he really must want to forget the silly ranting which he went in for this afternoon.
  Turning to the Amendment which has been put forward merely to evade the issue, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party said this afternoon it merely means that, instead of considering what is happening to broadcasting now, which is what we should be doing, we are considering what this party will do when it comes into power in 1971 or 1970. In other words, we are having to abandon attention to what is happening now.
  However, the Amendment is, of course, contrary both to experience and to logic. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) very frankly implied that if he could have his way he would abolish independent television—
  Mr. John Mendelson: Oh, no.
  Mr. Gilmour: I beg the hon. Member's pardon.
  Mr. Mendelson: I said nothing of the sort. If the hon. Member will read HANSARD tomorrow, he will see that what I did say was that in my opinion and in the opinion of a number of hon. Members on this side of the House there is more murder and violence in programmes on commercial television than on the B.B.C, but that unfortunately the B.B.C. had followed that trend. That is what I said.
  Mr. Gilmour: I beg the hon. Member's pardon if I misundertood him, but I thought that was his implication when he interrupted my right hon. Friend, but that merely proves my point, that there are very few hon. Members opposite—possibly only the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew)—who would be in favour of abolishing independent television, and if they really believe in the Amendment they ought to be in favour of so doing.
  What is the reason for drawing a rigid distinction between radio and television? The argument for breaking the monopoly in sound broadcasting is stronger than that for breaking the monopoly in television. I have advanced this argument in outline before, and the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to nod when I did, but he did not refer to it when he wound up, and I put it forward again for the benefit of the Minister of Technology, and I hope that he will mention it later on, because the right hon. Gentleman, when he made a speech the other evening about his dealings with industry showed an immense experience of dealing with private industry, and would agree that a monopoly cannot be accepted just like that, and that there must be an argument put forward for it. The argument which used to be put forward for the B.B.C.'s monopoly no longer holds.
  That argument, if I may put it more brutally than it is usually put, is as follows, that the general cultural level and taste of the listener is so low that if he is given a chance of listening to what he wants to listen to he will listen to programmes which the cultural élite, many hon. Members opposite and many radio and television critics, despise and disapprove of, and that, therefore, he must not be given that choice; therefore, there must be a monopoly.
  That is the old Reithian doctrine. Reith said: "Few know what they want

  1561
  and very few what they need." Therefore, he gave them what he thought they ought to have, and that, until quite recently, was the doctrine of the B.B.C. The corollary of that doctrine is, of course, monopoly. It is a form of cultural dictatorship which I myself do not particularly approve of. But it is a perfectly defensible doctrine, and it led in the 'thirties to commercial radio stations being set up outside of this country, when the B.B.C. tried to ban them, and so forth. It is a defensible doctrine, and it was one which the B.B.C. followed until quite recently. When Radio Manx tried to get an extension of needle time the B.B.C. opposed the application on the ground that it would lower public taste and therefore there would no longer be a balanced programme. Shortly after that the B.B.C. introduced Radio 1, which is a totally unbalanced programme and can have no other effect than to lower public taste. Therefore, the argument put forward by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon, that commercial radio would lower public taste, is totally invalid, because B.B.C.1 is already on the floor. As far as I can see, it is impossible to get a programme culturally lower or more unbalanced or more conducive to lowering public taste.
  Mr. John Mendelson: There are 300 in the United States.
  Mr. Gilmour: There may be 300, but they are not lower. They are on exactly the same level. One cannot get lower than the floor.
  That was not true when commercial television was introduced, but it is different now, and shows that the old Reithian argument no longer applies. Reith has disappeared from sound radio. He has also disappeared from television.
  In the Evening Standard last summer Mr. Milton Shulman, who certainly cannot be accused of being an admirer of commercial television, said he had been through the output of both main channels and said:
  "I have been through several weeks' output of B.B.C.-1 and … in the weekend I have discussed above, it seems London Weekend was actually providing a marginally more serious schedule than B.B.C.-1. And, on balance over the week, there is only a slight sliver of qualitative difference in the output of Channels 1 and 9 at peak times with B.B.C. perhaps fractionally more conscientious. Having abandoned, then, its posture as a
  1562
  channel different in style and philosophy and attitude from its commercial rival, there surely can be no justification in B.B.C.-1 continuing to refuse advertisements."
  I do not agree that it should accept advertisements, but it makes the point that, as far as television is concerned Reith has also gone by the board.
  The B.B.C.'s philosophy now is to give people what they want. That I entirely approve of, and, indeed, it received the sanction of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Social Services when he wrote an article a long time ago when he talked about
  "the addiction to relaxation shared by the vast majority of the British public",
  and he asserted
  "the right to triviality belonging to every viewer in a free society."
  That is rather different from what he was saying a few months ago about television, but I think it is the better of his two views. The B.B.C.'s view now is that it should give people what they want, and I entirely agree about that, but the logical corollary of that is that there is no need for a monopoly at all and no justification for a monopoly. The more people there are to give people what they want, the better.
  I think the B.B.C. has realised this perfectly well. That is why it no longer makes a de jure claim for monopoly. It merely makes a de facto claim by trying to pre-empt commercial radio. It realises that, logically, the case for a monopoly no longer exists, because of its policy. I fear, however, that the Government have not understood what has happened.
  The right way, of course, to maintain standards would be for the B.B.C. to concentrate on what it does best, and to concentrate on maintaining the standards of its programmes. I do not want to repeat what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Putney said, but I would say that he has examined the situation very carefully indeed, and I agreed with what he said. It seems to me most unfortunate that the Government and the B.B.C. should be prepared to take risks with programme standards.
  The other prong of our criticism of the Government is the I.T.A. levy. Just as the right hon. Gentleman has been criticised by his hon. Friends in the

  1563
  Motion I have referred to, in our debate on the I.T.A. levy he will remember that he was not supported by one hon. Member opposite. He will also remember that he barely seemed himself to be in very strong agreement with what he was saying. He reminded us this afternoon that he gave an undertaking, and that is very welcome, but I would draw his attention to a circular sent out by the 76 Group, which even the hon. Member for Woolwich, East would hardly think gives money to the Conservative Party.
  The circular states:
  "Reconciling good programming and profitability has always been the major dilemma of I.T.V. In the present situation it is impossible. As a result of the levy companies are cutting budgets, sacking staff, closing studios, opting out less often from network programmes, and initiating fewer programmes on offer to the network. Consequently innovation and experiment among programme makers are discounted."
  It is therefore not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to repeat the figures he gave this afternoon, which he knows only too well related to a totally different situation from that which exists today. He knows that there are a number of companies which were not in existence during those halcyon days he mentioned, and that there is another major contractor, so that the five programme contractors cut down the profitability of the network.
  Mr. Stonehouse: I was not referring to figures for some years ago but to the last available profit results of a whole list of companies, which showed that many of them made very substantial returns, indeed, in the last available financial year. What I have said to them is that if in the current year their results are appreciably worse than that, I will consider the position. I could be no fairer than that.
  Mr. Gilmour: It has been perfectly plain for some time that their position is infinitely worse. According to the Economist and others, budgets have been cut already, so it is a bit late in the day for the Minister to say he will start considering the position. He has had several months in which he has known what was happening; several months since the levy was imposed, as I think in ignorance by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who
  1564
  had not realised that the situation had changed so much.
  The essence of our case is that the Government, while trumpeting their devotion to public service principles are allowing a deterioration in public service broadcasting by encouraging or forcing the B.B.C. to go into local radio at the expense of things which are far more important and, at the same time, they are depriving the television neworks of a reasonable return on their money. It is high time that the right hon. Gentleman got into these talks with the I.T.A.
  We know, and the right hon. Gentleman knows, that our Motion would have gained very wide support in the House tonight. It is very regrettable that he should, to use his words, funk a straight vote on the Government's broadcasting policy, because he knows that the sad fact is that the Government's policy has led, and is leading, to a deterioration in the standards of broadcasting.
  7.4 p.m.
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: I find it very difficult to disagree with the Opposition Motion, and I am sorry, as the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) is sorry, that we shall not have the chance of a straight vote on it. There can be little doubt that the Government's broadcasting policy is leading, and will lead, to a serious deterioration in the quality of our public service broadcasting, which under the B.B.C. once led the world.
  The crux of the problem, is, very simply, finance. I am sorry to have to disagree on this with my right hon. Friend, who was my Minister and for whom I retain a warm regard as a very old friend. Nevertheless, he is inexact on this point, and those hon. Members who look on finance as the crux are on the button, and he is not.
  The Government, like every Government before them, have shied from the necessity of raising the licence fee because of its possible electoral effect. Yet look at the position. We have the lowest licence fee in Western Europe but there is £2 million worth of unlicensed car radios and £7 million worth of uncollected licences. There is not much wonder that, as a result, the B.B.C. is operating in the red.

  1565
  Now, because the Government want to keep local radio out of the irresponsible hands of the commercial carvers-up, they have placed the responsibility for running a network of local radio stations in the lap of the B.B.C. But what they have not realised—and, if they have realised it, it is the more reprehensible—that they cannot have it both ways. With its present income, the B.B.C. cannot afford both to run local radio and, at the same time, maintain the traditional B.B.C. standards of quality and coverage.
  This incompatibility of responsibilities has been the genesis of that brilliantly opaque document, "Broadcasting in the Seventies". I have no doubt that the Government have allowed the B.B.C. to get away with the policies which have been pretty dimly adumbrated in that document as a quid pro quo for taking on local radio.
  The Director-General, Charles Curran, said at a meeting at Bristol:
  "We'd have got nothing if we had not accepted the local radio commitment."
  If the proposals in "Broadcasting in the Seventies" are put into effect there can be no doubt whatsoever that the quality of B.B.C. output will suffer grievously.
  The old ideal of "quality in programmes" is to disappear before the new aim of giving the public what it wants. What a sad decline from the old Reithian principle of responsibility in broadcasting. As the Pilkington Report said:
  "Those who say give the public what it wants begin by underestimating public taste, and end by debauching it."
  "Mixed" programming to provide for all tastes is to give way to "generic" broadcasting—the regular non-stop pumping out of popular pap—and it is no good the Minister reading happy phrases from Mr. Mansell's somewhat partisan opinions to disprove that.
  Radio 1 will gain more pop music, although I find from my young friends that the young for whom it was designed find it pretty tame and dreary stuff. Radio 2 will gain more light music. Radio 3 will get more "standard" classics: I suppose that means more "Nutcracker Suite" and less Mahler—God help us. But Radio 2 loses about 30 speech programmes a week, and the Third loses half its output of the spoken word. It is no good pretending that those losses can be restored
  1566
  on Radio 4, which has to put out more news and more current affairs. The B.B.C bosses have consistently refused to be specific—and they have been asked again and again by several of their staff—about the actual programmes to be lost. I wonder whether it is because they know that then there would indeed be a public outcry?
  I want to look now at the history of these developments—and we should have seen the warning light long ago. The translation of Lord Hill should have been a warning to those of us who care about the quality of our country's public service broadcasting. That gentleman is not exactly renowned for his cultural interests. His greatest gift has been his ability to spread a rather thin talent pretty thinly over a variety of careers. The disappearance of Carleton Greene, who was a giant of a man in every respect, was a disaster for the B.B.C. It led to the appointment of a very much littler man, Charles Curran—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—much smaller, if hon. Members prefer it, though the point is not disputed—whose handling of the reorganisation proposals has been inept and insensitive, and has led to the greatest internal discord in the B.B.C.'s history. But we must be fair. I remind the House that the factor to blame is "Broadcasting in the 'Seventies", which was the inevitable result of the Government's temerity in authorising a licence increase.
  The B.B.C. has always been rather timorous about such mundane matters as discussing money. Those of us who worked for her in her monopolistic days will remember that. The B.B.C. evidently did not wish to push the Government too hard with common considerations like cost calculations and accountants' columns. It had been working quite willingly for some time on a range of programmes which left the B.B.C. very much in the red. Now, even more amazingly, it is willing to continue in the red, safely past the date of the next General Election until the licence fee is raised. It is even willing—this is where is becomes absolutely incredible—to extend its responsibilities and financial embarrassment by taking on local radio as a public service on condition the Government allows it to impose "Broadcasting in the 'Seventies" on an unwilling and unconsulted staff and on a public which has not the

  1567
  foggiest notion of what its proposals entail.
  Do hon. Members realise or does the public know that the three B.B.C. regions of incredible value in Bristol, Birmingham and Manchester are due to disappear next year? The regional creative and technical teams which have evolved through 40 years will be disbanded. The studios and facilities in those regions will be used for overflow productions from London when various studio leases run out and where existing facilities may not be sufficient.
  There will be no independent air time on radio or television available to the English regions. There will be no assurance of independent programme monies free from London editorial control. There will be no regional broadcasting in radio or television except news and news magazines. And this is at a time when there is an emphatic and healthy emphasis throughout the country towards decentralisation in many spheres of life.
  Charles Curran's claim that there has been full internal consultation with the staff is denied by every one of the unions concerned, and even by non-union staff. These are the people who by the nature of their work know and understand, now when at last they are being spelled out, the implications of the proposals in "Broadcasting in the 'Seventies". They deeply resent the imputation that they are concerned only about their jobs. Many of them, particularly in the technical and creative areas, could have got better jobs elsewhere but they chose to spend their working lives in public service broadcasting. It is a pretty poor reward that they are getting.
  Now they threaten—this is pretty amazing to anyone who knows the B.B.C.—industrial action to show their concern and dismay about these proposals. Curran also declared on 17th October that the time for public discussion was over. This was when hon. Members and the public outside had simply no understanding of the scope of the changes envisaged and intended. This can be proved by the words of the author of "Broadcasting in the 'Seventies"—a gentleman called Ian Trethowan who has been unkindly described as a metropolitan T.V. journalist. In this month's copy of Ariel, the staff magazine of the B.B.C, he posed some of the disquieted questions raised by
  1568
  members of the staff and proceeded to answer them. His first question was on consultation:
  "The proposals in 'Broadcasting in the Seventies' closely affect the staff. Yet they only begin to be told the solid facts and figures about what 'Broadcasting in the Seventies' meant on 17th October—the day after the Director-General declared with no previous warning that the plans were to be implemented—in other words, the period of debate was over. Why are the changes being raced through without any opportunity for consultation?"
  He answered his own question and condemned himself by these words:
  "It was at this point, and really not until this point, that we could start going into details. Had we done so earlier, we would have been accused of prejudging the issue. In any event, the first thing that had to be done was to establish the basic programme patterns …".
  He can say that again—
  "Not until these were clear was it possible to work out the detailed effects."
  How could any of us know in that case of the changes that were intended? He affects to be surprised that the B.B.C. received only 1,000 letters about the implications of "Broadcasting in the 'Seventies". I am surprised that he received even that number. That 1,000 people had tumbled to what the B.B.C. governors were up to.
  The changes proposed in "Broadcasting in the 'Seventies" are so radical both as regards the regions and as to programme policy that the proposals should be suspended while a public inquiry is set up to look into the responsibilities of broadcasting in the seventies. I quote from the document put out by my union, Equity:
  "The changes about to be implemented are not mere changes of detail, but changes in the very essence of public service broadcasting, of wide social and cultural significance. Changes of this order do not properly fall within the competence of the B.B.C. Governors but should be subject to decision by Government and Parliament after full public examination."
  I suggest that all this is a matter for this House to decide.
  7.16 p.m.
  Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I listened with great interest and considerable agreement to the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds). I shall return to some of his points, particularly to what he said, which is very important, about the state of morale among the staff, especially in the regions. I want

  1569
  first to underline what he said about the importance of directing attention immediately to the financial implications of this whole business. He was absolutely right to focus attention on this narrow but desperately important point. What we are talking about is money for the B.B.C.
  The independence of the B.B.C. in the days of Reith, Haley and Jacobs was not just because of the strength of those people, but because the B.B.C. was financially independent and had a system of remuneration which appeared to be as it were self-perpetuating. There was an automatic growth rate in the licence fees at that time which gave those people confidence and the very necessary feeling of total independence of this place and of the Government. This House is to blame for allowing that situation to run out. The B.B.C. also is to blame for allowing the situation to change and for not acting early enough. The B.B.C. should not have got itself into that sort of position. It should have protested earlier with much more vigour and should have insisted on preserving its financial independence at a much earlier stage. It should not have drifted into the present state of affairs.
  My criticisms of the B.B.C.'s plan, "Broadcasting in the Seventies", hinges on five points. The first is the adoption of a system of generic broadcasting rather than mixed programming. The second is the extraordinary decision, at a time of extreme shortage of money and resources, to embark on the plans for so-called local radio. I say "so-called" because I believe these stations will not be local in quite the original sense. Thirdly, I am desperately anxious about the situation in the regions and the effect of the plan on the people in the regions who wish to make a genuine regional contribution towards the national network. Fourthly, I am concerned and disturbed about the intention to start all these plans on 4th April, 1970. From the haste resulting from that decision spring a great many things that we are concerned about in this debate.
  Finally, I am deeply concerned about the Corporation's increasing dependence on this Government or on the next one. The Corporation looks like sacrificing its freedom for a doubtful short-term advantage. It has not received any guarantee
  1570
  of immediate money. It has only a promise—a carrot dangled before it by this Government or by the next one. This has got the corporation in a very serious position of dependence upon the Government which it never occupied previously.
  The hon. Member for Smethwick dealt in some detail, and I think correctly, with the question of generic broadcasting. The hon. Gentleman gave figures of the extent to which each of the different radio programmes will concentrate on specific items of output.
  Generic broadcasting is essentially a kind of broadcasting which arises in a commercial situation. It is suited to commercial broadcasting. Advertisers like generic broadcasting, because it is nice for advertisers to be able to direct an advertisement at a precise channel or a precise programme which attracts a particular market.
  I see the Minister shaking his head, but he must agree that wherever there is commercial broadcasting there is generic broadcasting. Generic broadcasting fits in with the sale of adverts; this is its advantage. Advertisements can be sold much more easily if programme companies can say "We have this particular kind of programme all day which will be attracting this particular kind of people all day for your advertisement". If we were to have advertisements, a case could be made out for generic broadcasting. We are not to have advertisements. We are to have a commercial pattern of broadcasting without the advantage of any advertising revenue. In other words, it is the worst possible of both worlds.
  I agree with those who have said that generic broadcasting ultimately leads to a decline in standards. It has done so in the United States. It is a complicated matter. Concentration on one channel, on one programme, on one type of output, necessarily results in a gradual lowering of standards. It tends to squeeze out minorities, even in that channel and even in that stream, and to that extent it results in a decline in standards. The pattern here would follow what has happened in the United States—there would be a decline in our standards here too.
  Thirdly, generic broadcasting is bad because it runs contrary to the corporation's former avowed intention of widening tastes and broadening interests. The

  1571
  hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) was right to make much of this point. The corporation has always had that aim. It is a laudable aim and not just a deceptive ruse like saying, "We will put on this. That will fox them. Then we will suddenly put on something different". Intelligent mixed programming has a great educative effect and can broaden interests and widen tastes by leading people from one interest on to another.
  The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): Do I correctly understand the hon. Gentleman to be saying that there is virtue in itself in getting somebody who is hooked on to a programme for its popularity to ingest accidentally something of quality in order to raise his standards? I want to be sure that this is the hon. Gentleman's point, because I shall deal with it.
  Dr. Winstanley: I prefer to put the point in my words rather than in those of the Minister. I know what I meant, but I am not entirely certain of what the Minister meant. What I meant is that if a programme broadcasts the same thing all the time there is a tendency for some people to stay with the programme. Others switch it off. If changes can be rung in the programme, without any doubt in time people's tastes can be broadened and they can be introduced to other things which they might not have selected but which they then find enjoyable.
  I come to the decision to embark on local radio. At a time of acute financial difficulty and a shortage of resources as well as of money, the corporation proposes to spend an additional £7 million on providing local radio which will not be genuinely local and for which there is as yet no objective evidence of any real need of sizeable demand.
  I do not say that the experimental stations have not done a reasonably good job. I have listened to them. Within their extremely small budgets they have done well. I take the point made by a number of hon. Members that these stations have been able to bring about a degree of audience participation in programmes which is not possible in programmes of another type. This is a
  1572
  valuable community exercise, but it depends on the local radio being genuinely local.
  I was prepared to have a slightly different attitude towards local radio when upwards of 100 stations were being spoken of. But forty stations broadcasting to 70 per cent. of the population is not local radio. It is spreading the thing too far so that it ceases to have the advantages of parochialism and becomes merely an inadequate and under-financed form of regional broadcasting.
  It is possible, too for local radio of a kind to exist complementary to regional broadcasting, if it is genuinely local radio on a small basis. We are talking now about one local radio station for London and one local radio station for Manchester. Once we talk in these terms, it becomes clear that such local radio cannot exist alongside regional broadcasting. So we have moved away from the original objective of local radio.
  This step is being taken at a time when the corporation is already in debt, when many people are still unable to receive B.B.C. 2, and when other important developments are being held up for lack of money. This must inevitably destroy regional broadcasting as we have it. It puts the corporation's head in a financial noose held by this Government or later to be held by another Government. The corporation is to do all this in exchange for a promise of an increase in licence fee in April 1971.
  It must be noted that this major extension of local radio must result in more recorded music. This is potentially damaging to the interests of music as a whole. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon asked this question, and looked very puzzled because he could not find the answer—why should the B.B.C. subsidise orchestras? He said that this was the business of the Arts Council.
  The answer is that the B.B.C. is, always has been, and always will be, desperately dependent upon music and musicians. It cannot rely on recorded music beyond a certain extent without somewhow drying up the creative music which it needs. So, if not from the point of view of subsidising the arts, at any rate from the narrow point of self-interest, the corporation has a duty to maintain and stimulate live music so as to ensure

  1573
  the continuous flow of the kind of music it requires.
  I feel strongly on the question of the regions. I understand that people who live in this area and who are used to centralised, London-based institutions, will not feel so deeply about the question. I understand their point of view. Regional broadcasting is not parochial broadcasting. It is not a region talking to a region. To be interesting, it must be local in a very small sense.
  To me, who live near Manchester, something which is happening in Bury is of no more interest than it would be if it were happening in Bognor Regis. To be interesting, it would have to be interesting in itself.
  The real purpose of regional broadcasting—radio or television—is to enable a region with its own distinctive qualities, which are neither better nor worse than those of other regions, to make its own personal and individual contribution to the national whole. Take the north-west region in which I live and in which there is a population near to that of Scotland and Wales combined. What are the opportunities going to be? It cannot be denied that the opportunities for the North-West to initiate drama programmes and things of that kind will be substantially reduced. Yet in the North-West we have a tradition in the theatre which is still fluorishing. We have repertory movements and we have playwrights. It has been in many ways a nursery of the theatre. All we say is that there must be an opportunity for these people to make their contribution in the North-West without necessarily having to come to London to do so.
  This is what the fear is about, and it is a very real fear which has not yet been resolved. I know that these fears may in the end prove to be groundless, but the fact remains that the Director-General has talked to the people in the regions and they are not reassured. They still feel these anxieties. They are not convinced by the kind of reassurances they have been given because the re-assurances, when one examines them, are not very reassuring.
  The B.B.C. may say that it is not economic to maintain large regional structures in broadcasting. This is an argument which it is entitled to put, but the
  1574
  fact remains that we here have a responsibility in so far as public policy is concerned. Any movement towards the greater centralisation or greater metro-politanisation of broadcasting would be contrary to the direction in which politics as a whole is moving and would point in the opposite direction to the Maud recommendations.
  I am interested in what has been said about this by a number of people who feel strongly on regional matters. We have Mr. Charles Carter, the former Chairman of the North-West Economic Development Council, who wrote to the Guardian:
  "… the whole matter should now be looked at in the context of the Redcliffe-Maud Report and the consequent desirability of strengthening regional initiatives and local autonomy."
  He later resigned from his post.
  We have the new Chairman of the North-West Economic Development, Sir William Mather, who said:
  "… the proposed cuts in the corporation's regional services will greatly curtail an important element in our regional life and transfer much creative activity to London. It is ironic that the B.B.C, which ever since its inception has resisted the urge to centralise in London, should contemplate doing so at a time when interest in regionalism has never been stronger, and when one of the main reasons put forward by the Maud Commission for the reform of local government is the need to reduce the power and influence of London. Despite the efforts we have made my council have not been approached by the B.B.C. on this issue."
  I now quote a letter which I received from my friend, Robert Stead, former North Regional Controller who, as the right hon. Gentleman will recollect, retired from his post—he exercised a nice discrimination in doing so—the day before the B.B.C. abolished it. He said this, referring to the general comments on the matter:
  "I was disappointed that there was little Press support for the regional concept. … I still hope that this terribly important factor will arouse further comment before long."
  This is the kind of feeling which exists among all the staff of the B.B.C. in the regions from the top all the way down. This kind of feeling has not yet been satisfied by the kind of reassurances that have been given. I do not say that it will not prove possible in the end for these people to be reassured. It may be possible to make changes so that a genuinely regional contribution will be

  1575
  made. All I can say is that the people concerned are not yet reassured. They feel that they have been hanging on waiting for new opportunities, that the building of the Manchester headquarters would give them an opportunity, for which they have waited for many years, to make a really constructive contribution in a regional sense. They now feel, rightly or wrongly, that they have been misled.
  It is regrettable that it should have been left, for instance, to Granada to provide opportunities for local actors. I am in touch with a theatrical agency which finds many jobs for artistes living in the North-West. It has been able to find jobs for them in repertory companies and in local companies. This agency used to be able to get work for these artistes with the B.B.C., but the work is now drying up. They found parts in "Z-Cars" and programmes of that kind, but gradually these opportunities are dwindling. It would be a shame if the B.B.C. ceased to provide those opportunities in the regions, be it the North-West or any other region, for the people who reside in them.
  It has been said that the old regions were the wrong shape. I agree. I have nothing at all against the area concept, but, if one divides a region into smaller areas the very act of dividing it weakens it unless at the same time one introduces extra resources. What it is possible for one region in a certain form to do is not possible for that region to do if it has been divided up, unless we are prepared to put in additional resources. My attitude towards the area concept would change if there were a clear undertaking to provide additional resources so that these areas could make the kind of contribution which could be made by the larger kind of region.
  Let me deal with the proposal to start on 4th April, 1971. Why this indecent haste? This is not a professional demand. Major changes in programmes from the professional point of view invariably start in the autumn. There must be another reason. It must be an administrative reason. But I believe the haste concerning that decision has been responsible for much damage to the B.B.C.'s image because of its failure adequately to consult others. Many people believe that
  1576
  it has failed, and this failure could have serious effects.
  The B.B.C. had a reputation for consulting its staff. Because it had this reputation it did not have much in the way of union troubles. What has happened recently in the B.B.C. may spark off a degree of what I might call unionisation which could in the long term cost the B.B.C. millions if it resulted in the kind of activities which could follow—the right hon. Gentleman knows what I mean—such excessive unionisation in the B.B.C. which in the past the A.B.S. and the employers have always avoided. I see no reason for the start on 4th April and I do not see why it should not be postponed. Confidence has been, if not shattered, at least diminished and it will not easily be restored. Postponing the matter could help.
  Now a word about the B.B.C.'s increasing economic dependence on the Government, sacrificing its freedom. This is surely very important. I was interested to hear the Leader of the Opposition today. He made a very good speech. Indeed, he has made two good speeches recently, but on both occasions he had a good case. This time he was attacking the Government's broadcasting proposals, and he was right. On the other occasion he attacked the Government's boundary proposals, and he was right. It is a fact that one makes better speeches when one has a good case. He made no clear commitment to accept this increase in the licence fee in April, 1971. He said that the B.B.C. needed more money and he could not think of any other way to get it except by an increase in the licence fee. I am glad that he made that commitment, because otherwise we would be in a dangerous situation whereby the B.B.C. would put itself in a position of dependence on the return of a Labour Government at the next election. If the B.B.C. had been given a vested interest of over £5 million in a Labour victory at the next election, that would have been a serious matter. Something more should be said about that now. I would rather see the B.B.C. made financially independent now and not merely promised what it may receive after the next General Election.
  So what do we do now? We should postpone the plans for more thought and consultation. We should look elsewhere

  1577
  for economies. I recognise what has been done in dealing with licence evasion, but there are other possibilities pointed to by the Third Report of the Estimates Committee with regard to the arrangements with the Post Office, which charges the B.B.C. nearly £1 million a year for dealing with complaints of interference with programme reception. The Post Office has a curious monopoly over telecommunications. I am told that if I record a programme in Manchester which is later broadcast in London it may be cheaper for the B.B.C. to send a man down on the train with the tape than to send the programme over the line by the Post Office. Economies could be obtained from an attack on the Post Office's monopoly position in telecommunications. I would like to see the B.B.C. have a bit more autonomy, and able to do some of its communications.
  I would also like to see administrative economies and economies in establishment, but not economies in programmes. The scope for economies is limited. It is the B.B.C.'s clear duty to put the ball in the Government's court.
  I admire the qualities of Lord Hill, and have recognised them for many years. I have known his work for many years, even long ago, when he was Secretary of the British Medical Association. He is a man of great administrative ability and force of character. I am glad that he blew some cobwebs away from the B.B.C., and he has now surrounded himself with new young people. But unfortunately he has been led by McKinsey down a blind alley. I hope that he will turn back and attack the Government and tell them, "We need the money now. Give it to us without strings". He would receive support from many hon. Members if he did that instead of saying, "Let us come to an arrangement. We shall do this if you promise something else for the year after 1971". That is what I hope for and look forward to. I hope that it is not too late for us to arrive at that new situation.
  We are in a sad position. We have decided to spend £7 million whilst we are heavily in debt on providing something of doubtful value as yet. In doing so, we may destroy the regions. We are delaying the provision of B.B.C.2 to many people, and we are increasing the B.B.C.'s dependence on the Government.
  1578
  At the same time, we are in a way moving towards a commercial system of broadcasting, without the corresponding advantage of advertising, and we are bedevilling labour relations within the B.B.C. It is a pretty sorry tale, but I hope that the end is not yet inevitable.
  With regard to the vote, we on this bench will follow the advice of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon and do the only thing we can. By a curious trick—I call it a trick, though I understand that it is one that has often been played—a subject for debate chosen by the Opposition has in effect been changed by the Government by the nature of their Amendment. We can do nothing about it. There are only two Lobbies. We cannot go into a third or fourth, and the only way we in the Liberal Party can express our disapproval of the present plans and our sincere hope that they will be reconsidered, as well as our disapproval of the Government's acceptance of the plans, thus pre-empting further discussion, is to vote against the Government. But we make it clear that in voting against them we are not voting with certain other people for certain other things. We are voting against the Government.
  7.44 p.m.
  Mr. John Mendelson: I want to begin with the very point on which the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) ended his previously interesting and forthright speech. He is not very good at explaining strategic and tactical positions; I do not know any hon. Member present from the Liberal bench who is. The hon. Gentleman is too forthright to explain the tactical positions in which his party sometimes finds itself.
  I have no difficulty on the vote, because two matters have become entangled by a deliberate decision of the Leader of the Opposition and his advisers. There has been for some time a serious debate on the B.B.C.'s new proposals, and the Campaign for Better Broadcasting, which has taken up the subject prominently, has received support from both sides of the House and has made a serious case. I should have liked a debate on that subject separate from the other issues to which I shall come.
  But, after the Campaign for Better Broadcasting had been going on for a

  1579
  while, the Opposition Front Bench decided to take over the subject and use it to attack the Government. That is obvious. It is equally obvious that the Opposition Front Bench has a policy which at any rate the Leader of the Opposition is most hesitant to put forward. But it was clearly spelt out at the Conservative Party conference. That is a policy to which powerful commercial forces are addicted, the policy of commercial radio. It is a matter of money, of commercial greed, and the sort of situation which a former Postmaster-General, Mr. Bevins, described in his book, "The Greasy Pole". One can understand that the Leader of the Opposition, faced with that sort of situation, is not too keen to spell out the policy in too much detail.
  It was noticeable this afternoon that in a fairly long speech when he came on to the point of commercial radio, which is the main plank of the Opposition on this subject, he said, "Now a word about commercial radio". He said reams of stuff about all the other subjects, but, "Now a word …", as if he were almost passing it by. He treated the subject like someone introducing Hamlet to a class of students aged 14 to 15 by saying, "I shall deal with all the important subjects now, and mention only in passing the Prince of Denmark". That would not be regarded as a very serious approach to a debate or play, and plays are not relevant in this debate.
  Therefore, I have no difficulty this evening, and I am surprised at the conclusion reached by the Liberal spokesman. Moreover, there is no difficulty technically. The Government have put forward a perfectly normal Amendment, and there is no room for the synthetic indignation of hon. Members opposite. Many of them were in office or here as back-benchers when this kind of thing was done by a Conservative Government year after year and week after week. It has been done by Liberal Governments, though I admit that the hon. Gentleman was not here at the time. He has not been here within the lifetime of a Liberal Government, and I cannot promise him that even if he serves for another four or five terms he will be here in the lifetime of a Liberal Government. That is his difficulty. We cannot help it,
  1580
  and he has no right to express moral indignation either.
  I can understand the Opposition Front Bench saying that it is wrong to propose the Amendment, because a Labour Government are in office, but they say that on other subjects, and we do not have to take any notice. The Government are entitled to do this, and I am glad that they have put forward an Amendment in terms which disclose the real purpose and commercial intent of the Opposition in the debate. That is what it is all about—commercial radio. I hope that none of my hon. Friends will be misled by this strategy.
  That is why I have no difficulty over the vote, and why I am glad that my right hon. Friends have tabled the Amendment in the way that they have. We shall vote to reject the attempt of the commercial lobby to have its policy affirmed by the House. That is as much as I shall say on that subject.
  Dr. Winstanley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that nearly all the speeches made the last time we debated the plan, "Broadcasting in the Seventies", were opposed to it, that most of the speeches tonight are or will be opposed to it, and that therefore it would be a good thing if we were allowed to count those people who are against the plan?
  Mr. Mendelson: No, Sir. That argument does not hold water, because the House is not a debating society. It is a decision-making legislative body, and therefore the real policy differences between the two sides must be voted on. The Opposition's real policy, in spite of all the attempts by right hon. Gentlemen opposite to make it unclear and blur the issue, is to have commercial radio to pay back all those powerful economic forces that are financing them for the next General Election and are waiting in the wings to have a share in the gravy. As we are not a debating society, it was the Government's duty to put forward an Amendment which disclosed to the House, and thereby to the country, the real policy of the Opposition on which we shall vote and which we shall defeat tonight.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: I agree that we are not a debating society, but as we are not surely we should be allowed to vote on

  1581
  the Government's policy, which is what we are primarily concerned with.
  Mr. Mendelson: No. The hon. Gentleman knows, particularly sitting on the Front Bench, that for more than 120 years the procedure of the House has been that if a Motion is put forward by one side the Front Bench, representing the other half of the country, is perfectly entitled to select the major elements of political disagreement and make it the basis of the vote. However, I should be depriving the House of valuable time if I went on replying to more interruptions on this subject.
  I want to come to the main issue between me and the Government. It has nothing to do with commercial radio. The Government and I and the Labour movement outside and its representatives in the House are in complete agreement in rejecting the plans of the commercial radio lobby. My disagreement with them is about the proposals in "Broadcasting in the Seventies".
  I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications is not here, but I realise that he has to have a sandwich at some time and that he has to be here for the winding-up speeches. None the less, I regret his absence, because I am about to criticise him. I regretted his tone of identification with these proposals. There is no need for him to identify himself with them so closely. To do so is not his business, and he laid himself open to the criticism that he spent too much time reading out what representatives of the B.B.C. had been saying in the various memoranda which they had sent out.
  His reply to the criticism was unconvincing. He said that he wanted these documents to be heard in the House. He must assume that hon. Members can read, and we have all been bombarded with these papers. He must assume that we do our reading, not necessarily in the Chamber, but in our offices and at home. We have all read these documents. What we want from the responsible Minister is not a repetition of what we have read, but his view and the Government's reply to the points which have been made in the debate. He was inadequate in that respect.
  What matters here is that it would be highly dangerous for my right hon.
  1582
  Friend and the Government as a whole to identify themselves completely with the detailed proposals which the B.B.C. is making. My right hon. Friend himself said that the B.B.C. had a board of governors and was independent and therefore able to deal with these matters, but in that event we do not want the Government to have any close identification with these detailed proposals.
  This leads me to my second point, which concerns the request for an independent public inquiry. It is no use my right hon. Friend talking about inquiries beyond 1976. That is not what the House is concerned with. Just as we have read the documents, the Minister must have seen the communications which have been sent to him by the Campaign for Better Broadcasting, which is led by many people who together have a sum of experience in the cultural life of the country which is unsurpassed.
  In the memoranda which they have sent to my right hon. Friend, they say that their concern is that the Government should set up an independent public inquiry immediately, and the instruction which they hope the Government will then give as a result of having set up such an inquiry would be to the Governors and the Director-General of the B.B.C. not to proceed further with the implementation of these proposals. That is the request, and it has not yet been properly answered, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will address himself to it tonight.
  It is true that the Opposition always want the Government to increase the licence fee. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was very charming during that passage of his speech this afternoon. Normally belabouring the Government for spending too much money on public enterprises, this afternoon he was full of largesse. He sounded like Father Christmas, except that he wanted my right hon. Friend to be Father Christmas, not himself, and he said that he would not mind if the Government increased the licence fee forthwith, or in the very near future.
  He was very charming about that and one can see why. To increase the licence fee could not be popular with many people, and for those in the lower income groups and old-age pensioners even a

  1583
  limited increase would be a serious matter. I happen to be in favour of it, but the right hon. Gentleman has dubious reasons for urging the Government.
  If the Government increased the licence fee and if, by some mischance, which I am confident will not happen, the right hon. Gentleman were returned to No. 10, Downing Street at a General Election, he would introduce commercial radio and the licence fee would already have been increased. The odium for the increase would be taken by my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman would be able to repay the commercial radio lobby which had supported him at the general election by introducing profitable commercial radio for it. It is too simple, and the right hon. Gentleman cannot expect my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister not to see through that even before he has opened the morning newspapers.
  That is not serious. What is serious is that, apart from the manoeuvring of the Leader of the Opposition, the Government have a responsibility. They are the Government now and we hope and expect that they will continue to be the Government for the first five years of the '70s and, I hope, for the second five years of the '70s. Therefore, they have a responsibility for seeing that nothing is done by the B.B.C. in the next two years which is irreparable. Hon. Members and others outside who have argued that if these decisions were taken now they could not be repaired are correct.
  It is no good reeling off hours, as my right hon. Friend has done. One of the most serious issues concerns the Third Programme and the spoken word on the Third Programme. My right hon. Friend is wrong airily to talk about spreading the sort of cultural values which were represented on the Third Programme in the past to another programme or to other programmes. While we accept that we must provide for the majority of the people and provide well for them, we as a Labour Party should never accept that there has been an élitism in the Third Programme which is undesirable.
  We should look at this closely, as has been said by Mr. Marius Goring, who speaks for people who work on the stage perhaps with as much authority as anybody can speak and who has pointed out that some of the finest playwrights who
  1584
  are now the glory of the English stage first got their start on the Third Programme. Nobody else was prepared to give them a start; nobody else would hear them.
  Just as it is the task of the Tate Gallery to bring to the fore paintings and painters of whom nobody has ever heard but who a few years later become household names, so this is the task of the British Broadcasting Corporation. We cannot leave it to the Philistines to judge who is to enrich the national, cultural scene. It must be left to others and the Third Programme has a fine record in advancing the culture of the nation and helping to the fore playwrights who would never have been given the chance, but who later become so well known that people go to the theatre because it is the done thing to see a play by Mr. Orton or Mr. Pinter. A few years ago people would not have known the difference between the plays of those writers and those of anybody else.
  It is wrong, therefore, for the Government in any way to give the impression that they do not want to maintain a programme of that standard. As my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) pointed out, it is particularly the spoken work which will suffer, because it will be reduced by half in the Third Network if these plans are implemented.
  There is a great danger that commercial radio would reduce us to the level of American commercial radio stations. Those who say that there is no difference between Network I and American radio stations are wrong. I assume that those who take that view have been in the United States and, as I have done and as others have done, have listened to commercial radio there on various occasions. What happens there is quite different from Radio One, whatever we may think about that. Even before a listener can hear the news, he has to listen to half of an advertisement. Then he gets part of the news. Perhaps it is an announcement that the President is doing something in California. He is not told what the President is doing. He is told that, after he has listened to another advertisement, he will be told what the President is doing. Programmes are reduced to the lowest level of commercialism, and are far worse than we experience even on commercial television.

  1585
  It is arguable whether even some of the limited advantages in local commercial radio in the United States would apply here. Ours is a smaller and more unified country, and the fear is that we would get all that is bad and none of the advantages. But, apart from that, there is the problem of the generic programme content in our conditions.
  My right hon. Friend did not deal with this aspect. The danger in the new B.B.C. proposals is that we may get a lot of music and Monty Modlyn, and nothing else. The Monty Modlyns of this world may have a place on radio early in the mornings, but I would not like to think that the country was being brought up on that sort of diet. We need contributions from the regions and nationally of new writings, long discussions and programmes of literary criticism.
  I notice the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). Fortunately, he is not technically in the Chamber and will not be able to shut me up if I praise him. Recently, with three others, he took part in an excellent broadcast on the Third Programme which lasted for two and a half hours. They discussed the permissive society. I challenge anyone to show me a programme on the subject which was more worthwhile than that one. Contributions were made by a university professor, Alistair McIntyre and others. The Head of All Souls was a contributor, and he represented the Conservative side very well. If the spoken word content of the Third Programme is cut by half, that sort of broadcast will find no place.
  Those are serious matters, and the Government have to answer them. It is completely misleading for a member of the Government to point to the fact that only a thousand letters of protest have been received. None of these matters were spelled out by the B.B.C. The proposals were put forward as a general set of intentions, and it is unworthy of anyone in politics to use as an argument the fact that only a thousand letters were received.
  One does not have to be esoteric to make the point. In cases like prices and incomes or the reimposition of prescription charges, proposals are put forward and we get alarmed about them because it is our professional job to foresee the consequences. It does not require a
  1586
  great many letters from our constituents to make us do that. What usually happens is that the proposals are accepted and, three or four months later, letters and deputations begin to arrive.
  It is unworthy of the Government to use such an argument. A thousand letters is a great number when one considers that they were written before people knew the implications of the plans. It is the task of the House of Commons to foresee the results of trends and to pull back the Government.
  I believe that the Government are right in disclosing the shoddy case of the commercial radio lobby, and they are right in putting forward the Amendment in these terms. I hope that all my hon. Friends will vote for it to show up the policy which inspires the Opposition.
  At the same time, the Government should realise that there is a strong body of criticism against the B.B.C.'s proposals for the 1970s. The Government should announce that they do not identify themselves in detail with the proposals, that they have taken note of this body of criticism, that they are calling a halt and asking the B.B.C. not to proceed with their implementation until an independent inquiry has been held, by Which I mean not a Royal Commission but a more limited inquiry, and that members of the staff of the B.B.C. need not fear that the proposals will be thrust down their throats without further discussion with them and with the general public.
  The Government should make these anouncements tonight. If they do not, although the vote on this side of the House will be quasi-unanimous, the criticism and debate will continue and they will find that they have made the wrong decision by identifying themselves with these proposals.
  I hope that it is not too late and that the Government will say that they are asking the B.B.C. to suspend the implementation of its proposals until there has been opportunity for further inquiry into and public debate on them.
  8.6 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Emery: I am sure that the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) will not be surprised to hear me say that he has made the typically caustic speech that we have come to associate with him. He has tried to defend

  1587
  one of the weakest cases that the Government have had for a long time in attempting to take this House away from dealing with and voting on a major issue about which many hon. Members on both sides wish to express a view.
  The hon. Gentleman said that this Chamber is not a debating forum but one for making decisions. He said:
  "Real policies have to be voted upon."
  That is precisely what the Opposition are trying to do. We want to vote on the Government's policy of supporting the B.B.C., which is planning to bring about a deterioration in the quality of broadcasting. The hon. Gentleman's type of argument is preventing that. He knows it, and he sits there laughing about it. It is a great shame, and it needs to be properly exposed.
  I intend to detain the House for only a few minutes. In view of that, I shall concentrate my remarks on the regional aspect of broadcasting. The House must have been bemused by part of the speech of the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. He gave us a long lecture about what was to happen, not tomorrow or the day after, but years ahead. He spoke of the wire memory concept, the recording of television which could be played back, and the concept of dialling into a computerised bank of television programmes. He does not seem to realise that we in the South-West cannot even get B.B.C.2 and have no colour television. He should consider the real problems of today rather than dwell upon the dreams of the future.
  Does he realise that for a great part of the summer in the South-West, even B.B.C.1 is nothing but a screen showing what appears to be a snow storm. Let him put some of his technological assistants to solving problems of that sort. That is what would be appreciated by people in the South-West, who pay the full licence fee to receive only one programme for part of the year.
  Many people in the South-West get pretty fed up with the type of advertising done by the B.B.C.—"Why not switch to B.B.C.2? Why not see it in colour?". The local editor of the Exmouth Journal said that he felt like throwing something through the television screen because it was imposible to get the alternatives.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a Highlands lady is about to sue the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications under the Trade Descriptions Act because he advertises a choice of channels?
  Mr. Emery: This is my point. There is no choice in many areas. This is something which the B.B.C. in "Broadcasting in the 'Seventies" has not considered sufficiently. People in the outlying regions believe that the Government ought to make the B.B.C. deal with this more quickly.
  The Minister says that money is not the problem. I wish that he would instruct those who deal with queries from people in Devon and Cornwall, because the answer that they get is: "We have not the money to advance programme transmission into these areas before 1972 and 1973". Let us get the answer right. Which is it? There is not the money or there is the money. The Minister should not get up and say one thing when the people dealing with the problem locally know that it is not the case.
  I am concerned with the regions. I believe, as the Liberal spokesman said, that the role of the regions has produced an aspect of major patronage for the arts and music by the production of programmes both on television and on radio. This new policy will do away with this patronage. The Minister knows that is true.
  Will the Minister of Technology, in his reply, put the truth to a statement put out by Mr. David Attenborough about regional T.V. programmes:
  "The facilities which the Areas will have at their disposal are far from dismissible. Each will have three cameras, telecine and processing, film cutting rooms and helical scan V.T.R. In short, they will be able to do everything that 'Late Night Line Up' has done and, in some cases, in a bigger studio."
  I am told that that statement is untrue. Area producers will have to work with and transmit negative film, there will be no money for printing, no sound dubbing facilities for films, and the low price video tape machine suggested for the areas will not permit editing. In other words, the B.B.C. is trying to fob off the public into believing that these facilities will be available in the regions. Information which I have from the B.B.C. Bristol Staff Group, to whom I

  1589
  pay tribute for their very able research, throws a good deal of light on what cutting there will be concerning money and facilities for regional programmes.
  I turn now to the concept of regional broadcasting. Whether it is television or radio the policy is that there shall be more centralisation towards London. People in the South-West do not want that. We have even been slightly critical when it has been centralised on Bristol, because, to some parts of Cornwall, Bristol is as far away as London. Many people forget the basic geographical structure of the South-West.
  The arguments being put out are that the regions will lose nothing because they will be given local broadcasting stations. I do not accept those arguments. They cannot be true in the case of Devon and Cornwall, because there are to be no local stations in that area. So Devon and Cornwall will lose out both ways.
  Mr. Gerry Mansell claims that the service which regions have been providing for their own regional audiences is in news and topical programmes. He claims:
  "this is precisely the area in which local radio will be able to provide a really effective service."
  I do not believe this is true. I believe that the regions have been able to produce a width of programmes to a specific area which have had general acceptance and have met a general demand, but that will not be done by the local radio programmes envisaged by the B.B.C.
  Consider the Parliamentary programme "The West in Westminster". Leslie Waye has done this for many years in excellent manner. This is one way by which Parliament has been brought into the West Country. What is to happen to it? It is to be cut out entirely. Is this an improvement of standards of which the Minister approves? I believe that this is a major error.
  We hear in Devon and Cornwall about the residual regional programme for Devon and Cornwall. What is meant by that? It has not been mentioned in the debate, but people in that area have a right to know what is in the minds of the B.B.C. and the Minister.
  What do the Minister or the B.B.C. hold out for the South-West in their new
  1590
  policy? Absolutely nothing new at all. Nor indeed is there any consideration for Devon and Cornwall.
  Only last week the Prime Minister was attempting to bring praise on his Government for what they have done for the South-west. He mentioned the number of jobs which had been created, but he neglected to say that unemployment was nearly double what it was previously, and that it is still rising. I should be out of order if I continued with that for long. When I asked the Prime Minister about the South-West and the B.B.C. he refused to answer. I told him that we were at the bottom of the league in England. I ask when will this Socialist Government stop ignoring the South-West concerning broadcasting? They have done this for the last four years. We deserve a better deal.
  8.18 p.m.
  Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I should like to begin by putting on record my protest against the rather shabby manoeuvre, which is an apt way of describing the action of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) in putting down his Amendment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) explained very well the dilemma with which he and I and many other hon. Members were faced, particularly those who signed the Early Day Motion tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), because we feel very keenly that the proposals contained in "Broadcasting in the 'Seventies" will lead to a deterioration in sound broadcasting. I am not suggesting that the issue of commercial radio is not tied up with this. I recognise that it is. However, I feel that the House should have had an opportunity, of which it is now to be deprived, of placing on record its criticism of the B.B.C.'s proposals. Because I bitterly oppose the extension of the commercial principle into broadcasting, I shall be obliged at ten o'clock to vote with my colleagues. Nevertheless, I should like to have had the opportunity—and but for recent changes in procedure, would have done—of voting with hon. Members opposite in favour of the Motion.
  Speaking late in the debate and knowing that other hon. Members are waiting

  1591
  to speak, it would be improper for me to deploy so many arguments which have been advanced cogently by hon. Friends on both sides of the House, particularly by the hon. Members for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) and Penistone (Mr. Mendelson). Nevertheless, I want to comment on what I think is the key to understanding why it is that the B.B.C. brought forward its proposals. It stems from two things. First finance, and, secondly, the hypothetical anticipation that, in 1970 or 1971, there will be a Conservative Government and that licences will be extended to commercial radio. Everything falls into place if one understands the nature of these two propositions.
  I deal first with the financial aspect. My right hon. Friend commended what the Government had done in putting up the licence and berated the Opposition by saying that they had increased the licence and had increased services. Having said that, I put it to him that he has funked the issue. We know that the licence has been increased, but has it been increased enough? He should consider the position abroad. Like other hon. Members, I have been startled by the comparisons. An illuminating and interesting letter in The Times today points out that, even with the increase to be implemented in April, 1971, only two European countries, the Netherlands and Ireland, will have licence fees lower than what will be operating here.
  What are the licences in other countries? I do not have the details but the letter quotes one as being £7 15s. greater than our combined licence while the lowest of those quoted is 30s. greater. We provide a service second to none and we should rate ourselves fortunate in getting that service so cheaply.
  It is entirely improper, therefore, that my right hon. Friend—more particularly, perhaps, members of the Cabinet—should have funked the issue in that they should have taken the decision to raise the licence fee far earlier. I know that increasing taxation or fees is unpopular. But it is obvious from the support given to the Early Day Motion and from the speech of the Leader of the Opposition today that this would not be a partisan issue. It would be generally recognised on both sides of the House that there was
  1592
  real need for an early increase in licence fees. I must regret also that the B.B.C. has not been more vigorous in pressing the Government to bring in a higher licence fee.
  I also feel that the B.B.C. has been pressurised—perhaps properly pressurised—into bringing forward its proposals for local sound broadcasting. It is obvious to most hon. Members that this has been done at this juncture to stave off the threat which the Government and certainly the B.B.C. anticipate in 1970 or 1971. I know that this has been denied by the Director-General but, whilst some people may believe it, I do not. I am sure when he made that speech recently he was speaking with his tongue in his cheek. If he made this decision independently of the threat, then I put it to my right hon. Friend that he is obviously an inadequate Director-General. He should be concerned with the future and realise, as I am sure he does, that hon. Members opposite may, in a matter of 18 months, be the Government. If he supports, as no doubt he does, the principle of public service broadcasting, he should be concerned at the changes which may take place then.
  Given these two facts, that the Government have funked the issue of raising licence fee and that the decision has been taken to stave off the threat of local commercial broadcasting, what are the consequences? Those consequences are set out adequately but not very fully in the document produced by the B.B.C. earlier this year. They are serious consequences.
  I draw attention to a statement made by Mr. Ian Trethowan. My right hon. Friend said—and I am surprised that he should have been so inadequately briefed—that the decision in respect of the changes were brought about independently of any financial consideration. He quoted from a recent issue of Aerial. If he had taken the trouble to read that document, he would have seen on page 8 a statement by Mr. Trethowan that certain of the changes were dictated by finance and that these changes certainly cannot wait.
  My right hon. Friend must have been under some pressure from the B.B.C. in that it realised that, if it was to provide finance for local sound radio, it would have to make sacrifices elsewhere. I do not think I need again spell out the

  1593
  deterioration and the kind of service I expect. I am very sorry indeed about the deterioration.
  I remember the tremendous pleasure and benefit which I derived from the Third Programme as a post-graduate student. I remember vividly to this day switching on the Third Programme and finding myself listening to a series of talks by Professor Nikolaus Pevsner. I was not at that point particularly interested in architecture but he fascinated me and I listened to the whole series. Since then, my visual horizons have been broadened and I recognise my indebtedness to Professor Pevsner and the Third Programme. I wonder how many young people will in future not be stimulated intellectually in the way I was at that juncture.
  It is not good enough for my right hon. Friend to quote a document and suggest that the B.B.C. staff are satisfied. I attended at lunch time a meeting of B.B.C. staff and they most certainly are not satisfied. I suggest to my right hon. Friend, the Governors of the B.B.C. and the Director-General that, unless there is some movement from the present position, the staff may very well indulge in some very serious arm-twisting. I need not spell that out to my right hon. Friends. I think that they have learned the lesson of previous arm-twisting undertaken by certain economic pressure groups. We have only to remind ourselves of the commitment to penal legislation, or the commitment not to devalue. There have been shifts on these and many other issues. That point has probably not been missed by the B.B.C. staff.
  Similarly, it is not good enough to suggest that there has been adequate public consultation. I am a devotee of public service broadcasting and have benefited considerably from listening to the radio. I do not have much opportunity to do so now. Until recently I had not activated myself into taking an interest in this matter because there are many demands on one's time, and the issues are complex. But it does not surprise me one iota that the B.B.C. has received 1,000 letters of protest. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), I wonder how many letters the Government have received, for example, on devaluation. That is a complex issue, and it is hardly surprising that the Chancellor should receive
  1594
  few representations on it. In the same way, I suggest that the proposals contained in the B.B.C. document are very complex, and it does not surprise me that there has been such a low level of representation. I go further and express surprise that as many as 1,000 letters or protests have been received.
  Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend should know that the Campaign for Better Broadcasting and various other pressure groups have received considerable correspondence, far in excess of what I understand the B.B.C. to have received.
  I was grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and allowing me to draw his attention to the fact that the quality of broadcasting provided by local radio stations was not as high as I—and, I am sure, he—would like. As I suggested to him, allowing for staff costs the budgeting of these local radio stations was to be no more than £16 per hour, as compared with the present figure of £622. My right hon. Friend met that argument by suggestting that the local audience was far smaller than the audience for the Third Programme. That is not true. The Birmingham conurbation, which is the catchment area for the Birmingham station, contains about 3·2 million people, and the citizens of Birmingham and the West Midlands are surely entitled to a programme budgeting in excess of £16 per hour. I hope that my right hon Friend will comment on this matter.
  I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the gist of the argument of the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath). The White Paper proposals represent a radical change in the structure and form of broadcasting. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that this was a change of priorities and I agree with him. For that reason I should have voted for the Motion had the procedure given me an opportunity to do so. The B.B.C. argues that these are procedural changes which are solely within its province. That is not the feelings of many hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is certainly not the feeling of the right hon. Member for Bexley, who speaks for many hon. Members opposite, and it is not the feeling of many of my hon. Friends.
  In this connection I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the Early Day

  1595
  Motion tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby. I do not know how much detailed discussion of this matter there has been in the Cabinet, but it is not good enough for my right hon Friend to seek to bring about this radical change without carrying the House with him. If there were a free vote tonight on the first proposition I am sure that that proposition would be carried. I therefore strongly urge my right hon. Friend to consider the possibility of giving an undertaking that an inquiry will be held not in 1975 or 1976 but now.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. Gwynfor Evans: In discussing broadcasting in the future, a Welshman must be very much aware that in the past, at any rate, in the 1960s, '50s, '40s and '30s, no Government has ever attempted to devise a system of broadcasting in Wales suited to and adequate for the needs of Wales. They have not attempted to give priority to those needs. Instead what has been done, and this has been the usual practice in other matters too, has been to consider the needs of England. That is what we have heard in this debate. The system has been amended slightly in deference to the peculiarities of Welsh life as it is found on the periphery of the island. At the same time a similar process went on with education. The dominating concern in both these systems has been to maintain the oneness of what has been thought of as being the British nation.
  This required centralised control of radio and television, centralised news bulletins and programmes, with a little regional variation. Wales was considered in the past as a region rather than a nation. This centralised system was essentially an English one. It was called British, but we know that "British" as a term is usually used synonymously with "English". In this English system there was no room for Welsh autonomy, even in cultural matters. At the inception of radio broadcasting Wales was not a separate, let alone autonomous entity, for broadcasting purposes. It was then joined to the South-West of England and they said they were resurrecting the Kingdom of Arthur! When the war came we were graciously allowed twenty minutes a day in the Welsh language on
  1596
  the radio broadcasting system. At the same time, in the Swiss canton of Ticino, where there was a small Italian-speaking community, there was a fully-fledged system of broadcasting, equipped with a theatre company and a symphony orchestra. That has been subsequently developed with television.
  In Switzerland, however, all languages are given equality of status and are treated equally in broadcasting as in all other matters. In Britain, education and broadcasting have been used by the State in a way which has tended to destroy the Celtic languages, in Wales and Scotland and in education in Ireland, too. This has been mitigated in part by the valiant attempts of the Welsh staff and of the people in Wales, and by those in the schools. For decades in Wales we put pressure upon the Establishment for a Welsh Broadcasting Corporation. The Establishment here was satisfied that it would not be good for us and the Establishment here always knows what is best for the people of Wales.
  Centralism was the order of the day, and it still is. The B.B.C. remained a London-based system for Scotland and Wales as well as England. As the pressure continued some concessions were made.
  Although the centralist system remained intact we had a measure of home rule in broadcasting and the Welsh Broadcasting Council was established and given responsibility for programmes originating in that country. There were limits to this control. The bulk of the programmes still came from London, which contributed the main news bulletins. The party political broadcasts came from London alone. This was essential because it was necessary for the Establishment to maintain a centralised system of television and radio because of their importance in the formation of public opinion.
  If Wales was to be prevented from living fully the life of a nation, and that is the foundation of Government policy here, it was essential to keep control in London. It was necessary to prevent the Welsh National Party, as it was necessary to prevent the Scottish National Party, from putting their policies before the people of those two countries in party political broadcasts. The Welsh Broadcasting Council kicked against this in

  1597
  1954 and set out to broadcast a series of political broadcasts in which Plaid Cymru was included. Members of the Council were called before their betters in London, before the leaders of the parties. They had to make two visits and they were asked to withdraw this series of party political broadcasts. They refused to withdraw them, and as a result the Postmaster-General issued an edict in which he said that no party political broadcasts should be made except those made in the official series in London.
  Therefore, the situation in 1959 was that there was a national party in Wales contesting 20 of the 36 seats but which was not allowed a minute to broadcast in the annual series or during an election campaign, in Welsh or in English, on radio or television. That was the situation until quite recently when the edict was relaxed a little. Since 1965, we, like the Scots, have been allowed five minutes a year on radio and television during an election campaign to put our policies before the people of our two countries. This is a staggering abuse of the democratic processes, and it should be considered again by those responsible.
  However, on broadcasting in the 1970s generally, the Government should consider very seriously whether they can improve the performance of our system in Wales and they should be prepared to change the system if they find change is necessary to meet the needs of the country. I do not think that the present division between a public broadcasting corporation and independent companies is the best system for us in Wales. It may be better for us to have a system which combines income from licence fees, as the B.B.C. gets its income, with income derived from advertising. Wales is too small a country to afford a divided system such as we have today. If we had a corporation which had the right to obtain income from advertising, it would have sufficient money to maintain very good programmes on the four channels which will probably be available to us in the 1970s.
  One of those four channels should be devoted to the Welsh language or, at least, to the Welsh language and educational programmes. This is possibly the only way of securing fairness of treatment for our national language. This is done in other countries and there is no reason
  1598
  why it should not be done in Wales. I hope that the Government will address themselves to this matter and will devise for Wales a system which is suited and adequate to the needs of our country instead of imposing on us a system devised in the first place for the needs of England.
  8.43 p.m.
  Mr. Michael English: This has been a somewhat confusing debate. The confusion began with the points of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). I entirely sympathised with my hon. Friend's dilemma, but I do not think that he was blaming the right quarters. In the past, I have criticised what used to be a practice of the Conservative Government and this Government of tabling Motions at the last possible minute. I am glad to say that this practice has ceased in the case of most Government Motions. Those Motions are usually tabled when the business is announced or very shortly after.
  The Opposition cannot validly raise this pseudo-argument about the Government's Amendment to their Motion when their Motion only appeared for the first time on yesterday's Order Paper. If it had appeared earlier, there would have been time to table Amendments and to mop up Amendments and organise Amendments in such a way that the debate could well have taken place in the way that the Opposition and my hon. Friends the Members for Putney and The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) wanted. It comes ill from the Opposition to raise this pseudo-argument that the tenor of the Motion was changed by the Government's Amendment when they thought up their Motion only in time to put it on yesterday's Order Paper. However, this is a minor point.
  I turn to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. He said that he believed in a mixed system—mixed as between public service and commercial broadcasting. Strangely enough, and perhaps contrary to the opinion of some of my hon. Friends, I agreed with him. We have a mixed system in television. I am not personally opposed to a mixed system in local radio, subject to safeguards I would mention, but I really think it came extremely oddly that later in his speech the Leader of the Opposition said that the

  1599
  Opposition reserved its position on the B.B.C. stations. What on earth does this mean? If the Opposition believes in a mixed system presumably it will say that the local radio stations of the B.B.C. would remain if the Opposition became the Government after the next election or some subsequent election. If it does not mean this, if it wants to abolish the public service stations, surely the Leader of the Opposition cannot say he believes in a mixed system. He can have one or the other but he cannot have both.
  Personally, as I said, I am extremely glad that we are to get first some public service stations, the ones mentioned by my right hon. Friend but I have reservations about them. I do not myself think that local radio is truly local when it is run by a national organisation, I myself would prefer the concept mentioned at one time by my right hon. Friend who is to reply to this debate, the concept of a mini-B.B.C., which, I think, my right hon. Friend at one time enunciated as a concept. I would prefer the public service basis to be more local than in fact it is, but, given that we are to have B.B.C. stations, I personally, as I say, perhaps unlike many of my colleagues, do not object wholly to commercial radio stations, provided they are not monopolistic in an area, provided they are not merely associated with for example, a local newspaper which has already a monopoly in an area. I have no objection to them if they are not monopolistic; if they are competitive and genuinely so.
  To return to the Leader of the Opposition's remarks, he said that the B.B.C. nationally should cater for minorities, which is why the licence fee is paid. This is a remarkable post hoc argument. In actual fact the B.B.C. for most of its existence has been catering for both majority and minority interests in the country because it has only quite recently had any competitor at all. The Leader of the Opposition was in fact saying, in what was purely a post hoc argument, that because subsequently the B.B.C. has had a competitor in television, that is the reason why the licence fee was invented and why it is paid to the B.B.C. The licence fee was invented many years before that.
  The right hon. Gentleman went further than that. He said minority interests
  1600
  should be predominant. This is quite an extraordinary reversal of events. Here we have my hon. Friends on this side of the House, in some cases, I believe, rightly, saying that there is a danger of a decline in quality—that, for example, we might not get news programmes, cultural programmes and educational programmes mixed in with more popular items catering for larger audiences. This was one of the arguments of the Leader of the Opposition—the decline in quality. Has anybody thought what the programmes, if they were catering solely for minority interests, especially if those were predominant, would be like? They would be totally destructive of any educative function the B.B.C. could have. One of the functions of the B.B.C. has always historically been to try to raise the level of public taste, and in so far as the Leader of the Opposition in his speech implied that, I agreed with him, and many on this side have also said so. The right hon. Gentleman talked particularly in relation to his own interest in music, naturally enough, but he went on to say that minority interests should be predominant. But when minority interests are predominant, and we had example of this on the Third Programme, almost nobody listens to the programme. One has a good example of that in the fact that, for the same programme, Radio 4 will draw a larger audience than the Third. That is what for many years was meant by the educative function of the B.B.C. However, the Leader of the Opposition has now had enough attention from me.
  My right hon. Friend gave a correct statement about an increase in the amount of money received by the B.B.C, but in doing so he rather gave the impression, and I can understand his wish, that finance was therefore not a problem. Not many back benchers on either side would take that view, because much of our criticism relates to finance. Many of the difficulties over "Broadcasting in the 'Seventies" are related to finance as obviously they must be. In the last document on this subject issued by the B.B.C. to hon. Members, it was stated, talking of the separation of Radio 1 and Radio 2.
  "The above separation will be implemented in so far as needletime restrictions can be eased and as the B.B.C.'s financial situation allows."

  1601
  In other words, if the financial situation does not allow it, we may never get that separation.
  There is certainly a case for considering in a whole series of different ways the finances of the B.B.C. First, there is the question of the absolute amount required. I have never yet met any organisation which thinks it has enough money for its purposes, so there must always be some restriction in that respect and the decision must lie ultimately with the Government.
  Secondly, there is what I consider to be the ill-advised criticism from hon. Members opposite of the B.B.C. having brought in McKinsey. Why should it not do so? Why should not the Corporation try to do efficiently what it wishes to do? There is no doubt that in times past there have been cases of B.B.C. equipment, which, just because it was not charged to the individual programme producer except on rare occasions was lying idle and was wasted. That no longer happens, because the system has been reformed. Whatever the product whether it be that of the B.B.C. or just a can of peas, the person producing it should know its cost. Strangely enough, the argument against bringing in McKinsey came from hon. Members opposite, yet I should have thought that they would have been the first to realise that simple fact.
  Any consideration of what the B.B.C. wishes to do must end up with something of the nature of "Broadcasting in the 'Seventies" in one respect. If one cannot do everything, one must decide which things one will do. This debate is a lot better than the last debate because it does not now, centre solely round the patronage of orchestras and the arts. I think that the B.B.C. is quite right to say, "It is not our function at all to be a patron of the arts just in the sense of keeping orchestras alive. It is our function to make use of orchestras and of actors. It is not our function to keep orchestras in being merely for the sake of doing so and because they were there in the past." It may well be that this should be done by the country for the sake of the arts in the country but, if so, the country, meaning the taxpayers generally, should pay, not the individual licence holder.
  1602
  If there are financial restrictions it is entirely right that one should look at the regions in some way. I do not mean in precisely the way the B.B.C. would have done it. Any two people would do it in different ways, but if it is to be said that the regional broadcasting of the B.B.C. is tottering as a result of "Broadcasting in the Seventies", that is ridiculous. I live in the Midlands. The Midlands Region of the B.B.C. is the Dark Ages Kingdoms of Mercia and East Anglia put together. It stretches from the borders of Wales to the coast of East Anglia and includes everything between. It is a totally meaningless social area.
  I was glad when Lord Hill in his previous capacity split Granada-land into Lancashire and Yorkshire. It may be that for financial reasons the results are not quite successful, but my right hon. Friend has promised to look if necessary at the question of the levy. It is certainly right that there should be regions which are true social regions. We created the original television region of I.T.V. simply because technically one could put a mast on the top of the Pennines which could serve both Lancashire and Yorkshire. This was a case of the machine dominating mankind. It was purely because one could put a mast on the top of the Pennines that Lancashire and Yorkshire became one region. In a similar way the B.B.C. regions have come about. Scotland and Wales may be social areas, but the North Region and the Midlands Region are not social areas in the same way. The proposed new areas are much nearer to being true social areas, although what the B.B.C. proposes as its "first priority", meaning its second priority, I should like to see coming earlier, namely, an East Midlands Area.
  I should like more money to be spent on programmes for the areas. This is where the Campaign for Better Broadcasting comes in. The question is how much is to be spent? I think there has been a failure of consultation within the B.B.C. itself to some extent. There is certainly a failure of confidence and a lack of belief that those in charge of Broadcasting for the Seventies will endeavour to keep up the quality of the programme. A large part of this is somewhat mixed because it is not only the quality of programme that we are talking

  1603
  about, but also the interests of individual actors, musicians and so forth.
  This is much less true of drama, but the quality of a music programme would not be altered if no single musician were employed. The quality of the world's music might be altered because then we might not be producing records, but technically we could produce excellent music without employing a single musician. Yet on the same day of the publication of "Broadcasting for the Seventies" the Musicians Union protested and threatened to call a strike because it had not been consulted. If it had not been consulted, it took a very short time to determine its view.
  This is not true of drama. The argument with reference to drama is simpler in one way and much more difficult in another. I think that the areas proposed by the B.B.C. are right but I share the doubts of my hon. Friend as to exactly how much we shall get area programmes in the areas as proposed. This is simply a matter of money. The B.B.C. cannot within the licence fee and within the proposed increase do all that we would like it to do. For that reason my right hon. Friends should consider very carefully whether the increase proposed will be sufficient. There is plenty of time for them to do this. They should consider it carefully and should tell the B.B.C. precisely what its limits are to be for the future as soon as they can, if they want an increase in quality in this way.
  This is what my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite should be asking. We should be asking for more money to be spent to raise the quality of programmes if that quality is likely to decline, but we should not argue in defence of archaic regions or that individual members of the B.B.C. staff should stay in Birmingham rather than move to Nottingham, or anywhere else. We should be arguing for the proper social regions, not dominated by the media of communication. The social regions that exist are those to which the media of communication should conform. Then we should say that we will spend an adequate amount of money to ensure that they do so.
  I do not wholly follow nearly all of my right hon. and hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite in one respect. The debate has been concentrated on a
  1604
  remarkably limited field. It has been concentrated substantially, and I suppose largely correctly, on the technicalities of the proposals in "Broadcasting in the Seventies"—where shall we have a region; what shall be put on a network; shall we split Radio 1 and Radio 2, and so on? These are not the problems that worry me most with regard to the supposed subject of the debate.
  Whether looked at in terms of the Opposition Motion or of what the Government say, the subject of the debate is broadcasting. It is not just the B.B.C. It is not just "Broadcasting in the Seventies". We should at some time—I know that my right hon. Friend has often done this in speeches—be considering whether we are socially in control of some of our media of communication.
  Let us consider, for example, the imitative aspect of television. If a television film contains a scene of someone throwing a brick at a policeman, it is likely that the next day 100 people will do just that. My hon. Friends who are members of Equity talk about the quality of drama. There is a considerable difference between a small audience going to see "Hair" or "Oh Calcutta" and excerpts from those productions being shown on an I.T.V. theatre programme. The difference is an audience of 1½ million in the latter case, which in the theatre I think that only "The Mousetrap" has equalled.
  At some time in these debates on broadcasting we should consider the social issues and not just the pure technicalities. Some of the social issues are these that I have mentioned.
  I hope that in their replies the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) and my right hon. Friend will deal with the question whether what we are arguing about is not first, what we want, then how much we should spend on it, and whether it is not just possible that some of the arguments adduced by the Opposition and some of those adduced by some of my hon. Friends are a little sterile in the face of what are, after all, the greatest technical advances in human communication ever achieved by mankind.
  9.3 p.m.
  Mr. Esmond Wright: Thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan), I have precisely two and a half minutes. Like drowning,

  1605
  a circumscribed time concentrates the mind wonderfully. I am comforted by the thought that two and a half minutes is about the total amount of time any of us gets on radio or television.
  Apart from that of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) no voice has been raised in support of the Government or of "Broadcasting in the Seventies". Were there a free vote tonight, there would be a repercussion of what occurred when we debated the reform of the Second Chamber. It is fundamental that we should raise these questions which are, not questions of technicality, but questions of principle.
  No one has said that the Trethowan thesis, which is essentially what "Broadcasting in the Seventies" is, is the thesis that in the 1970s we shall be television addicts and sound broadcasting will be ancillary to television. My right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) and my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) made it clear that there are areas, including some in England, which are short of radio facilities and certainly short of television facilities.
  This development of 40 local stations inadequately financed and very expensive is a very botched job. Secondly, in terms of "Broadcasting in the Seventies" I should like to query the whole thesis of generic broadcasting. I recall the days years ago when the Third Programme was invented. Admirable and correct tributes have been paid to it, especially by the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson). When it was introduced people talked about the Home, the Light and the Third—"the drone, the blight and the weird". We have moved away from that, and it is a good thing we have done so.
  The essence of my contribution is to challenge the Minister. He has done this sort of thing once before. He came along with a fancy scheme of 4d. and 5d. stamps. Instead of simply saying, "I want more money for the postal services", he dressed it up with this great parade of a new service. I simply say this to him: this is a real threat to the quality of the B.B.C. We have got all the evidence that we need to prove that it is a threat to the Third Programme and to the contribution in speech and drama that it has made. It is a totally inade-
  1606
  quately considered document where finance is concerned. It will cost £7 million at least; it may be £12 million.
  What approaches have been made to the Schools Council, the Ministry of Education or the Scottish Department of Education asking for the transfer to them of the educational costs in sound and television from the B.B.C? What approach has there been made to the Arts Council? I say that the B.B.C. should proudly fly a flag from the mast of patronage. It has produced a great many musicians and dramatists who have enriched the culture of this country. It is nonsense to say that it should never have done this or that this approach has got to be revised.
  My last point is that the whole of the exercise we have had today is an exercise in inadequate consultation with the staff of the B.B.C, and the Minister must know this. We have all been flooded with documentation. The speech he made today was in nothing like his best form. He cited the notorious apologists for these changes. He did not cite the Campaign for Better Broadcasting. He did not say that he or Mr. Curran or any of the figures at the B.B.C. had consulted their own staffs. Those of us who have consulted our own staffs know what we are talking about. We see this as a threat to broadcasting in the 1970s. I am not interested in the hypothetical arguments about commercial radio broadcasting. This was a red herring cleverly devised. The essence of our case is that this is an inadequate document, inadequately thought out.
  9.8 p.m.
  Mr. Paul Bryan: I do not think that there was anyone more embarrassed than the Minister of Technology during the speech of the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. May I say with sincerity that I am glad the Minister of Technology is to wind up this debate, because I hope that with his professional knowledge of broadcasting in general and of the B.B.C. in particular, he at any rate will be able to give a serious answer to the broad and important issues of principle raised in the admirable speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the many more detailed questions, or worries, which have been voiced on all sides of the House. These worries have also been voiced in

  1607
  the Committee Rooms of this House during the last two or three months.
  I think the Minister will acknowledge from the tone of my right hon. Friend's speech that we on this side of the House are not here tonight to attack the B.B.C. He paid generous tribute to the Corporation, as many of us have done in the past. But the attitude of the B.B.C. seems so diametrically opposed to the position that it used to take that we can only think that this has been imposed upon it by Government policy.
  May I answer a few points raised by the Minister which seem to me to require an answer. He was very excited to discover that I had issued a warning to those who might choose to accept a post in any of the 40 stations which the Government are rushing up. I said that they might not have a secure job. Surely, that was a thoroughly responsible warning to give, as we expect to be in power within the next few months.
  My right hon. Friend explained that we wanted the B.B.C. to set its priorities right, and he detailed what he thought those priorities should be. With the B.B.C.'s finance in its present straits, it seems unlikely that the corporation will be able to support those priorities and the present services which we have come to expect of it and at the same time support all these 40 stations, too. Therefore, I regard my warning as completely appropriate.
  I add a paragraph to my right hon. Friend's comments on commercial radio. The philosophy on which we should like to see local radio ultimately based is much more in line with the B.B.C.'s original concent—the concept in which it really believes, I think—than with its new, so to speak, emergency plan. According to Mr. Coys' letter in the current issue of the B.B.C. staff magazine "Ariel", Mr. Frank Gillard said in 1962:
  "One absolute essential of local radio would be the existence of a genuine and well-established community of interests over a wide range, and only on such a foundation would it be possible to build a worthwhile local broadcasting service".
  That remained B.B.C. doctrine right up to 1967, but Government policy has forced it to switch from local community radio, which is what those words describe, to area radio with each station covering
  1608
  a population of 1 million, or going up to 3 million in Birmingham. That is quite out of keeping with Mr. Gillard's ideas.
  Hon. Members with deep concern for the future of broadcasting bemoan the chronic shortage of money in broadcasting from which they see no escape. But, at the same time, they are apt to say that they are against commercial broadcasting. Have they thought how much more critical the situation would have been had the advertising revenue of independent television never come into the industry? In the same context, it seems wrong when radio is so short of funds now to deny ourselves the money available from that source. The reply is, "But the B.B.C. will then be forced to debase its standards to compete and go for maximum audience".
  I bring in that point again because it raises an important question of principle on which we should like the Minister's view. In his opinion, is it the duty of the B.B.C. to maximise its audience? We must have that priority right. The B.B.C. itself thinks that it is its duty to maximise its audiences, and it proceeds on that basis. It does not have to wander from the straight path of producing what it believes to be right. It is a public service broadcasting organisation guaranteed an income provided by the public precisely to enable it to be independent and to produce what it believes to be right.
  I cannot imagine that either the House or the television companies drew much comfort from the Minister's reply on the question of the television levy. The House gave the Minister the benefit of the doubt in the debate on 17th June, when he gave the undertaking to which he referred today, He said that he would honour that undertaking, which was in these words:
  "I give an undertaking to the House that we shall keep the position under review, and, if the contractors' worst fears as expressed to me are realised, we shall be ready to consider making a further Order reducing the impact of this charge."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June, 1969; Vol. 785, c. 176.]
  I do not believe that his attitude will give them much confidence. All he did today was to take yet another piece of paper out of his pocket and cite a few unnamed companies and some vague figures about 60 per cent, and 40 per cent.

  1609
  In fact, there are already many distinct and detailed figures which are most disconcerting. Discounting August, which cannot be compared with August, 1968, because of the strike in that month, the period from 1st May to 1st October shows an average decrease of 5·5 per cent. in advertising revenue. I understand that the Cooper Brothers' investigation into I.T.V. finances will show that many of the companies will go into a loss position by the second year of the present franchise. According to the Economist of 8th November, Harlech has already cut its programme budget, despite what the Minister said, from £600,000 to £350,000. The evidence is surely building up to justify honouring his undertaking.
  When at last we shamed the Minister into submitting to Questions on the Government's radio policy, I asked him:
  "How does the Minister defend the position in which a shortage of funds is driving the B.B.C. to cut its serious programme output and to cut out regional broadcasting whilst millions of pounds are to be spent on local radio stations which could be provided by commercial means."
  He replied:
  "The House will be aware that the local radio experiment with the eight existing stations has been regarded as a general success."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1969; Vol. 792, c. 202.]
  He went on to say why he thought them a success. That may have been an answer to the question he expected, but it was not an answer to the one I asked.
  My question continued to be asked in one form or another from both sides throughout the debate, and it still stands without an adequate or believable reply. Why do the Government think that the B.B.C. is in a financial position to take on local radio while it is both running into debt and running down its services? I ask this question against a record of utter irresponsibility and word-eating up to now. The White Paper of 1966 told us that local stations would not be financed through the local rates or the licence fee. In the event, they are almost totally paid for by the local authorities, that is, by the rates, and the B.B.C., whose money can come only from the licence fee.
  In 1971 the licence fee is to be raised specifically to back local radio, yet the last Postmaster-General but two said that it would clearly be unfair to pay for the stations out of income from the
  1610
  receiving licence, otherwise people in rural areas would have to contribute towards a service they could never receive. These same people in the rural areas are the people on whose behalf my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) and my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) spoke. They are the people from the South-West, Scotland and Cumberland who are to pay for yet another service they do not receive, the very people who now pay for not receiving B.B.C.2, and often for very poor reception on B.B.C. 1 and I.T.V., and who will be most affected by the cuts in the regions. In addition, most people without a V.H.F. radio set will be paying for what they do not receive.
  So much for the word-eating. The irresponsibility lies in the launching of an expensive project, the local radio experiment, with no credible financial backing. Who on earth could have believed that the money would be forthcoming from the voluntary local organisations listed in the White Paper? The Minister admitted that this had gone wrong, as if it were just bad luck. It could not have been worse judgment.
  Small wonder that against this background we examine the Minister's statements with some care, especially as time and again they do not tally with the statements of the Director-General of the B.B.C. Of all the laughable things said by the Minister this afternoon, the most laughable was his insistence that the B.B.C. was not short of funds. I asked him on 25th November:
  "Will the Minister say how deeply his local radio plans for 40 stations will put the B.B.C. into debt by the time the licence fee goes up in 1971?"
  He replied with outrageous complacency:
  "We have worked out all the finances of this with the B.B.C. with very great care, and are satisfied that the increase in the fee in April, 1971. together with the counter-evasion campaign that I am now conducting, will provide the B.B.C. with sufficient income to meet all its commitments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1969; Vol. 792, c. 210.]
  But Mr. Curran, the Director-General of the B.B.C, said in The Times of 1st October:
  "B.B.C. radio will have an accumulated deficit of about £7 million in 1971, when the higher broadcasting licence charges are introduced."

  1611
  On page 10 of "Broadcasting in the Seventies" it is said:
  "… B.B.C. radio … by 1974 … will be running an annual deficit of £4½ million and will have an accumulated deficit of nearly £12 million—and this without taking any account of local radio."
  The sum of £4½ million is about 20 per cent. of total radio income and the accumulated deficit is about half a year's radio income and as far as I can see no step is being taken to clear up these deficits. The increase in the licence fee is to be devoted almost entirely to local radio.
  Some money may be squeezed by the tightening of anti-evasion measures, and we naturally all hope that it will, but neither the Select Committee nor I think that the measures will be as successful as the Minister does. I know from personal experience that licence fee collecting has never been a top priority job in the Post Office and now that the Minister has no executive control over the Post Office any more, I would guess that it will be further relegated.
  We all hope for a boom in colour television, but it is early days to talk about the boom. It is only three weeks since I.T.V. and B.B.C. 1 went on to colour and of course one can expect a big demand coming in the three exceptional weeks before Christmas, but no one in the trade would be willing to make a firm forecast for some months to come, and so one cannot depend on that.
  With this deficit on its shoulders, it seems unlikely that the B.B.C. would want to expand into local radio, and why it did was explained by Mr. Curran when he spoke to the staff at Bristol recently about the increase in the licence fee when he said:
  "The B.B.C. would have got nothing at all if it had not accepted local radio commitments."
  This hardly reflects an enthusiasm for local radio in present financial straits.
  Hon. Members know very well that every B.B.C. employee to whom one talks says the same. One and all say that it is utterly wrong to reach into local radio when present services are strained for funds. They say so individually and they say so collectively through the A.B.S. the Musicians' Union, Equity, the Composers' Guild and the collective declaration of the B.B.C. regional em-
  1612
  ployees at Manchester, Bristol and Birmingham, the hon. Member for Smeth-wick (Mr. Faulds)—everybody has shouted in the same chorus. Yet the Minister told me in the House a week ago that the request for local radio development came from the B.B.C. Is that the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
  To put it another way: had the Government allotted a £5 million increase in the licence fee to the B.B.C. without strings, would the corporation have spent it on local radio? Of course not, because it is lack of funds that is truncating regional broadcasting, forcing cuts in staff, over extending and thinning down the programme content. Just as the quality of I.T.V. programmes is being threatened by the levy, so is the quality of radio threatened by the shortage of money.
  The Minister replies that this is not so. In that case, will the Minister of Technology explain this? On page 13 of "Broadcasting in the Seventies" are described the economies which financial difficulty makes necessary:
  "… the disbandment of several B.B.C. orchestras, and a reduction in the use of outside musicians, some reduction in other radio staff and the possible loss of the medium wave from Radio Three and of part of the V.H.F. from Radio Four …"
  Since that was written, radio has acquired no more income except for local radio. Orchestras have been reprieved, so presumably compensating cuts must be made elsewhere. Even to the layman it seems obvious that programmes must suffer, and to those in the know it appears an absolute certainty.
  The situation is made stranger by an odd contradiction. In radio, no doubt McKinsey says, the regions are costly and should be cut, but at the same time the Government say that local radio must be launched and needs the regions' medium wave frequencies where possible. So the net result, which is expansion in the midst of penury, reflects a combination of these two pressures which is profoundly disquieting, despite the assurances in the official pamphlet entitled "Ariel" read to us by the right hon. Gentleman.
  The right hon. Gentleman will know the extent to which regional staff value the facility of regional opting out which

  1613
  is to be discontinued. On page 4 of "Ariel" there are some smooth assurances, where Mr. Mansell says:
  "The fact is that by far the greater part of this service has been in the field of news and topical programmes, and this is precisely the area in which local radio will be able to provide a really effective service."
  That sounds fine or at least tolerable until one wakes up to the fact that this alternative to the regional programme will go out on V.H.F., which only a third of the population can receive. The average cost of the programmes per hour is about £44. The average cost per hour of regional radio is more like £350, so the quality of the programmes is not likely to be comparable. In addition, the loss of the regional news bulletins, the regional Parliamentary programmes, the Saturday evening sports results and the breakfast-time magazines will be missed and not replaced.
  To be fair to Mr. Mansell, the task of every B.B.C. spokesman is made harder by the fact that when his corporation comes to an incredible decision he is not allowed to give the true explanation which in almost every case is the necessity of competing with commercial broadcasting now existing or threatened. There is only one understandable reason for launching local radio at a time of stringency, and that is to pre-empt commercial radio. However, that cannot be said by members of the staff of the B.B.C, though it can be said in this House by the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson).
  In television, the cutting of original production in the three regions is presumably a McKinsey recommendation, so one is momentarily baffled that the regions should be increased to eight. The B.B.C. is not allowed to say that the Newcastle station is to be stepped up to compete with the regional services of Tyne-Tees, but that is a perfectly good reason and certainly is better than all that we are told about "sociological reasons".
  The right hon. Gentleman must have a knowledge of Bristol and its local station. I ask him to give careful thought and I hope an ample reply to reassure the regional staff. The existing regional stations seem to be about to suffer a severe downgrading. The present regional controller is a person of some standing. He carries regional weight
  1614
  when he comes to London. Now we are to have one Controller of Regions, Mr. Beech, sitting in London representing and controlling all eight regions.
  In the "Ariel" document, David Attenborough protests that at the enormous Pebble Hill complex at Birmingham more production will go on than ever. That may be, but it will be production commissioned from and originating in London. Now that the B.B.C. has sunk such sums in All Saints and Pebble Hill, it can hardly leave them idle. But what I would like the right hon. Gentleman to answer is the question posed by Sir George Beadle, the former Controller of the West Region, in his letter of 18th August to The Times. He said:
  "What does matter is where the initiative lies. Is programme initiative in future to be the sole prerogative of the Metropolis or is it to be shared in due measure as in the past between London, Birmingham, Bristol and Manchester?"
  I hope that the Minister will tell us what is to be the guaranteed sum of money to the local managers in the regions. The comfort which has been put out so far is that each local manager will have a guaranteed amount to spend on his own initiative. What matters is how that compares with what he had in the past, or whether it is merely a face-saving device.
  I am surprised that only one hon. Member opposite has had the courage of his convictions and put his name to our Motion, which quite simply regrets that the policy of Her Majesty's Government will cause a serious deterioration in the quality of broadcasting.
  The scores of hon. Members opposite who signed the Early Day Motion to almost exactly the same effect must logically have shared his convictions, but are apparently willing to be tricked tonight to another view by what the hon. Member for The High Peak described as "the shabby manoeuvre" of his right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson).
  Through the levy the Government directly control the profitability of the I.T.V. companies and that ultimately affects the quality of their programmes. The B.B.C. would never have had to produce its extraordinary and, in the event, inflammatory document "Broadcasting in the Seventies" had the Government not insisted on the increase in income

  1615
  being concentrated on local radio. The Government are, therefore, responsible in a direct way. Indeed, that is how they wish it to be. For did not the right hon. Gentleman, who is about to wind up, say on a much publicised occasion:
  "Broadcasting is really too important to be left to the broadcasters"?
  Had broadcasting been left to the broadcasters we might not have had cause to table our Motion tonight.
  It is the Government's policy which has provoked protests from every organised body and union in the industry, which has actually called into existence a Council for Better Broadcasting supported by a roster of artistic and academic talent of the highest repute, which has caused dissention, disruption and distrust in the B.B.C. on a scale previously quite unknown, and which has made hon. Members of all parties join to sign a Motion which speaks of
  "a serious deterioration in the quality of broadcasting."
  The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications has never been very staunchly supported by his hon. Friends. There was an occasion when he addressed a major speech to his own benches manned by the solitary figure of his Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Smethwick. Now even he has resigned in protest at the Government's broadcasting policy. It only remains for the Minister to resign, too.
  9.33 p.m.
  The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): This has been a very important debate conducted generally in the sort of atmosphere that one would hope for an important subject.
  I must confess an interest. I began my working life as a B.B.C. employee. I was dismissed by the B.B.C. on being selected as a parliamentary candidate. I have contributed to debates in the House for the last 19 years and also to some controversies outside.
  I have enjoyed this debate very much indeed, and hope that I shall be able to answer some of the questions that have been raised.
  Without being offensive to the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), I
  1616
  enjoyed his speech today more than any speech that I have heard him make. The reason I enjoyed it, or at any rate the first part, was because he emerged arguing passionately about something for which he really cares, namely, music. I am not musically inclined, but I listened to the right hon. Gentleman speaking about the B.B.C. as a centre of good music. I heard him speak of the B.B.C.'s sponsorship of the arts, its interest in the orchestras and in the training of young musicians. This was a genuine and absolutely effective contribution to this problem.
  I thought that in looking at the B.B.C. as the source of good music—this was his minority interest that had been met by the B.B.C.—the right hon. Gentleman allowed himself to fall into some errors afterwards. They were errors arising from the fact that he saw the B.B.C. historically as a place from which he could get the music that he loved. In saying that the B.B.C. was so good at providing for minority audiences, he almost implied that was really its sole function. I did not note his words in shorthand, but in effect he said that the quality and the creativity of the B.B.C.'s contribution to minority interests inclined him to the view that the B.B.C. should not bid for the majority interests. That was what lay behind what he said. Yet it was the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues— [Interruption.] Let me develop my case. I am trying to be fair. It was the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues who put the B.B.C. in a position—this is why I do not accept that the argument of 1954 is totally over—where, in order to make its case for money, it had continually to fight against an alternative commercial television system that was going for the major audiences all the time.
  Whilst I know that controversies die down, and should do, and that the House and the country accept things that are not perfect, one of the basic problems facing the B.B.C. in getting the money it wants out of the community is the continual fear that if it were tempted to do what the right hon. Gentleman said and go for minorities, people would say, "We pay the fee but we do not listen to good music. We listen to commercial television, and that is free." That is really a serious

  1617
  difficulty which lies behind the right hon. Gentleman's argument.
  Then the right hon. Gentleman went on totally to misunderstand the next issue by confusing pop radio with local radio. This was interesting, because it indicated that whenever he heard Radio Caroline he thought that it was local radio. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) said, the characteristic of pop radio is that it is not local but audible wallpaper which can be pasted up in everybody's houses all over the country. Radio Caroline was not local radio, and the real case on local radio is totally different.
  It is untrue to say that the interest of the B.B.C. and the Government in local radio began when these pirate stations began pumping out pirated pop music in the closing months of the Conservative Government and continued in the first several years of the present Government. The right hon. Gentleman touched on commercial radio but left the real presentation of this to the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan).
  The Government have been criticised for putting down an Amendment which, it was argued, prevents the House from reaching a view on the Opposition's Motion. I will tell the House why it was tabled, if it helps. It was tabled so that we would bring into order the speeches we knew we were going to hear from the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman made a speech about commercial radio. It had nothing to do with the Motion, which was designed to maximise support against "Broadcasting in the Seventies". The hon. Member for Howden also dealt with commercial radio, reaffirming his warning to people not to be employed by the B.B.C. in local radio. Where is that referred to in the Motion? Would it even have been in order to make that statement without the Amendment? Not at all. If we had not tabled our Amendment, there would not have been the broadening of the debate in that way.
  The right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) and the hon. Members for Honiton (Mr. Emery) and Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) spoke of the problems of remote areas, both the technical and the political difficulties. It is true—and this has often been brought out
  1618
  in Questions, as I recall from my days at the Post Office—that the argument of the man in the rural area is, "I pay the licence fee, but I do not get everything". In many cases he does not get B.B.C.2 or colour television. In others, he does not get good reception. In others, he can say that he is not going to get local radio. He says that he is, therefore, badly treated.
  But the argument when one looks at it economically, is the other way round. To provide all services in rural areas costs an enormous amount of money, and we are really reproducing, in the standard radio and television licence fee, exactly the same position as in the case of the standard postage introduced by Rowland Hill, where it is the urban areas which are subsidising the distribution of programmes to the rural areas. I recall the figures. I had them checked today by my right hon. Friend's Department. The capital cost of V.H.F. television in urban areas is 1s. per household. The capital cost of providing V.H.F. television in marginal areas is £10 per household. That means that for the first two years after a person in a rural area obtains a licence he is contributing only towards the capital cost of his being put into a position to receive the programme. I do not argue that rural areas do not suffer by being rural, but in this case urban areas are quite rightly subsidising the availability of programmes in rural areas.
  Mr. Noble: It is argued that the B.B.C. must provide a service, and the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the figure of £10 per household. The electricity companies are prepared to subsidise up to £600 per household to bring electricity to these areas. Is not this the first priority before providing an extra service to all the other areas?
  Mr. Benn: I remember the arguments very well because I have engaged in them, and, as every incoming Minister does, I have interrogated my Department about these problems.
  Mr. Noble: We do not want sympathy; we want action.
  Mr. Benn: I know that the hon. Member wants action, but let me put the argument. A man may say. "I listen to I.T.V. only. Why should I pay

  1619
  the B.B.C. television licence fee?" [Interruption.] If he does not get either he is not paying the television licence fee. In that case he will get everything free under my right hon. Friend's proposal. After April, 1971, he will get sound radio without any charge. He will get what radio is available. The coverage is almost 100 per cent.
  The hon. Member for Carmarthen referred to political broadcasting. I daresay that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing), who was showing an indication of her readiness to speak, would have made the same point had the eye of Mr. Speaker fallen upon her—in that sense. All I say to the two hon. Members—the one who made the speech and the other who will carry it back tonight with her—is that all the indications that I have lead me to the conclusion that although in the purely party political broadcast sense the Nationalist case may not get a look in, in almost every other programme on current affairs that is shown in Scotland or Wales the Nationalists get very full coverage. Nobody is more popular in Wales or Scotland than the two hon. Members who regularly appear, out of proportion to their strength in the House.
  Mrs. Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with this matter seriously? On 14th October—a year ago—the Secretary of State for Scotland, winding up a debate on parliamentary elections, said in answer to me that there would be a review by the end of 1968 and that the arrangements were in hand. It was thought in that debate that a concession had been obtained. Where is that review? The year 1969 is nearly over. When shall we get more than five minutes a year?
  Mr. Benn: That is a specific point, relating in part to electoral law. I am not able to answer it, but I will see that an answer is sent to the hon. Lady. I am sure that, in fairness, she will agree that I am dealing seriously with the points that have been made. I repeat that in most public affairs broadcasts that occur in Wales and Scotland there is a much better balance in favour of the Nationalists than of the other parties.
  The right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) asked a question about research into television violence. The Noble
  1620
  Committee, financed by the I.T.A., produced its report earlier this year, suggesting further research but I am told by those who have studied the matter that although it proposed further research projects its recommendations were very inconclusive. There must be many hon. Members, including some with responsibility for law and order, who are extremely anxious about the extent to which what I have heard described as the obscenity of violence—not the violence of real life; the violence that has been occurring in Biafra or Vietnam or similar places but the use of violence to attract an audience in a dramatic programme. I am sure there are a lot of people concerned. This is a subject of continuing interest.
  I would also remind the House that we appoint people to look after the B.B.C. and I.T.V. who are people of considerable public distinction. In the case of the B.B.C. they manage the outfit; in the case of the I.T.A. they control it. If matters of this kind arise, Members ought to make their representations to the people to whom Parliament has entrusted this responsibility and not ask my right hon. Friend or myself when I was Postmaster-General: "Did you see that unpleasant bit in the programme last Thursday and will you as the Government deal with it". I was a little distressed to find the Leader of the Opposition saying that the Government could settle many of these problems with the corporation without legislation. I know that he was referring to the strategy of broadcasting, but the general doctrine, which I share, and I think he would too, is that the further the Government, in their responsibility with respect to broadcasting, keep away from the broadcasters on matters of content the better this is.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), who has a considerable interest in this, made a point about content. Although I have my own views on content, like every other viewer, I do not think that it is right to ask the Government to defend in this House decisions made about the balance between Radio 3 and Radio 2 and some of the aspects of broadcasting in the "Seventies," which was the product of work by the Board of Governors and the management.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I said no such thing as my right hon. Friend is suggesting. What I am pointing out is that the Government enunciated their policy on broadcasting in a White Paper in 1966, yet "Broadcasting in the Seventies" is a total denial of almost every page of that White Paper.
  Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend must not ask us to decide how the B.B.C. should handle its own management matters. If that is what Parliament wants to do, it had better make my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Board of Governors and question him at Question Time. My hon. Friend made a different point about consultation. I have a great interest in this, because I remember that when I was at the B.B.C. my union was not even recognised. The B.B.C. had a very bad record over consultation with the staff. Certainly the people in Bristol, those whom I know for other reasons, who are passionate believers in the public service principle, who do not yield an inch on commercial radio, brought up by Frank Gillard to see what this could do, are very anxious about the proposals. I would be very surprised if, following this debate, the B.B.C. did not take further measures to consult those actually engaged in the organisation.
  May I come now to a point made by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) about generic broadcasting. The point was taken by my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson), who described how he came across an interest in architecture through listening to a programme about something else. My view, and I think it is pretty widely shared now, is that people are adult enough to be able to pick their own programmes and they do not have to have a nose box screwed on by some latter-day Reith so that in their regular diet of pap some little medication of culture will be given to them.
  I want to be able to go to a programme for my serious music, my light music or my news, and I do not want to find that it is being presented to me in such a way that I will get a balanced diet, as if we were really dealing with that sort of approach to culture. That is my view, and it happens that the B.B.C. has come down to it. It certainly
  1622
  would not be right for Parliament to decide these matters.
  May I come now to the major assaults made by the Government in the course of the debate. The first was that we have given the B.B.C. insufficient funds for its job and that we have asked the B.B.C. to undertake local radio, implied from the quotation attributed to Mr. Curran, rather against its will. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not mean what he said about this.
  Mr. Frank Gillard, who previously was in Bristol, and who I believe retires at the end of this month after a very distinguished career in sound broadcasting, was absolutely dedicated to the idea of local public service broadcasting. I remember 15 years ago hearing tapes which that man had made of what it would sound like if we had a local station. Moreover, when I became Postmaster-General and met the B.B.C., the Corporation pushed on me the idea of local public stations from the outset. It is not true to say that this is a vulgar political plot by my right hon. Friend imposed on the B.B.C. at this stage in order to forestall commercial radio were the Opposition to come to power.
  Mr. Bryan: I said that I did not believe that it wanted it in its present financial straits.
  Mr. Benn: I will come to that.
  What have the present Government done concerning B.B.C. finances? We raised the licence fee in April 1965. We raised it again in January 1969. We did an unparalleled thing in announcing an increase in the licence so that the B.B.C. would have security—[An HON. MEMBER: "After the election".]—after the election. It was a great deal better than doing what the Opposition did. I recall vividly the situation when I was confronted with B.B.C. financing. When we came to power the B.B.C. was running at a loss of £40,000 a day. Its forecast budget was £125 million in deficit over the five-year period. The Conservative Party never even revealed to the country what the position was.
  I suppose that it is not a very attractive thing for a Minister to boast of an increase in charges, but such a general view has been expressed in the House about the need properly to finance the

  1623
  B.B.C. that it is right to do so. There was a £1 increase in 1965 and a £1 increase in 1969. There will be a 10s. increase in 1971 and—nobody mentioned this—a £5 supplement for colour television to meet the point which the hon. Member for Cheadle made and to get the B.B.C. away from its plateau on to a self-financing rise as people move to colour television. If anyone in my party or in the Conservative Party attacks us for announcing what will be a £11 10s. licence for colour and television and sound before an election when there were all the temptations to say that we would not look that far ahead, it is an astonishing charge to lay against us.
  I come to the question of local radio. I have read all that has been said about shoddy and threadbare programmes because the programme cost is low. Why is it low?—because in local radio people do not ask for fees. [Interruption.] Of course they do not ask for fees. I am talking not about actors but about people contributing to community discussions. Every time an hon. Member goes on the air he gets his cheque—[Interruption.]—more or less. I do not think the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton has been on a programme, so how does she know whether or not one gets a fee?
  Anyone who has been in Brighton or Leeds knows that there is a totally different atmosphere about local radio. The programmes are cheap in cost but not in any other way. There are programmes which may cost a lot more money to put on in those splendid palaces in Lime Grove, but the content of local radio, as it has emerged under the B.B.C. development, has been very different.
  We are told that we did something hasty because an election was coming. Does the House know on what date the one commercial radio station operating was licensed? It was 14th October, 1964. Twenty-four hours before the Conservative Party went out of office it licensed the only commercial radio station. I have the schedule of the programme: 7 a.m., Pete's Porridge Party; 9 a.m., On the "A" Side; 9.15, Pete's Porridge Party; 10 a.m., the Don Allen Radio Show; 1 o'clock Lunch-time Lucky Dip; 2 o'clock, Music for Pleasure; 3 o'clock, Musical Show Case, until 7.45, when there was a religious programme spon-
  1624
  sored by the Mormons. That is its contribution. No local discussions allowed; one journalist; no Telex; no P.A.; no Reuter. This is what was left. Did we, when we came to power, say, "We do not like it and it was only authorised 24 hours ago. We will stop it."? Not at all. We have left it as a monument to what the hon. Gentleman did! I say only this to the hon. Gentleman, that if he really thinks that local radio and pop radio are one and the same thing, he really does not know what local communities need in the world today.
  I have one or two more serious general points to make about the role of community radio, but I must say a word about the I.T.A. levy. My right hon. Friend has made it quite clear that he is waiting for the I.T.A. to submit figures. It has not yet done so. He has promised to review them. Obviously, in these circumstances, there is no reason to be anxious. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"] There is no reason to be anxious. This has been in operation only a few months.
  The hon. Gentleman was really the main spokesman on this, and he deployed the Opposition's case, "We want commercial radio in Britain." He will say, and I accept it, that it will not all be like the Isle of Man. But an awful lot will be more like the Isle of Man than like Radio Leeds, whither the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) is to go as Vice-Chancellor of the University and will be able to spread to the local community the work of the university to which he is going.
  The proposals in "Broadcasting in the Seventies" are the B.B.C.'s and the Governors have not been in discussion with us. This is their programme.
  I ask only, are hon. Members really going to vote for the Opposition Motion tonight knowing that they are voting in support of a policy—I am not blaming the Opposition party for this, for it sincerely believes in it—that says we must ban B.B.C. local radio and put in its place commercial local sound radio? I say to my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) who has a genuine conscience about these matters, that if he were tricked by a procedural tactic of this kind he would be quite wrong.

  1625
  One of the most astonishing things about this debate—I can only speak for myself—is that it has been about broadcasting in the organisational and financial sense, and hardly anybody, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), has talked about the needs of the community to communicate in the age in which we live. Here we are, living in a period of the most rapid industrial, technical, and military change; here is a time, more than any other, when we have got to use the radio and every other opportunity to communicate with one another, in order to deal, for instance, with racial problems, and problems of violence. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has stressed these and raised some burning local issues, but they will not be discussed on commercial local radio: they will be discussed on local community radio, where
  all points will be able to be made. I would just point out to the House that there has been no mention at all, by either Front Bench spokesman opposite of the University of the Air, the biggest development in educational broadcasting, which, by itself, would negative the Opposition's Motion.
  I only say to the House, as I finish, that it seems to me that the issues which confront society, particularly urban society—in America, in Washington; in Paris; in all the big cities—are enough to justify, if nothing else, a public service local community radio, and I believe that the B.B.C. should do it, and that the House should support it.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 245.

  Division No. 25.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Ginsburg, David

  Albu, Austen

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Golding, John

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Cronin, John

  Cordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. c.

  Alldritt, Walter

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Allen, Scholefield

  Dalyell, Tam

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Anderson, Donald

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Gregory, Arnold

  Ashley, Jack

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

  Hamling, William

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hannan, William

  Barnes, Michael

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Harper, Joseph

  Barnett, Joel

  do Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Baxter, William

  Delargy, H. J.

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Beaney, Alan

  Dell, Edmund

  Haseldine, Norman

  Bence, Cyril

  Dempsey, James

  Hattersley, Roy

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Dewar, Donald

  Hazell, Bert

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Binns, John

  Dickens, James

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Bishop, E. S.

  Dobson, Ray

  Hilton, W. S.

  Blackburn, F.

  Doig, Peter

  Hobden, Dennis

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hooley, Frank

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Cwyneth (Exeter)

  Horner, John

  Booth, Albert

  Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Boston, Terence

  Eadie, Alex

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Boyden, James

  Ellis, John

  Howie, W.

  Bradley, Tom

  English, Michael

  Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Ennals, David

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Brooks, Edwin

  Ensor, David

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

  Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

  Hunter, Adam

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

  Hynd, John

  Buchan, Norman

  Fernyhough, E.

  Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Finch, Harold

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Erie (Islington, E.)

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)

  Cant, R. B.

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Foley, Maurice

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Chapman, Donald

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Coe, Denis

  Forrester, John

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Coleman, Donald

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Judd, Frank

  Concannon, J. D.

  Freeson, Reginald

  Kelley, Richard

  Conlan, Bernard

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Garrett, W. E.

  Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Latham, Arthur

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Lawson, George

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Moyle, Roland

  Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N. E.)

  Ledger, Ron

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Lee, Rt. Hn, Jennie (Cannock)

  Murray, Albert

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Neal, Harold

  Silverman, Julius

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)

  Newens, Stan

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Slater, Joseph

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Ogden, Erie

  Small, William

  Lipton, Marcus

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Snow, Julian

  Lomas, Kenneth

  O'Malley, Brian

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Luard, Evan

  Oram, Bert

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Orme, Stanley

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Oswald, Thomas

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

  McBride, Neil

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

  Thornton, Ernest

  McCann, John

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Tinn, James

  MacColl, James

  Padley, Walter

  Tomney, Frank

  MacDermot, Niall

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Paget, R. T.

  Urwin, T. W.

  McElhone, Frank

  Palmer, Arthur

  Varley, Eric G.

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Pannell, Rt, Hn. Charles

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Mackie, John

  Park, Trevor

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Wallace, George

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Pentland, Norman

  Weitzman, David

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Whitaker, Ben

  Manuel, Archie

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Marks, Kenneth

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Whitlock, William

  Marquand, David

  Probert, Arthur

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Randall, Harry

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Maxwell, Robert

  Rankin, John

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Rees, Merlyn

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Richard, Ivor

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Mendelson, John

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Mikardo, Ian

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Winnick, David

  Millan, Bruce

  Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Roebuck, Roy

  Woof, Robert

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

  Rose, Paul

  Molloy, William

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Moonman, Eric

  Rowlands, E

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Ryan, John

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Burden, F. A.

  Eyre, Reginald

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Farr, John

  Astor, John

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Fortescue, Tim

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Foster, Sir John

  Balniel, Lord

  Chataway, Christopher

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Batsford, Brian

  Clark, Henry

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Clegg, Walter

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Cooke, Robert

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

  Cordle, John

  Goodhart, Philip

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Corfield, F. V.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Biffen, John

  Costain, A. P.

  Gower, Raymond

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Grant, Anthony

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Crouch, David

  Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Crowder, F. P.

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Blaker, Peter

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Grieve, Percy

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Body, Richard

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gurden, Harold

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Dance, James

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, w.)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Dean, Paul

  Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

  Braine, Bernard

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Brewis, John

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Bryan, Paul

  Eden, Sir John

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Emery, Peter

  Hay, John

  1628

  1629

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Mawby, Ray

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Scott, Nicholas

  Heseltinc, Michael

  Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. c.

  Sharpies, Richard

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Hilcy, Joseph

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Silvester, Frederick

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Monro, Hector

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Holland, Philip

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Speed, Keith

  Hordern, Peter

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Stainton, Keith

  Hornby, Richard

  Morgan-Giles, Rear.Adm.

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizts)

  Stodart, Anthony

  Hunt, John

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Murton, Oscar

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Tapseif, Peter

  Irvine, Bryant Gotlman (Rye)

  Neave, Airey

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow, Caihcart)

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grmstead)

  Nott, John

  Temple, John M.

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Jopling, Michael

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Tilney, John

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Osborn, John (Hal'lam)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Pardoe, John

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Kitson, Timothy

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Waddington, David

  Lambton, Viscount

  Percival, Ian

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Peyton, John

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Lane, David

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Wall, Patrick

  Lawler, Wallace

  Pounder, Rafton

  Walters, Dennis

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Ward, Christopher (Swindon)

  Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dficId)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Pym, Francis

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Quennefl, Miss J. M.

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Wiggin, A. W.

  Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Rees-Davics, W. R.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  MacLeod, fit. Hn. lain

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  McMaster, Stanley

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Wolrigc-Gordon, Patrick

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Woodnutt, Mark

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Worsley, Marcus

  Maddan, Martin

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Wright, Esmond

  Magimnis, John E.

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Wylie, N. R.

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Marten, Neil

  Royle, Anthony

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Maude, Angus

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Mr. R. W. Elliott and

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  St. John-Stcvas, Norman

  Mr. Jasper More.

  Main question, put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 242.

  Division No. 26.]

  AYES

  [10.13 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Albu, Austen

  Boyden, James

  Cronin, John

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Bradley, Tom

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Alldritt, Walter

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Dalyeil, Tarn

  Allen, Scholefield

  Brooks, Edwin

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Anderson, Donald

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Ashley, Jack

  Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Brown, Bob(N 'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

  Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Buchan, Norman

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Barnes, Michael

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Barnett, Joel

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Baxter, William

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Dell, Edmund

  Beaney, Alan

  Cant, R. B.

  Dempsey, James

  Bence, Cyril

  Carmichael, Neil

  Dewar, Donald

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Chapman, Donald

  Dickens, James

  Binns, John

  Coe, Denis

  Dobson, Ray

  Bishop, E. S.

  Coleman, Donald

  Doig, Peter

  Blackburn, F.

  Concannon, J. D.

  Dunnett, Jack

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Conlan, Bernard

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Booth, Albert

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

  Boston, Terence

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Eadie, Alex

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Ellis, John

  Ledger, Ron

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Ennals, David

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

  Pentland, Norman

  Ensor, David

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Perry, George H, (Nottingham, S.)

  Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Finch, Harold

  Lipton, Marcus

  Probert, Arthur

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Fletcher,Rt.Hn.SirEric(Islington, E.)

  Luard, Evan

  Randall, Harry

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Rankin, John

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Foley, Maurice

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Richard, Ivor

  Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  McBride, Neil

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  McCann, John

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Forrester, John

  MacColl, James

  Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kennath(St.P'c'as)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Roebuck, Roy

  Freeson, Reginald

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  McElhone, Frank

  Rose, Paul

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Ginsburg, David

  Mackie, John

  Rowlands, E

  Golding, John

  Mactennan, Robert

  Ryan, John

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Gregory, Arnold

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Short, Mrs.Renee(W'hampton,N.E.)

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)

  Silverman, Julius

  Hamling, William

  Manuel, Archie

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Hannan, William

  Marks, Kenneth

  Slater, Joseph

  Harper, Joseph

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Small, William

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Snow, Julian

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Maxwell, Robert

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Haseldine, Norman

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Hazell, Bert

  Mendelson, John

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Millan, Bruce

  Thornton, Ernest

  Hilton, W. S.

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Tinn, James

  Hobden, Dennis

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Tomney, Frank

  Hooley, Frank

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Horner, John

  Molloy, William

  Urwin, T. W.

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Moonman, Eric

  Varley, Eric G.

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Howie, W.

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Wallace, George

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Moyle, Roland

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Murray, Albert

  Weitzman, David

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Neal, Harold

  Wellbeloved, James

  Hunter, Adam

  Newens, Stan

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Hynd, John

  Oakes, Gordon

  Whitaker, Ben

  Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

  Ogden, Eric

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Whitlock, William

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  O'Malley, Brian

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Oram, Albert E.

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'crs,S.)

  Orme, Stanley

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Padley, Walter

  Winnick, David

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Paget, R. T.

  Woof, Robert

  Judd, Frank

  Palmer, Arthur

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Kelley, Richard

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

  Park, Trevor

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

  Latham, Arthur

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  Lawson, George

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Balniel, Lord

  Bitten, John

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Batsford, Brian

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Astor, John

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Blaker, Peter

  Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Body, Richard

  1632

  1633

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Percival, Ian

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Peyton, John

  Braine, Bernard

  Heseltine, Michael

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Brewis, John

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter

  Hiley, Joseph

  Pounder, Rafton

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Bryan, Paul

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M)

  Holland, Philip

  Pym, Francis

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Hordern, Peter

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hornby, Richard

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Burden, F. A.

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Hunt, John

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Carlisle, Mark

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Chataway, Christopher

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Clark, Henry

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Clegg, Walter

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Cooke, Robrt

  Jopling, Michael

  Royle, Anthony

  Cordle, John

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Corfield, F. V.

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Costain, A. P.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Crouch, David

  Kitson, Timothy

  Sharpies, Richard

  Crowder, F. P.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Silvester, Frederick Sinclair, Sir George

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Lane, David

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Dance, James

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

  Speed, Keith

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire,W.)

  Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

  Stainton, Keith

  Dean, Paul

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Sclwyn (Wirral)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Lubbock, Eric

  Stodart, Anthony

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Drayson, C, B.

  Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Tapsell, Peter

  Eden, Sir John

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)

  Emery, Peter

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Errington, Sir Eric

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Temple, John M.

  Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

  McNalr-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

  Maddan, Martin

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Eyre, Reginald

  Maginnis, John E.

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Farr, John

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Tilney, John

  Fisher, Nigel

  Marten, Neil

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Fortescue, Tim

  Mawby, Ray

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Foster, Sir John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(S'fford & Stone)

  Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

  Waddington, David

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Clyn, Sir Richard

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Wall, Patrick

  Goodhart, Philip

  Monro, Hector

  Walters, Dennis

  Goodhew, Victor

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Ward, Christopher (Swindon)

  Gower, Raymond

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  Grant, Anthony

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Grieve, Percy

  Murton, Oscar

  Wiggin, A. W.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Gurden, Harold

  Neave, Alrey

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Hall-Davies, A. C. F.

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

  Nott, John

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Woraley, Marcus

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Wright, Esmond

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Wylie, N. R.

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hawkins, Paul

  Pardoe, John

  Mr. R. W. Elliott and

  Hay, John

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Mr. Jasper More.

  Resolved,

  That this House, conscious of the contribution made by the British Broadcasting Corporation as a public service to the development of broadcasting in this country, rejects the Opposition's proposals for private enterprise commercial local radio stations.

SECRETARY OF STATE (TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS)
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call on the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) to move the Prayer, may I say that a point of order was raised with me privately by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) at the end of the last debate on a Prayer. May I therefore confirm that the Chair always has the right at half-past eleven to decide whether the subject of the Prayer has been debated adequately, and if he thinks that it has not been debated adequately he may adjourn the debate.
10.28 p.m.
Sir Keith Joseph: I beg to move,
That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Transfer of Functions (Monopolies, Mergers and Restrictive Trade Practices) Order 1969 (S.I. 1969, No. 1534), dated 29th October, 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th October, be annulled.
We have put down the Prayer to give the Government an opportunity to explain to the House the policy behind the proposed transfer of responsibility for the Monopolies Commission and the Restrictive Trade Practices Court from the Board of Trade to the Department of Employment and Productivity. I am very disappointed that the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity is not present to explain the Order. We have a respect and regard for the Minister of State, who is always very courteous to the House, but this is really his right hon. Friend's business, and she should have been here. She has successfully taken over a large slice of another Department's activities. She was no doubt given a consolation prize at the time of the Cabinet reshuffle for the Prime Minister's failure to support her in her proposed trade union legislation, and it is that consolation prize, the result of a prestige struggle in the Cabinet, that we are discussing this evening.
We hope that the Minister of State will be able to explain exactly what is in the Government's mind. First, is it or is it not a fact that his Department—his new Department, because he, as well as the jurisdictions we are discussing, has been
1636
taken over from the Board of Trade—advises companies that acquire other companies to inform the workers concerned? Does not his Department advise all companies involved in merger and takeover operations to keep their staff and their workers fully informed of what is going on? I think that he will find that that is regarded as good practice.
In the light of that, will he tell us whether the Government in fact consulted or informed the members of the Monopolies Commission or the members of the Restrictive Trade Practices Court before the public announcement was made of what was happening? The impression I get, admittedly only from the newspapers, is that these procedures were sadly breached in this operation.
Will he tell us what the object of this transfer of functions is? Have the Government the least idea of what they are to do in the D.E.P. with the Monopolies Commission? They are intending, we are told, to merge it in some way with the Prices and Incomes Board. Our view is that the Government should spell out their objectives and that the institutional changes should follow the declaration of objectives. Here we have the precise opposite. The institutional changes are announced first and we, the House and the country, have no idea of the objectives which the institutional changes are meant to implement.
After all, it was the Fulton Committee which recommended that the Government should look at the job first before staffing it. Here we have precisely the opposite. The staff has been shifted with no job definition. Frankly, we fear the worst. We fear that this is political stage management and has nothing to do with the national interest. We fear that once again the Government's tendency to go in for double talk is ruling the scene.
The Government are facing two critical audiences on the prices and incomes front. They have to satisfy the main creditors of the country, organised through the International Monetary Fund, who for some reason expect of this country what they expect of no other country—that there be some sort of enforced prices and incomes policy, an attitude which we deplore and with which we do not agree.
The Government are trying to satisfy the I.M.F. that they will treat prices and

1637
incomes policy seriously and at the same time they have to face hon. Members below the Gangway who, for different reasons, but with the same intensity as we have, dislike the prices and incomes policy.
Our impression is that the Government are trying to confuse everybody by mixing prices and incomes within a new framework dominated by a yet unknown merger, as yet an undetailed merger, of the Prices and Incomes Board with the Monopolies Commission. This is doubletalk to attempt to persuade the I.M.F. that the Government will he serious about incomes while persuading hon. Members below the Gangway that it is only prices about which the Government are to be serious.
There is another sort of double talk. We have experienced only too much over the last five years the habit of Ministers by their policies causing increases in prices which they then deplore as if they had nothing to do with them. Time and again the policies of Ministers, tax policies, economic policies, have resulted in the putting up of prices. Time and again the same Ministers, as if they had nothing whatever to do with them, have deplored the price increases which have inevitably resulted.
We believe that prices should be disciplined by competition and not by edict. We fear that the Government are embarking on a course which nominally is aimed at disciplining incomes and prices, but which in fact is to be focused mainly on prices. The leaks in the newspapers that we have read indicate that the new body, of which we hope the Minister of State will give us details, will be addressing itself to the efficiency of industry. But we on this side of the House maintain that the system of competition within the law is by far the best discipline yet invented for industry.
Only where there is not competition because of a monopoly situation do we accept the need for Government supervision, intervention or inquiry. We do not deny that, where there is a monopoly or even an alleged monopoly or the possibility of one, the Government of the day must inquire and, if necessary, seek relevant action. Short of monopoly, the best discipline for prices and for incomes is the combination of competition and free bargaining.
1638
We want to warn the Government that, if they use the new instrument in order to focus attention on prices, the results will not be for the benefit of the country. If prices are restrained artificially—that is, not by competitive forces but by edict and by law—the result will be to squeeze profits. The result of that will be to affect confidence and investment. Come the next cycle of expansion, once again the country will be in a position where it cannot satisfy home demand enough from home resources, and the balance of payments will go wrong once more.
There is another way in which an attempt to restrain profits artificially can deeply damage the economy in the short term and, therefore, all our citizens. If earnings are allowed to rise because the Government are not making competition and free bargaining work properly and, at the same time, prices are restrained artificially, then, as we have seen time and again in this Government's period of office, imports are sucked in and profits and, therefore, investment are squeezed out.
This is a danger to the economy, and we would ask the Minister of State to tell us whether we are right in our fear that the new creation will concentrate principally on prices and the structure of industry, which we believe should be the job of competition and not of the Government by direct intervention.
Mr. Stanley Orme: I have been following the right hon. Gentleman's argument carefully. He says that his party is opposed to the prices and incomes policy and has voted against it consistently. I have been present at practically all the debates on it. How does he oppose the incomes increases which are the result of free collective bargaining which is taking place at the moment, and—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. Interventions should be brief. It may be that I have allowed the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) a little too much latitude. We are discussing an Order which deals with the transfer of functions. We cannot have a broad economic debate. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will confine his remarks to the Order.
Sir K. Joseph: I shall abide by your wishes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, you allowed the intervention of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), and perhaps I might deal with it. I am not aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends have opposed increases as such. We may criticise the economy—
Mr. Arthur Lewis: What about the dockers' increases?
Sir K. Joseph: We have criticised the Government for laying down a norm which is so unrealistic compared with the results of their general policies and their general submissiveness to trade union persuasion that the contrasts are laughable.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has answered the intervention.
Sir K. Joseph: The next question to the Minister of State is whether the Government think that the Department of Employment and Productivity is the right home for a tribunal or authority which is to concern itself with safeguarding the public from the abuse of power.
The principal abuse of power has been and still is the trade union movement, because of the state of the law governing trades unions and managements. That is a point of view which we on this side of the House are not alone in holding.
Mr. Orme: We do not share it.
Sir K. Joseph: Since the Department of Employment and Productivity is, as it were, the sponsoring Ministry for the trade union movement, and since the trade union movement is that part of the economy which is least within the rule of law, is it likely that putting the Monopolies Commission with the National Board for Prices and Incomes—for what that is worth—under the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity will protect the public interest? We say that it is the wrong place to put it. We repeat that the proper protection of the public, except for monopolies which should go to the Monopolies Commission, is a combination of competition, disclosure under company law, free bargaining and, where necessary, the use of the tariff.
1640
We question the effectiveness of the prices and incomes policy. We were most interested in the quotation by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray) from an unpublished paper by Dr. Lipsey and Dr. Parkin of Essex University, which purports to show that the whole prices and incomes policy has been not only non-productive, but actively counter—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is again departing from the Order.
Sir K. Joseph: The subject is so fascinating, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But I am on my last comment.
Will the Minister of State address himself to this position? The Prime Minister told the House that a transfer of function from one Department to another may take as long as two years to be effective. This transfer will distract and divert energies away from policy making in the Department of Employment and Productivity for months, if not years, to come.
No doubt the individuals who were working in the Board of Trade now work, as does the Minister, in the Department of Employment and Productivity. But the senior officials of the new Department will have to school, teach and familiarise themselves with new problems, and that will take time.
We accept that with the I.R.C. throwing its weight about so considerably, a countervailing force is needed to protect the country against monopoly. But we believe that the Ministry that should have that countervailing force should be the Board of Trade which has experience in these subtle matters of company structure, and which is, on the whole—and there is a former President of the Board of Trade present, the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay)—in favour of competition.
We are not altogether sure that the Secretary of State will be in favour of competition. The prime function of her Department has been that of conciliation. Her senior officials and she have no experience of company matters. The staff have moved, but the senior echelons are equally unfamiliar.
Finally, the Department of Employment and Productivity is the sponsoring department for the trade union movement

1641
which, with any monopoly, is the principal threat to the public interest when it comes to prices.
We fear that this transfer of functions bodes no good to the public interest and that, therefore, the onus on the Minister of State to justify it is very heavy indeed.
10.44 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Jay: I thought that we were discussing a transfer of functions, not economic policy in general.
I think that most of us on this side of the House try to be as charitable as possible to some of the Government's more curious decisions. But there is a limit to this process. In my opinion, in the case of this Order that limit has been crossed.
There is really no rational case for amalgamating the functions of the Prices and Incomes Board with those of the Monopolies Commission. Even if we do that, there is no case whatever for handing over the responsibility of both those bodies to the Department of Employment and Productivity.
I do not know why anybody ever supposed that the Prices and Incomes Board and the Monopolies Commission had similar functions. The job of the Prices and Incomes Board, if we are to retain it, is surely to examine proposals for increases in individual prices or wages and salaries at some point in time. If it goes beyond that, it is going beyond any sensible terms of reference. The job of the Monopolies Commission is to examine the whole basic structure and policy of our industry and the consequences of a proposed merger. These are two distinct functions, and nothing but confusion would result from mixing them up.
Secondly, the case is exceedingly weak for handing over the Prices and Incomes Board to the Ministry of Labour, and one only makes confusion worse confounded by giving the Ministry of Labour a meretricious name. The Ministry of Labour has a very great reputation and history, particularly in wartime, but its function is to find jobs for people, to administer unemployment insurance and improve industrial relations, not to fix wages and salaries and, still less, to fix prices. These have
1642
nothing to do with that Department at all.
There is absolutely no case for handing over responsibility for monopolies, mergers and restrictive practices to the Department of Employment and Productivity. That Department has very little knowledge of these subjects and has no experience or expertise for dealing with them. Clearly this should be the responsibility of the Board of Trade, as it always has been and as everyone with even an elementary knowledge of the machinery of Government knows that it ought to be.
The truth about this these clumsy, ill-thought-out and disruptive changes is that they weaken the efficiency of the Government as a whole. As a result, indeed, of successive upheavals in the Government machine in the last few years, and either unnecessary or harmful changes of functions, the Government machine, I fear, is in danger of sinking to the lowest level of efficiency for a great many years. That, I hasten to say, is not the responsibility in any way of the civil servants. It is due to these misconceived jolts imposed on them from the top.
One of the tragedies of the present situation is that these upheavals are tending to injure the morale and the efficiency of the Civil Service. This latest proposal to hand over mergers and monopolies to the Department of Employment and Productivity seems to be carrying amateurism to the point of absurdity. I hope that the Government will think again about this and that this time they will think seriously.
10.45 p.m.
Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has expressed the views of the whole House. This is one of the most cynical proposals we have ever had put before us. In order to give a fig leaf to the end of the prices and incomes policy, the Monopolies Commission, a most respected organisation which has been in existence for over 20 years, and which the right hon. Gentleman in particular and I and others in a humbler way, have supported, is being sacrificed on the altar of temporary party political expediency. That is what the right hon. Gentleman said in rather more distinguished language than I could hope to do.

1643
What is the case for this merger? That is to say, what is the case for the transfer against the Board of Trade? The Board of Trade has administered the Monopolies Commission perfectly well. No one has criticised it.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman completes his applause for the Monopolies Commission, perhaps he will recall that one of the disadvantages of the Commission has been the length of time it has had to take in preparing its reports, during which time events have moved on and it has presented virtually an historical document. The great advantage of the Prices and Incomes Board is that its reports have been relevant when published.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: If the hon. Member thinks that in all these matters speed necessarily means accuracy, all I can say is that he is dead wrong. It is true that the Monopolies Commission has gone into the matters judicially; it has tried to discover both sides of the case. If the hon. Member thinks that there is something wrong in finding out both sides he should go to a different country than the United Kingdom, because we believe in hearing both sides of a case, and that takes a little time. The Prices and Incomes Board does not believe in hearing both sides of a case. For those reasons its reports do not receive the respect that is accorded to the reports of the Monopolies Commission—a respect which comes not only from both sides of the House but from people throughout the country.
If anything, the criticism of the Monopolies Commission is that it does not always tell those under scrutiny all that is alleged against them. This is a somewhat exaggerated criticism. We live in an imperfect world. We must take into account the time factor. Although members of my profession sometimes think that the Monopolies Commission is somewhat inquisitorial, that is a counsel of perfection. But one has to get on with the job. The idea that it is possible, in a short time, to inquire not only into a monopoly condition but also into whether the monopoly condition has been abused—with all the enormous amount of evidence that must be pro-
1644
duced—is not merely to live in a world of fantasy but is a most dangerous totalitarian outlook.
The idea that the Monopolies Commission is to be subjected to the bright boys on the Prices and Incomes Board fills me—and, I am sure, will fill the whole industrial and financial world—with great alarm. That is what the Order purports to do. The opposite is the case. The Monopolies Commission is an inquisitorial body and apart from the technical objections raised by members of my profession it has achieved a degree of confidence.
Now it is to be moved out of that field into what has become a highly political Ministry. In the old days the Ministry of Labour was not a particularly political Ministry. Now it is highly political. I am sorry for the Minister of State having to answer these criticisms, because he knows, moving from the Board of Trade to the Ministry of Labour—or whatever it is now—as he has done, that he has gone down the slippery slope. The purpose of the Order is not to promote the Monopolies Commission or the great work that his right hon. Friend and others have done over the last 20 years to produce a degree of competition in British industry, but to provide a fig leaf—a decent cover—for the demise of the prices and incomes policy.
The only hope is that if we channel matters of monopolies and restrictive practices into the Department of Employment and Productivity inquiries into restrictive practices will move from management and capital into the field of labour. What other reason, in logic, can there be—apart from the squalid reasons of politics and the infighting of Whitehall—for saying that the Monopolies Commission and the restrictive practices operations which are mentioned in many paragraphs of the Order are being moved into what we still choose to call the Ministry of Labour, than that the restrictive practices of labour itself are to be inquired into? Is that the motive? If not, why not? What is the reason for the transfer, except for that?
10.55 p.m.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I want to adopt a somewhat different point of view from that taken by the hon. and

1645
learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). What I am concerned about is not that this will lead to the demise of the prices and incomes policy, but that the fig leaf, of which the hon. and learned Member spoke, will hide behind it a continuation of the prices and incomes policy in a different way. This is what I am concerned about and suspicious of. When I read in the Gracious Speech that:
"Legislation will be introduced to rationalise the work of the Monopolies Commission and the National Board for Prices and Incomes, and to combine them in a new body"
I was worried. I followed very closely what the Prime Minister said in his speech introducing this. He said:
"Up to now their specific responsibilities have been quite separate. But although it has been right to draw a distinction—and we shall maintain a distinction—between, for example, short-term surveys of particular industries, where there are anxieties about incomes or pricing policies, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, examinations of industries with monopolistic tendencies, there has been a tendency towards overlapping, and this has caused problems for individual industries and firms."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th October, 1969; Vol. 790, c. 5–42.]
I am not very clear as to what precisely is involved. I want to ask my hon. Friend what is involved? What does the merger of the two bodies mean? Can we have some clear answers?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. It is not in order to discuss the other body. We are discussing only the Order before the House, which is the transfer of functions.
Mr. Heffer: With due respect, we were told in the Gracious Speech that the reason for the transfer was because the two bodies were to be merged. That is why we are discussing this transfer. This is clearly indicated in the Prime Minister's speech.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the Gracious Speech tonight, but the Order before the House and therefore the hon. Gentleman is not in order to discuss the point raised by the hon. and learned Member.
Mr. Heifer: I am sorry, but with due respect it is quite impossible for me to discuss this matter unless I refer to the reasons given by the Prime Minister, and the Gracious Speech. My right hon. Friend goes on to point out that an Order
1646
will be laid and this is that Order. If I am unable to ask these questions then, frankly, it is a sheer waste of time having this debate. It is an impossible position and I want to ask your Ruling before I go any further.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that I had made my Ruling perfectly clear. One can either reject or support the Order, but one cannot amend it. One is entitled to adduce arguments supporting it or opposing it. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be going a bit wide of the Order, but if he will continue I will stop him if I feel that he is going too wide.
Mr. Heffer: I am sorry if you thought that I was going wide, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is because I want to know why this is being done that I am asking these questions of my hon. Friend. It seems to be perfectly legitimate to do so. Will this be a completely new body? Who will be the chairman and what sort of things will be in front of it? Unless we can ask these questions we cannot proceed. These are pertinent questions which we are entitled to ask. Who will be on this new body and what will be the sort of things which will come before it? Is it desirable that it should act as a fig leaf, hiding the continuation of the Prices and Incomes Board? Is this, for example, part of the strategy to activate Part 11 of the Prices and Incomes Act?
I am not opposing transference. I say that there is a very good argument for it, but, having said that, one is entitled to get answers to these questions, and I hope that my hon. Friend will give us the answers this evening.
11.0 p.m.
Mr. David Howell: One way and another I think enough has already been said in this debate to make clear that this transfer proposal is not seen as the most brilliant and popular move which this Government have made in their rather chequered career. I should like to add my four reasons why I support my hon. and right hon. Friends and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) in their sensible critiques of this absurd manoeuvre.
The first point is one which has been made, that this is a whimsical move in the chessboard game of Cabinet politics.

1647
It is made by a Government who have adopted the Fulton principle of systematic analysis, the evaluation of changes in machinery before they are made, yet here, despite the Prime Minister's bold declaration that he accepts Fulton, is a classic example of a non-evaluated, non-systematic move being made. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) said—and it was a very true word—that this is a move in exactly the opposite direction from the basic precept of Fulton, which was, "Look at the job first". The last thing which has been looked at in this move is the job which is intended to be done. Other things of a more squalid kind have been looked at long before. As my right hon. Friend said, and as The Times said, absolutely accurately, this is
"no more than a prestige struggle".
That is my first reason for supporting this Prayer and opposing this transfer.
The second reason was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North. It really spells itself out as soon as one begins to ask, what are the functions and at what are they aimed? We know that in the kind of economy we have today, even if it is not as free enterprise and dynamic as some of us would like, there is an essential requirement for Government to maintain competition, which is not an easy business of laying down a few rules, but a very complex business involving—and perhaps some of my hon. Friends will not agree with me in this—certain degrees of political intervention to maintain competition. This is one of the functions of the monopolies and restrictive practices legislation. Competition is not a natural phenomenon. It is a phenomenon only maintained by an increasingly sophisticated form of intervention. We have right to receive protection from unfair competition from overseas. I am ready to receive some brickbats from some of my hon. Friends when I say that when one looks at some of the Reports of the Prices and Incomes Board and forgets, if possible, some of the more absurd charges in the field of price fixing and wage regulation, the analysis of the way competition works in certain firms and the analysis of
1648
why it has continued to work in certain industries is of very high quality, and that is something which is very valuable and ought to be preserved. Despite all the criticisms which are made of the P.I.B., I place a very large question mark over the possibility of the understanding of this work, and of its being preserved, in the suffocating and submerging atmosphere of the Department of Employment and Productivity. This is a function which we ought to be preserving, and the question is whether it will be preserved in the D.E.P., and the business of preserving and promoting competition is a very complex one indeed.
Then there is the question of the protection of British industry from unfair competition from overseas and the question of mergers and monopolies which flow from that, the concern of Government Departments and with other countries' unfair buying practices and administrative preferences. I do not know what the D.E.P. knows about that, but I would guess, very little or nothing.
There is the function of the protection of investors. Government Departments and various bodies, such as lately the City take-over panel, have involved themselves in this field. I do not know whether investors have ever thought or ever will think that they will really get much protection from the Department of Employment and Productivity in the share market.
Finally, and this is not least important though I list it fourth, there is the protection of the employee in the merger monopoly situation. It is true that this is something with which the old Ministry of Labour and the modern D.E.P. had a right and a responsibility to concern themselves, but that is the only function; the other three functions do not lie on the labour and employment side at all but at the centre of industrial policy.
My second major reason for opposing the Order and supporting the Prayer is that there was a hope, held by some of us—I believe on both sides of the Chamber—that it might be possible in the post-Fulton period to rationalise and centralise the control of industrial policy more sensibly than in the past and to get away from the absurd situation—which, to the credit of members of the Government no longer exists—in which, until a year or two ago, there were nine

1649
different Ministries concerned with industrial policy, competitive policy and monopolies and mergers, and to move towards a situation in which there was some coherence in industrial policy. The proposed transfer of functions drives a coach and horses through that idea, and destroys the hope of a centralised and sensible industrial policy strategy. That is wrecked.
My third reason is one to which my right hon. Friend has already alluded. It is that the need, the driving force in the management of these functions must be a concern with competition. Whatever may have been thought about the old Board of Trade, it understood, and had a sort of crusading spirit for, the competitive process. It was concerned to maintain competition. Even if some of us thought that its interpretation of competition was at times a little archaic, there was this competitive and open approach to the business of competition when monopoly and merger functions were in their old place. As my right hon. Friend has said, these functions are now being transferred to a Ministry of restraint, a protectionist Ministry, a Minstry where all the arguments have been for holding down and protecting and restraining—the very opposite of the spirit required to inform the functions we are now discussing.
My final reason for supporting the Prayer is that we are moving now towards a new concept of public monopoly control as well as private monopoly control; and to an understanding that public industries are best controlled, less by absurd day-to-day interference and meddling and more by regulatory mechanisms. It is here that new thinking, such as there may be, in the Ministry of Technology should be going—when it has time to take its mind off the many things it is doing that it ought not to be doing. That is where the thinking ought to be going. I doubt whether the Department of Employment and Productivity either understands these new functions of public control, recognises them or welcomes them.
To sum up, my four reasons for opposing the Order are that there is no systematic analysis at all behind this transfer; it undermines the hope of centralised and rationalised industrial policy; it places these important functions with a ministry
1650
of restraint and protection, and it distracts us from the real tasks of the 'seventies which are bringing our ramshackle and inefficient public sector more effectively under control.
11.9 p.m.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Unlike the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. David Howell), I do not see this transfer as undermining the hope of a centralised industrial policy, because one of the virtues I see in the Order is that it can centralise one such aspect.I am sure that the hon. Gentleman cannot believe that we can centralise all aspects of industrial policy at one go; or that it would be desirable to do so. The Order does go some way along that road.
One thing it does is to try to bring the Monopolies Commission and its work up to date, because one of the things that has been transparently clear over the years is that the Commission has not been doing its job properly, and it has not been doing its job properly because this was one of the first forays by Government into a relationship with industry. Its first foray was that by judicial process. It compared the liberties of the firm with the liberties of the individual and the result was the Monopolies Commission.
We have advanced a great deal since then, and so have other countries. We realise that we cannot operate in that way because it is a recipe for inaction. We cannot say that we must prove to the hilt a particular course of action before we say that an industry must change that course. The liberties of a firm are by no means the liberties of an individual. The firm has wider responsibilities. The pace of industrial change today might mean that by the time the report is produced the problems with which it deals have become out of date. So we had a position where a Commission has not been able to respond to industrial change in the way in which the National Board for Prices and Incomes has been able to respond to changes as they occur.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Does the hon. Member think that under the direction of the right hon. Lady this Commission will speed up its work? If so, what sort of direction does he think she will give it?
Mr. Sheldon: The main function is to bring these two organisations together so that we get the same sort of action from the Monopolies Commission as we have from the National Board for Prices and Incomes. I should hope that as a result of the merger there would be an improvement in the speed at which reports are produced and so affect industry when it is in a position to be so affected.
The whole relationship between industry and Government is in process of change at present. This is what this Government have brought about. The great increase in relationships between industry and Government is going on and it is irreversible. There is obviously a time when it could have been said—this is one of the clichés some of us have inveighed against—that it is better to get it right than early, but in industrial matters it does not work like that. That is because there is a time factor and if one does not produce a solution by a certain time one gets it wrong. It does not matter how brilliant it is, it is wrong.
This is a changing world and we need a body which is able to act within limits circumscribed by change. I do not say that this is the obvious Ministry which should take charge of this kind of centralising of industrial policy, but it will at least concentrate it. The hon. Member for Guildford should at least welcome this kind of action, even if he does not welcome the particular Ministry to which it is moved. With that hope I welcome this Order.
11.14 p.m.
Mr. Tom Boardman: I found it difficult to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). If he was suggesting, as I understood he was, that there have been delays occurring in the present system which will not occur in future under the new sponsorship, perhaps he will spell out the reasons for saying that this will be achieved.
He did say that the liberties of a firm are not the same as the liberties of people, but on the liberties of a firm depend the livelihood, the jobs and the prosperity of much of this country. If we are prepared to take short cuts and suffer injustice for the sake of a Ministerial ego or pride, it is a sad day
1652
for this country. Arguments have been more directed to points of view on ministerial pride, but I want to say a word on the attitude of the customer on the other side of the fence—industry. I hope it is the objective of hon. Members on both sides of the House to have a more efficient and competitive industry. If this move does, as I believe it will, add to the inefficiencies of government the fragmentation of government functions, it will fail to achieve, not only what we believe to be the right purpose, but also the intentions which the Minister of State may well have for it.
I have considerable sympathy for the Minister of State. He is a lonely figure tonight. Apart from the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, whose arguments the Minister would probably not care to adopt, he has been lonely. He has been sent forward by the Secretary of State to carry the bat tonight on a hopeless wicket. It is the fragmentation of government operations with industry which concerns me most. The Ministry of Technology deals with one part. The Board of Trade deals with exports. There is now to be the Department of Employment and Productivity. They all deal with the corporate structure of industry. It will be impossible for industry to operate in such a climate. It is for that reason that I support the Prayer.
11.16 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Employment and Productivity (Mr. Edmund Dell): Various arguments have been adduced against the Order. They have extended from that of in-fighting in Whitehall to fragmentation of the government structure which the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) mentioned—that was a rather curious argument after the construction of the Ministry of Technology—and to some curious connection which the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) discovered with the problem of soothing the I.M.F. I should have thought that the I.M.F. was at present thoroughly satisfied with our balance of payments advance. There has also been mention of fig leaves. I will try to give the House the justification for the transfer.
I am justifying the transfer at a time when the legislation creating the new

1653
Commission for Industry and Manpower is not yet before the House. The merger between the Monopolies Commission and the National Board for Prices and Incomes is the main justification of the transfer for which I am arguing. It is obvious that there is a limit to what I can say about that merger before the legislation is introduced. For example, I cannot tell my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) the name of the chairman of the new body.
Mr. Heffer: But my hon. Friend is accepting my point that this obviously is the main reason for the transfer?
Mr. Dell: Yes. I hope to say one or two things later which may help my hon. Friend.
Many tributes have been paid to the Board of Trade's management of the Monopolies Commission. I am the last person to dissociate myself from those tributes. Tributes are due, too, to the work of the Board of Trade in this field under the direction of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and others. The Board of Trade has changed since my right hon. Friend's time. There are always problems of delimitation—the drawing of boundaries—between Departments and between functions.
Even in the House tonight we heard from the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. David Howell) an alternative suggestion as to where the Monopolies Commission and the Restrictive Practices Court should have been transferred, different from the confidence which most hon. Members opposite have expressed in the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade undoubtedly had an excellent record in handling this legislation, but it has now lost its main industrial sponsorship function outside the consumer field. It has lost a factor of some importance—its distribution of industry responsibilities, which brought it into close relationship with some of the consequences of mergers. It has also lost its sponsorship of productivity bodies —in this case, to the Department of Employment and Productivity.
The main reason for the transfer is to enable the Government to work out in legislation to be presented to Parliament the establishment of a new commission merging the Monopolies Commission and the National Board for Prices and Incomes for the purpose of regulating the
1654
use of market power in cases in which the public interest is involved. Both these bodies, the National Board for Prices and Incomes and the Monopolies Commission, have filled an important rôle in our economy. They have had in certain respects different rôles, but also in certain respects overlapping rôles. For example, their different roles have included the specific function of the Monopolies Commission in the field of mergers, and the philosophy on mergers of the 1965 Act will continue. The National Board for Prices and Incomes has had a special responsibility in the field of prices and incomes questions and the nationalised industries. As I say, although there have been these different functions, there has always been between the two a considerable area of overlap. That overlap has required similar types of members of the Commission and the Board, and similar types of staff and consultants.
The areas of overlap have been demonstrated in a number of references which have been made to the two bodies in recent years. Both bodies have dealt with beer. The N.B.P.I. has dealt with beer prices and the Monopolies Corn-mission has also considered the problems of the structure of the brewing industry. Similarly, the Monopolies Commission considered the cellulosic fibres industry and the N.B.P.I. has considered the prices of certain cellulosic fibres.
There has been an overlap, and if the overlap can be removed, consistently with the purposes of the two bodies, I would have thought that it would be sensible to do so. I believe that certain advantages will flow from the merger. These include the fact that there will be a single body to which the Government can look for advice on matters affecting mergers, monopolies and price behaviour in weakly competitive industries, recommended resale prices and the relationship between pay, productivity and costs.
Secondly, the same body will be looking at the problems affecting the private and public sectors of industry. Thirdly, the clear links between pay, costs and prices will be retained; and fourthly—a matter of some importance—scarce resources with specialist staff and consultants will be better employed.
It has been argued—and I do not dissent from the argument—that one of the

1655
best ways of achieving efficiency in industry is through the mechanism of competition. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East argued to this effect, and this is true if competition works effectively. But unfortunately, and necessarily in many cases, particularly with a market of our size, competition is imperfect. There is market power, and in many cases market power is exerted in fields in which the public interest is involved. Therefore, there is need for a body which can inquire; and I believe there is need for a body which can inquire even in cases where there may not be a statutory monopoly as, indeed, the National Board for Prices and Incomes has been doing in recent years.
I know it is the view of many hon. Members opposite—the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East is particularly associated with this view—that all these problems outside the field of monopoly can be dealt with or at any rate ameliorated through disclosure. He greatly under-estimates the difficulties of legislating effectively for disclosure. Much of the work of the N.B.P.I. and of the Monopolies Commission has been in the field of disclosure of the type which he is interested in securing for the purposes of achieving a more competitive and informed economy.
The question is put, why should the Department of Employment and Productivity be responsible in this area? Let me say this in respect of one point made by the right hon. Gentleman when he referred to the market power of trade unions. I think that in opposing the market power of trade unions against the market power of companies, he is making the wrong comparison. The market power of companies is exercised against other companies, and may be exercised against the public interest. That is a matter to be dealt with on its own merit, quite apart from any question of the market power of trade unions.
There are good justifications for transferring the Monopolies Commission to the Department of Employment and Productivity and putting the new Commission under its authority. One of the reasons was touched on by the hon. Member for Guildford, and he indicated that in his view, it was, perhaps, one
1656
argument in favour of the transfer. This was the connection between problems of mergers and problems of the employment effects of mergers, with which we in the Department of Employment and Productivity are greatly concerned.
A principal argument for the transfer is that it is an advantage to have in the hands of a Department concerned with the social as well as the industrial consequences of mergers the monopolies and mergers legislation which we have at present and the new legislation which we shall have in a few months. We are concerned with the problems of redundancy. We are concerned with the development of employment services to meet them. We are concerned with the development of training and retraining to equip people for new jobs. We are concerned with the development of the manpower and productivity service which, equally, helps in that area.
The question of mergers has two aspects. One is the aspect of market power, and whether the market power created by any merger may be operated against the public interest. The second is the consequences of industrial rationalisation on employment in many parts of the country.
The second reason in favour of the transfer is that the Department of Employment and Productivity is already responsible for the National Board for Prices and Incomes, one of the elements in the new merged body. A large part of the work of the new body, as of the Prices and Incomes Board, will be concerned with incomes, though, I hope, within the ambit of a voluntary incomes policy. It will be concerned not just with the immediate justification for individual settlements but with wider questions of the relation of various pay structures and methods of payment to industrial efficiency.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that the object of the new body was to administer public policy in relation to market power. How does he square that with what he has just said about administering incomes and pay rises?
Mr. Dell: Because, clearly, pay rises, incomes and prices are all involved in the question of market power.

1657
Third, there is the problem of efficiency in industry. The National Board for Prices and Incomes has been concerned with efficiency in the public sector. The Monopolies Commission has been concerned with efficiency in the private sector, for example, in recent merger references. The new body will be concerned with efficiency in the public sector, and efficiency will not be outside its terms of reference in dealing with the private sector, for example, in the case of mergers.
Those are three substantial reasons for the transfer of these bodies to the Department of Employment and Productivity. The full working out of this policy will be seen by the House when the Bill is brought before it which will create the new Commission for Industry and Manpower. I hope that the arguments which I have presented tonight in support of the merger will show the House that the current transfer of the Monopolies Collision and the Restrictive Practices Court to the D.E.P. is justified by the creation
of the new Commission, and by the need to have advice in the detailed working out of the new legislation from civil servants of the Board of Trade who have now transferred to the new Department. I ask the House, therefore, to reject the Prayer.
11.29 p.m.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: At first, the House thought that it was true that this was to be a fig leaf to hide the end of the prices and incomes policy, but from the last remarks of the Minister of State it is clear that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was right, and it is to carry on exercising a busy-body interfering rôle in prices and incomes and all sorts of other matters. For that reason—
It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 100 (Statutory Instruments, &c. (Procedure)).
The House divided: Ayes 169, Noes 228.

Division No. 27.]

AYES

[11.30 p.m.

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Kershaw, Anthony

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Eden, Sir John

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Astor, John

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Kitson, Timothy

Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

Lambton, Viscount

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Emery, Peter

Lawler, Wallace

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Errington, Sir Eric

Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos.& Fhm)

Eyre, Reginald

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Farr, John

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

Biggs-Davison, John

Fisher, Nigel

Maddan, Martin

Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Maginnis, John E.

Black, Sir Cyril

Fortescue, Tim

Maude, Angus

Blaker, Peter

Foster, Sir John

Mawby, Ray

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(St'fford & Stone)

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Body, Richard

Gibson-Watt, David

Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

Bossom, Sir Clive

Glover, Sir Douglas

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Glyn, Sir Richard

Miscampbell, Norman

Braine, Bernard

Gower, Raymond

Monro, Hector

Brewis, John

Grant, Anthony

Montgomery, Fergus

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Grieve, Percy

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&M)

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Buck, Antony (Colchester)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Bullus, Sir Eric

Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

Murton, Oscar

Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Carlisle, Mark

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Neave, Airey

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Hawkins, Paul

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Channon, H. P. G.

Hay, John

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Chataway, Christopher

Higgins, Terence L.

Onslow, Cranley

Chichester-Clark, R.

Hiley, Joseph

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Clegg, Walter

Hill, J. E. B.

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Cooke, Robert

Holland, Philip

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Corfield, F. V.

Hordern, Peter

Pardoe, John

Costain, A. P.

Hornby, Richard

Percival, Ian

Crouch, David

Howell, David (Guildford)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Crowder, F. P.

Hunt, John

Pink, R. Bonner

Currie, C. B. H.

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Pounder, Rafton

Dalkeith, Earl of

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Dance, James

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Prior, J. M. L.

Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Pym, Francis

Dean, Paul

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

Jopling, Michael

Rawlinson, Rt. Hit. Sir Peter

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Rees-Davies, w. R.

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Stodart, Anthony

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Summers, Sir Spencer

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Temple, John M.

Wiggin, A. W.

Royle, Anthony

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Williams, Donald (Dudley)

Russell, Sir Ronald

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Tilney, John

Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

Scott, Nicholas

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Sharples, Richard

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)

Vickers, Dame Joan

Worsley, Marcus

Silvester, Frederick

Waddington, David

Wright, Esmond

Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Smith, John (London & w'minster)

Walker, Peter (Worcester)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Speed, Keith

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Mr. Jasper More and

Stainton, Keith

Wall, Patrick

Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Ward, Christopher (Swindon)

NOES

Abse, Leo

English, Michael

MacColl, James

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Ennals, David

MacDermot, Niall

Alldritt, Walter

Ensor, David

Macdonald, A. H.

Allen, Scholefield

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

McElhone, Frank

Anderson, Donald

Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Armstrong, Ernest

Fernyhough, E.

Mackie, John

Ashley, Jack

Finch, Harold

Maclennan, Robert

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

McNamara, J. Kevin

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Foley, Maurice

MacPherson, Malcolm

Barnes, Michael

Forrester, John

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Barnett, Joel

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)

Baxter, William

Freeson, Reginald

Manuel, Archie

Beaney, Alan

Garrett, W. E.

Mapp, Charles

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Ginsburg, David

Marks, Kenneth

Bidwell, Sydney

Colding, John

Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

Binns, John

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Bishop, E. S.

Gregory, Arnold

Maxwell, Robert

Blackburn, F.

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Boardman, H. (Leigh)

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Mendelson, John

Booth, Albert

Hamling, William

Millan, Bruce

Boston, Terence

Hannan, William

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Harper, Joseph

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Bradley, Tom

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Haseldine, Norman

Molloy, William

Brooks, Edwin

Hattersley, Roy

Moonman, Eric

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Heffer, Eric S.

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

Hooley, Frank

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

Horner, John

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Brown, R. W. (Shoredltch & F'bury)

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Buchan, Norman

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Murray, Albert

Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

Howie, W.

Neal, Harold

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

Newens, Stan

Carmichael, Neil

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Oakes, Gordon

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Ogden, Eric

Chapman, Donald

Hunter, Adam

O'Halloran, Michael

Coe, Denis

Hynd, John

O'Malley, Brian

Coleman, Donald

Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

Orme, Stanley

Concannon, J. D.

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Oswald, Thomas

Conlan, Bernard

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

Crawshaw, Richard

Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Cronin, John

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Judd, Frank

Palmer, Arthur

Dalyell, Tam

Kelley, Richard

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

Park, Trevor

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Latham, Arthur

Pavitt, Laurence

Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

Lawson, George

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Leadbitter, Ted

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Ledger, Ron

Pentland, Norman

Delargy, Hugh

Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Dell, Edmund

Lee, John (Reading)

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Dempsey, James

Lestor, Miss Joan

Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

Dewar, Donald

Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)

Price, Christopher (Perry Bar)

Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Price, William (Rugby)

Dickens, James

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Probert, Arthur

Dunnett, Jack

Lomas, Kenneth

Rees, Merlyn

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Luard, Evan

Richard, Ivor

Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

Eadie, Alex

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

McBride, Neil

Roebuck, Roy

Ellis, John

McCann, John

Rose, Paul

1660

1661

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Urwin, T. W.

Whitlock, William

Rowlands, E.

Varley, Eric G.

Wilkins, W. A.

Ryan, John

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Sheldon, Robert

Walden, Brian (All Saints)

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Willis, Rt. Hn. George

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptord)

Wallace, George

Winnick, David

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Watkins, David (Consett)

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Silverman, Julius

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Woof, Robert

Skeffington, Arthur

Weitzman, David

Wyatt, Woodrow

Slater, Joseph

Wellbeloved, James

Spriggs, Leslie

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Whitaker, Ben

Mr. Ray Dobson and

Tinn, James

White, Mrs. Eirene

Mr. James Hamilton.

Tuck, Raphael

APPLES (IMPORT QUOTAS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dobson.]
11.40 p.m.
Sir Gerald Nabarro: The topic which I wish to raise on the Motion for the Adjournment is the quota for the import of foreign apples during the first six months of 1970.
Apples have medicinal, nutritional and economic importance. I sit for one of the premier apple-growing constituencies in Britain, and the Chamber is unusually well filled this evening by my colleagues on this side of the House who also represent important apple-growing interests in their respective constituencies.
This year, conditions in the apple markets of Britain have been fairly similar throughout the country, due to exceptionally heavy apple crops at home, exceptional crops in Western Europe, heavy imports of apples from the Commonwealth—for there is no quota in respect of Commonwealth apple imports —and foreign apple imports.
When I mention that apples have economic importance, I remind the House of the large sums of money which we spend in bringing in apples from abroad. The relevant figure for the last full year for which figures are available is £32·6 million. That is the aggregation of the value of imported apples during the calendar year 1968. The source, which is impeccable, is Table 1 of the Overseas Trade Accounts, on page 69.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dun-woody)indicated assent.
Sir G. Nabarro: I am glad to receive the hon. Lady's assent. I make no attempt to delineate that large amount of imports country by country, because that infor-
1662
mation is to be found in these returns. I give merely a breakdown between Commonwealth sources, which are not subject to quota, and foreign sources which are.
Of the total of £32·6 million of imports in the calendar year 1968, 66 per cent. or almost exactly two-thirds measured ad valorem were from foreign sources, and 34 per cent. measured ad valorem were from Commonwealth sources. The respective figures ad valorem were £21·4 million from foreign sources and £11·2 million from Commonwealth sources—
Mr. Russell Kerr: How many from South Africa?
Sir G. Nabarro: Imports of South African apples during the calendar year 1968 totalled £8·474 million.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is that included in the figure?
Sir G. Nabarro: It is. It is said that the quota for foreign apple imports during the first six months of 1970 will be 1,375,000 cwt., or 68,750 tons—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Gentleman should always address the Chair.
Sir G. Nabarro: I am so staggered to see the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) sitting behind me.
Mr. W. Howie: I am sitting behind the hon. Gentleman because it is rather more enjoyable than sitting in front of him.
Sir G. Nabarro: I can understand that the hon. Gentleman may be able to hear better.
The fact is that this glut of apples on the English market during recent months has utterly depressed the prices that growers can receive for their crops.
The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) made some unfortunate

1663
comments in the unexpected and largely fortuitous debate which occurred, due to the illness of another hon. Member, on the Adjournment on 10th November.
Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: Where was the hon. Gentleman?
Sir G. Nabarro: I will respond to the hon. Gentleman at once. I was televising on the finances of Royalty at the moment that the debate occurred. I was televising against the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). That is why I could not take part in the parliamentary debate. But a debate on apples was not expected that night. The Adjournment was granted to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) who was taken ill, with the result that the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) jumped in and took the debate on apples at the last moment. That is the only reason it occurred.
The right hon. Member for Leith said:
"What we cannot do is to have an argument about prices and variations in them, or about quality. Last week it was said in the House by one hon. Gentleman that the best apples, well-graded, well-packed and of the highest quality, were selling for 2d. a lb. Not a single hon. Gentleman tonight repeated that figure. It does the industry no good to quote figures of that kind. Indeed, at the weekend I made certain inquiries, and I will not disclose what I discovered until I can verify them.If I were to say what I had heard it would not do the industry any good at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1969; Vol. 791, c. 148.]
I invite the right hon. Member for Edinburgh to tell me what he heard.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: This Adjournment debate is about import quotas, which are the responsibility of the Board of Trade.
Sir G. Nabarro: I do not want to waste time arguing about the presence of individual Ministers—
Mr. Arthur Lewis Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—
Sir G. Nabarro: I cannot give way again. Time is short. This is my Adjournment debate. I have ballotted for it for many weeks.
The right hon. Member for Leith referred to the fact that I was not in my place. He had virtually said that it was untrue that apples of the highest quality were commanding only 2d. a lb. In
1664
fact it was true. I went straight from this Chamber and tendered the evidence to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leith. It was pertinent to the right hon. Gentleman because the apples, Cox's Orange Pippins, Sunset grade, of the highest quality, grown in the Vale of Evesham, had been transported and supplied to a wholesaler in Leith, and that wholesaler returned only 2d. a lb for them.
I have the documentary evidence here and I will give the names. The grower and supplier was Byrd Brothers, fruit and vegetable merchants of Evesham, who write:
"This return was in respect of 100 cartons of selected Sunset-Cox apples, 12 lbs. per tray, first grade, minimum size 2½ inches, sent to the wholesaler to sell for us. You will see that we have been returned 2s. per carton (i.e., 2d. per lb.). When one deducts the cost of the carton, packing and handling, we are left with virtually nothing, and this is not taking into account other costs entailed in growing the fruit."
The firm in Leith which took the apples and returned 2d. a lb. for them was Harry Glass Ltd., of 12, 14 and 28 Constitution Street, Leith. The right hon. Member for Leith, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, has been furnished with copies of these documents. Perhaps he will now withdraw his allegation, because these fruit suppliers in the Vale of Evesham not only grow the finest quality apples, grade and pack them perfectly, but supply markets all over England with apples of infinitely superior qualities to any coming from abroad. But we would not expect a Scottish industrial Member to recognise the quality of English apples that we in Worcestershire and Herefordshire know so well.
Mr. David Gibson-Watt: I naturally recognise that the Vale of Evesham is one of the finest apple growing centres in the country, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir Clive Bossom) will agree that, in Herefordshire as well, we have probably one of the most striking and advanced packing stations—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief and, indeed, are not customary in Adjournment debates.
Mr. Gibson-Watt: This is a most important point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope you will allow me to make it. The point I want to make is that the amount of money invested in this industry is very considerable but the grower is getting virtually nothing for it.
Sir G. Nabarro: He is, indeed, getting nothing for his investment. So we have the situation of apples at 2d. a lb., sent a distance from the Vale of Evesham to Leith of about 400 miles, whereas dumped, imported foreign apples were selling on the same day at Paddington Station at 3s. a lb. Yet the Government plead that their policy is one of import substitution. Does one wonder, therefore, that my constituents are not only hostile to the Government but utterly disbelieving of their purpose in pleading for a policy of import substitution in agriculture and horticulture?
I want to go a stage further with market intelligence. Not only was 2d. per lb. paid in Leith, but grade 1 Laxton's Fortunes were offered in the first week of November at l½d. per lb. in Pershore market in my constituency; 250 tons of Lord Lambourn and Laxton's Fortune were left unpicked at Leighsinton, near Malvern, Worcestershire; 1,200 boxes of Melba—a very early variety—were picked, graded, packed and were put into store but lay unsold and are now rotting in their boxes, utterly wasted.
All of this is sufficient evidence that the British apple growers are ready, willing and able to deliver the goods to the market but that their efforts are completely destroyed by the arrival of foreign apples dumped on our markets, often from France, in unripe condition before the close season prohibits further imports. The French apples come in unripe and are left in store here in order to beat the ban on foreign imports. [Interruption.] I wish the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) would not shout at me from a sedentary position.
Mr. Bagier Mr. Bagier rose—
Sir G. Nabarro: No, I will not give way. I have taken the trouble to ballot week after week for this Adjournment debate. The hon. Gentleman is too idle to stir himself to make a speech on behalf of his constituents.
Mr. Bagier: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many of us, including myself, ballot for Adjournment debates week after week. Within the last three weeks we had a three-hour debate on this subject, yet again the hon. Gentleman—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.
Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman is too idle to put his name into the ballot. My claim is that the notional import quota for foreign apples in respect of the first half of 1970 at 68,750 tons ought drastically to be reduced. I believe that the huge amount in the volume and value of first quote English apples of every kind and grade, both eaters and cookers, presently in cold stores—and every cold store in Britain today is bulging to capacity with English apples unsold would last through until next June without importing more than approximately 20,000 tons of foreign apples.
My claim is that it would be advisable, in the interests of the balance of payments and for other reasons, to reduce the foreign apples quota for the first half of 1970 from 68,750 tons to 20,000 tons, thereby saving approximately £5 million in foreign exchange.
I want to give the hon. Lady the latest market intelligence on prices. This, again, is impeccable information and comes from the same sources as her Department uses. Therefore, I forestall any figure she may have been provided with in her brief. [Interruption.] I do wish that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South would stop interrupting. Will you tell the hon. Member, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if he wants to interrupt he should get to his feet?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already called for order. It is not the custom to make interjections from a seated position.
Sir G. Nabarro: Especially in an Adjournment debate, when time is limited. It is a tradition in this House that Members do not give way.
The comparison in prices is very marked. I pick one grade only—Laxton's Superb, Dessert Apples, Class (I), and I quote prices per cwt. for 1968 and 1969 on a weekly basis, derived from the Agricultural Marketing Report

1667
Horticultural Supplement, as agreed with the Ministry of Agriculture. In the week ending 23rd October, 1968, that grade of apples commanded a price of 102s. 8d; in the equivalent week in 1969 the price was 77s. 6d.—or 35 per cent. less. In the week ending 30th October, 1968, they commanded a price of 122s. 3d. and in the equivalent week this year—29th October, 1969—a price of 68s. 2d.—or a 45 per cent. lower price. Last year, in the week ending 6th November, 1968, they commanded a price of 117s. 7d. and in the equivalent week this year—ending 5th November, 1969a price of 66s. 9d.—a fall of 42 per cent. In the week ending 13th November, 1968, they commanded a price of 110s. 10d. and this year, in the equivalent week, ending 12th November, 1969, a price of only 69s. 7d.—a drop of 35 per cent. The latest market intelligence is that for the week ending 20th November, 1968, they commanded a price of 118s. 3d. and for this year, in the week ending 19th November, 1969—a price of 76s. 5d.—a fall of 33⅓ per cent.
Measured over those five weeks between the third week of October and the end of November the average drop in wholesale prices in 1969 as compared with 1968 is 38½ per cent., notwithstanding the fact that all costs have risen precipitously during the—intervening period of 12 months. For all those reasons, but most largely—and I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade is to reply—for balance of payments reasons, it would be foolhardy indeed to bring in a vast quantity of foreign apples in the first half of next year for which we have not a ready market, when all our own stores are crammed to capacity with this season's English crop.
I believe that all charity begins at home, and that we ought to sell off our English crops before we bring in any further supplies of foreign apples. That is the purpose of my plea tonight.
12 m.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: We have just listened to a fruity speech on a fruity subject by the fruity hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). He has spent a long time quoting facts and figures but has conveniently forgotten that what the average
1668
person is interested in is not the wholesale price, or what the grower gets, but in what he has to pay for the product. If the hon. Member was interested in seeing that his apple producers get more than 2d. a pound he mentions, he should have investigated how it is that these apples are being sold on the street markets, which is the cheapest place, at 1s. 3d. a pound. He would be better engaged in suggesting that someone somewhere is making one hell of a profit at 1s. 1d. a pound. He did not say a word about this.
I agree that these apples are good, well-packed and that the producers must get a fair return. The hon. Gentleman ought to have gone round the street markets, as I have done, and seen these apples being sold at 1s. 3d. and 1s. 4d. a pound. These apples are almost on a par, with the exception of Golden Delicious, which are not easily obtainable, with the other imported apples and at the moment are about the same price. The housewife has to have the choice.
The hon. Member is a loyal supporter of his leader, a great champion of entering the Common Market—and I see that his P.P.S. is here. He is all for increasing trade with the Common Market to ease our entry into it. [Interruption.] I will not give way to the hon. Member. He would not give way to me or my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier), so I have to make a speech instead of an intervention to which he could have replied. If we are to trade with France, we have to import some of its commodities so that it can earn the currency to pay for our goods.
Mr. Peter Mills: On a point of order. Surely it is time that the Minister replied to this debate? We want to hear her answers to the questions raised.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is the custom of the House that Ministers get time to reply. It is the tradition in an Adjournment debate that the Minister has the right to put the opposite point of view. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give her that opportunity.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Yes, but it is also a fact that an hon. Member is entitled to challenge another hon. Member who is speaking. If he does not give way then that hon. Member has to make a speech. I am going—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have no power to ask the hon. Member to resume his seat in these circumstances, but I hope that he will recognise the ordinary courtesies and traditions of the House and allow the Minister time to reply.
Mr. Lewis: Normally, that would be the case, but the hon. Member was—I going to say offensive—most outspoken in challenging my hon. Friend and me to get up and say something. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] Well, all right, but I was sitting here and I heard him say, "The hon. Member should not make remarks sitting down" I asked him to give way and he would not give way. Hence, I wanted to put to him the point of view of the consumer, the housewife. After all, my constituents are of as much importance to me as the hon. Member's constituents are to him, and if I want to say that my constituents, the housewives, are being fleeced, I am entitled to put that point of view. All I would say in conclusion to the hon. Member is that if he wants to get a good reply, and if he wants hon. Members to adopt the normal courtesies of the House, he should try on occasions to adopt the normal courtesies when he speaks.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—Again, if he had adopted a better approach, there would not have been an interjection, and probably I would not have needed to get up and put the point of view of the consumer.
12.7 a.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): We have had a rather emotional debate this evening, and I have only a very short time in which to reply. I hope the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) gave my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture notice of the attack he intended to make upon him, because I have no doubt my hon. Friend would have been here in the House if that had been done.
The question of the import quotas of apples has been before the House on a number of occasions. There was an Adjournment debate on this very subject. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food answered a number of Questions on the subject, and on 10th November he replied to an Adjournment debate. My right hon. Friend the Minister of
1670
Agriculture received a deputation from the N.F.U. on 11th November, and I myself answered Questions on 26th November. Thus, well before tonight's debate Ministers were very conscious of the view of some Members and of United Kingdom growers that the heavy United Kingdom crop and the lower prices being fetched by home applies would justify us in intensifying the restrictions which are already imposed on apple imports.
We have been examining the case which has been put to us very carefully indeed, but I must say straight away that we have decided after balancing all the arguments that the quota for January-June, 1970, should not be reduced. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] It will therefore remain at 68,750 tons and importers are being informed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I know that this decision will be very unwelcome to some of the hon. Members who have spoken tonight and to some of their constituents.
I want to make it clear that, in reaching this decision, Ministers have been conscious that there are several conflicting interests involved, but the Government are satisfied that the decision reached is the best in the widest national interest. Since the war, home growers of apples have increased their production. We have always been self-sufficient for cooking applies, but our growers now produce 50 per cent. of our total supplies of dessert apples compared with 20 per cent. before the war. The main support for the horticultural industry generally is through the tariff. But for apples, where the tariff is bound at nil or a low level, we have used quota restrictions. Imports are restricted by quota throughout the year from all sources except the sterling area from which they enter freely. There are two quota periods for applies, from July-December the quota is 15,200 tons and for January-June 68,750 tons. I should add that these quotas have remained unchanged for the last 10 years with the single exception of 1968 when the United Kingdom crop was so thin that we had to seek additional imports.
The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, asserted in the House on 26th November that
"this year larger supplies have been brought in than ever before, at a time when our own crops are the biggest in history."—[OFFICIAL

1671
REPORT, 26th November, 1969; Vol. 792, c. 399.]
Neither of these statements is correct. he 1964 crop at 315,000 tons was much larger than the estimated crop this year and the 1963 and 1965 crops were not far short of the present estimate. And imports of apples from all sources over the past 12 months are well below the
1672
previous year. As for the current quota—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having been continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at ten minutes past Twelve o'clock.

DEFENCE
  N.A.T.O. (Greece)
  N.A.T.O. (Greece)
  Defence Research (Report)
  Defence Research (Report)
  Recruitment
  Recruitment
  Royal Naval Air Station, Arbroath
  Royal Naval Air Station, Arbroath
  Beach Exercises Rights, Carmarthenshire
  Beach Exercises Rights, Carmarthenshire
  Departmental Land (Wales)
  Departmental Land (Wales)
  Heathfield Camp, Honiton
  Heathfield Camp, Honiton
  Infantry Battalions (Rundown)
  Infantry Battalions (Rundown)
  Beira Patrol
  Beira Patrol
  Royal Navy and Royal Marines (Rum Ration)
  Royal Navy and Royal Marines (Rum Ration)
  Minehunters (Stabilisers)
  Minehunters (Stabilisers)
  Army Horses (Disposal)
  Army Horses (Disposal)
  Army Reservists
  Army Reservists
  Royal Naval Reserve
  Royal Naval Reserve
  Admiralty Underwater Weapons Establishment, Portland
  Admiralty Underwater Weapons Establishment, Portland
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  R.A.F. Station, Wyton
  R.A.F. Station, Wyton
  Bacteriological Weapons
  Bacteriological Weapons
  Dwellings, Glasgow (Sale)
  Dwellings, Glasgow (Sale)
  Royal Navy Establishments
  Royal Navy Establishments
  Sea King Helicopter
  Sea King Helicopter
  Explosives (Transport by Rail)
  Explosives (Transport by Rail)
  Servicemen (Death Overseas)
  Servicemen (Death Overseas)
  T&AVR (Strength)
  T&AVR (Strength)
  Naval Construction
  Naval Construction
  Naval Construction (New Equipment and Weapons)
  Naval Construction (New Equipment and Weapons)
  Naval Refits, Repairs and Conversions
  Naval Refits, Repairs and Conversions
  Minley Manor (Use)
  Minley Manor (Use)
  Nimrod Aircraft (Sale to Union of South Africa)
  Nimrod Aircraft (Sale to Union of South Africa)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Bread (Price)
  Bread (Price)
  Soil Fertility
  Soil Fertility
  Tractors and Harvesters (Investment Grants)
  Tractors and Harvesters (Investment Grants)
  Beer (Price Increase)
  Beer (Price Increase)
  Farm and Hill Land Schemes
  Farm and Hill Land Schemes
SCOTLAND
  Marriage Law
  Marriage Law
  Truancy
  Truancy
  Teachers (Non-Registration)
  Teachers (Non-Registration)
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Croft Houses
  Croft Houses
  Criminal Procedure (Departmental Committee)
  Criminal Procedure (Departmental Committee)
  Marriage Law
  Marriage Law
  Approved School Places (Cost)
  Approved School Places (Cost)
  Mentally Retarded People
  Mentally Retarded People
  Primary Schools (French Lessons)
  Primary Schools (French Lessons)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Aircraft (Horsham)
  Aircraft (Horsham)
  Steel
  Steel
  Trawling Industry (Fishery Support Ship)
  Trawling Industry (Fishery Support Ship)
  G.E.C. (Cabora Dam Contract)
  G.E.C. (Cabora Dam Contract)
  Pet Foods
  Pet Foods
  Nigeria
  Nigeria
  Container Terminal, Tilbury
  Container Terminal, Tilbury
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Union of Arab Emirates (Defence)
  Union of Arab Emirates (Defence)
  B.A.O.R. (Foreign Exchange Costs)
  B.A.O.R. (Foreign Exchange Costs)
  Nigeria
  Nigeria
TECHNOLOGY
  Development Areas (New Industries)
  Development Areas (New Industries)
  North-East Development Area
  North-East Development Area
  Slate Quarrying Companies, Wales
  Slate Quarrying Companies, Wales
  Anisotropic Materials (Design Problems)
  Anisotropic Materials (Design Problems)
  Britain-Australia Air Race (Beagle Aircraft)
  Britain-Australia Air Race (Beagle Aircraft)
  Concorde Aircraft (Testing)
  Concorde Aircraft (Testing)
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Hospitals (Kidney Machines)
  Hospitals (Kidney Machines)
  Low-paid Workers
  Low-paid Workers
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Leukaemia
  Leukaemia
  Local Government Officers (Pensions)
  Local Government Officers (Pensions)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Superannuation
  Superannuation
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teachers' Pay
  Teachers' Pay
  Yorkshire Opera Company (Grant)
  Yorkshire Opera Company (Grant)
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Industrial Disputes
  Industrial Disputes
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Children's Departments (Expenditure)
  Children's Departments (Expenditure)
  Mr. Alexander Solzhenitgyn (Immigration Facilities)
  Mr. Alexander Solzhenitgyn (Immigration Facilities)
  Statistical Surveys
  Statistical Surveys
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Letters (Free Franking)
  Letters (Free Franking)
TRANSPORT
  A30 Road (Exeter-Launceston)
  A30 Road (Exeter-Launceston)
  Road Haulage Agreements (France and Italy)
  Road Haulage Agreements (France and Italy)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Output per Head (Value)
  Output per Head (Value)
  Nationalised Industries (Capital)
  Nationalised Industries (Capital)
  Taxation (Extra-statutory Concessions)
  Taxation (Extra-statutory Concessions)
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  Overseas Government Loans (Interest Payments)
  Overseas Government Loans (Interest Payments)
  War Loan
  War Loan
  Tax Collection (Distraint Proceedings)
  Tax Collection (Distraint Proceedings)
WALES
  Council Houses (Central Heating)
  Council Houses (Central Heating)
  Agricultural Land
  Agricultural Land

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Leicester):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

WATER SUPPLIES AND SURVEYS
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government which river authorities have submitted a "Section 18" report to the Water Resources Boards on underground sources of water.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, Section 18 deals with proposals for undertaking investigations of underground strata. The Water Resources Board have so far approved 20 such proposals from 15 river authorities, and proposals from nine river authorities are under discussion at the moment. With permission, I will circulate a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the List referred to:
Schemes approved:

Avon and Dorset River Authority

Cumberland River Authority

Dee and Clwyd River Authority

Devon River Authority

Essex River Authority

Great Ouse River Authority

Hampshire River Authority

Lee Conservancy

Mersey and Weaver River Authority

Northumbrian River Authority

Sussex River Authority

Thames Conservancy

Trent River Authority

Welland and Nene River Authority

Yorkshire Ouse and Hull River Authority

Schemes under discussion:

Avon and Dorset River Authority

Cumberland River Authority

East Suffolk and Norfolk River Authority

98

Kent River Authority

Lancashire River Authority

Northumbrian River Authority

Severn River Authority

Sussex River Authority

Welland and Nene River Authority

THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether the Water Resources Board is doing all it can to press river authorities to explore underground resources of water, including aquifers and disused collieries? And can he say whether the Hardham aquifer recharging experiment in Sussex is yet sufficiently advanced to merit imitation by other river authorities?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am afraid that that question is a little too detailed for me to answer without warning, but I will write to the noble Lord.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many river authorities were able to submit by October, 1969, their "Section 14" surveys under the Water Resources Act 1963.]
LORD KENNET: My Lords, two river authorities have so far published final reports on their Section 14 surveys, and six more should do so this month. The remainder are expected during next year, except possibly one or two special cases.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is it the case that the Water Resources Board set the end of September or else October, as the deadline for these reports? Further, is it not the case that the reports are delayed because the river authorities have been doing good by stealth in collaborating and preparing wider and more fundamental studies of the North, of the South-East, of Wales and the Midlands? Finally, when will the reports all be available in their final form?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the date was set, or perhaps it would be better to say suggested, by the Water Resources Board. The statutory duty, of course, is simply to submit the reports as soon as possible. The South-East and the

99
Northern studies are now complete, and the Water Resources Board is engaged on the third regional study for Wales and the Midlands.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is it not the case that the publication of the Northern Board is only an interim report? Can the noble Lord tell us when the final report of the Northern Regional Board will come out?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the next publication on the North from the Water Resources Board is due in a month or two.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, as this Act of Parliament is about five years old, may I ask the Minister whether he remembers that the essence of the matter was that we nationalised the river rights and authorised the river authorities to secure a minimum flow of water, if need be by stopping farmers and industrialists from taking too much away? Has not the time arrived when some kind of inquiry, perhaps in depth, should be made to see whether the Act has done what Parliament hoped it would do?
LORD KENNET: Well, my Lords, it may well be the case that there should be an inquiry in depth; but I think hardly yet. Not everything which was to be done under the Act has yet been done, and I think we should wait until it is completed before inquiring into the functioning of the Act.

TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES AND EXCHANGE NAMES
2.36 p.m.
LORD GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will recommend to the Post Office that they should indicate in future telephone directories the exchange names in addition to the exchange numbers wherever possible.]
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, compilation of telephone directories is a matter of management for the Post Office, which
100
became a public Corporation on October 1 of this year.
LORD GISBOROUGH: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for his Answer I do not in fact think it is really fair because, after all, the Question does ask whether the Government would be prepared to make this recommendation to the Post Office. Is the noble Lord not aware that the insertion of the exchange name would be of great help in dialling a number? Having found a number in the directory, it is extremely difficult to remember it, with its seven figures instead of a name; indeed, it is quite impossible to remember all the seven figures with which one has to deal. Would not the noble Lord agree that it would be possible to put the exchange name, let us say "KNI", for "Knightsbridge", before the numbers, and the numbers in brackets, so that the advantage of the old system may be retained without interfering with the new one?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, this House passed an Act, called the Post Office Act 1969, in which it gave power to the Postmaster General to direct and give advice to the Post Office on matters mentioned in Section 11, subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4), and the House must regard itself as bound by that Act. If the noble Lord looks at The Times of yesterday he will see the picture of "Ann", under which appear the words "All-figure numbers now". It is most important to realise that we are increasing the number of telephone exchanges. Therefore, if the noble Lord thinks for a moment, he will see that while Whitehall is 930, which is clear, if the next exchange was 931 "WHJ" would not be a word at all. It is also most important for international dialling, because some foreign countries have no letters at all, and some have an alphabet different from our own.
The third reason for this method—and this has all been publicised by the Post Office in the advertisement—is that when people outside London dial a number in London they now start off by dialling "01" and then seven letters, which I do not find it all that difficult to forget. But soon it will be necessary to decentralise, and instead of all these calls going into the centre of London they will go to different parts of London. This

101
will therefore entail two different first numbers in the first three.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, while accepting that as a fascinating narrative, is the answer "Yes" or "No"?
LORD BOWLES: The answer is, No.
LORD GISBOROUGH: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that while it may not be possible to allow everybody to have these letters, it is advantageous for those for whom it is possible, albeit hard luck on those who cannot have them?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, they will all be out of date by the beginning of next year.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, whilst thanking the noble Lord for his almost unintelligible Answer, may I ask him whether he is not of the opinion that if my noble friend's request were met the telephone book would be another couple of inches wider or possibly twice as big?
LORD BOWLES: Yes, my Lords, I quite agree.
LORD IRONSIDE: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that it would be possible to put a list of the numbers and their equivalent letters at the beginning of each directory in use in London?
LORD BOWLES: No, my Lords; we are not giving any directions on this matter to the Post Office?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, in view of the noble Lord's rather abrupt Answer to my noble friend's original Question, is one to infer that Members of your Lordships' House may not in future ask Questions about the Post Office or refer to it, because it is not now directly under the Government?
LORD BOWLES: Yes, my Lords; that was one of the reasons for passing the Act.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we may not ask Questions of the Government about the Post Office?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, under subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) of Section 11 of the Post Office Act.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether we are going to get any better answers from Lord Snow?
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, is the noble Lord confirming the regrettable statement, which I understood from a telephone operator, namely, that one will not be allowed to ask for exchange names as well as numbers in future: that the exchange names are to disappear from use next year? That is what I understood from the telephone operator and what I rather read into part of the noble Lord's reply, which, however, was rather complicated.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, when I have read the noble Lord's question I will write him a letter.

ARMED FORCES: RELEASE RIGHTS OF BOY ENTRANTS
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Committee to inquire into the conditions of service and discharge of boys who join the Armed Forces at 15 has been appointed; what are its terms of reference; whether evidence will be taken from informed organisations, and individuals; and who are its members.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE R.A.F. (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, the membership of the Committee and its terms of reference will be announced as soon as possible. I have no doubt that opportunities will be given for organisations and individuals to give evidence.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he can indicate what is meant by "as soon as possible", as this matter, since the Latey Report was published, has now been going on for months and months? Can my noble friend give us an assurance that, while the Defence Minister has said they will have to balance the moral issue against

103
defence needs, Her Majesty's Government will recognise that the moral issue of enslaving boys of 15 in the Army for 15 years without an opportunity to decide whether they want to leave at 18, is one that should be in the minds of all of us who enshrine liberty?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot give my noble friend an exact date, but "as soon as possible" is not going to be a long period. As regards the second point in his question, I think he damages his case by overstatement. These boys are not enslaved, and their interests are very carefully safeguarded by the procedures which exist.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is it not a fact that these boys, when they sign on at 15, have an opportunity only for six months to decide whether they are going to remain in the Army for 15 years? And may they not very easily change their minds in adolescence and young manhood before that period is over?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is a complex subject which varies from Service to Service. Perhaps when the Committee's structure is announced we can discuss it then.
A NOBLE LORD: My Lords, we certainly will.

COMPUTERS AND PERSONAL RECORDS
2.43 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM rose to call attention to the need to reconcile the more efficient handling of personal records by means of computers with individual freedom and privacy; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wonder how many of your Lordships were reflecting, as I was, during that last Question by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, on the perennial difficulties of reconciling individual freedom and liberty with the needs of an organised society. The noble Lord may have felt that he did not get very far to-day, but there is no doubt that he, and crusaders like him, play a very valuable and continuing part in the political process by Questions of this sort, which he presses so effectively in this House and outside?
104
As a result, the individual does, I think, have his rights preserved against the needs of organisations and against the requirements of administrators and officials who, however well-intentioned they may be, may give more weight to the needs of the organisation than to those of the individual. Therefore, I think that the noble Lord's Question, coincidentally, provides a fitting introduction to the subject of to-day's debate.
Having said that, I should like to make clear that the Motion standing on the Order Paper to-day in my name does not in any way seek to restrict the use that is made of computers. I believe that the electronic computer has already brought substantial benefits to mankind and that in the future, if properly used, it may be a principal means towards a more leisured, skilled and prosperous society. The future development of computer technology and the widest possible use of computers should be promoted and encouraged vigorously and systematically by the Government and by other public and private agencies. The capacity and the limitations of computers need to be studied and understood. The contribution they can make to a better society should never be underestimated. This Motion, therefore, far from being a Luddite one, is intended to be constructive. It makes no attempt to return to the era of the quill pen or the handwritten ledger. Its sole purpose is to recognise that advances in technology need to be matched by equivalent movements in political thought, and subsequently by political action.
In its modern electronic form the computer is only just about old enough to have got the vote, but its achievements already are credible only because we have seen them with our own eyes. Computers can, and do, control complete industrial processes in factories. Computers can, and do, steer rockets to the moon. There would be no moon flights without the computer. Computers are capable of handling unimaginable quantities of information in centralised systems. These systems can, and do, concern anything and, increasingly, any person. Personal health and social security records; insurance claims; bank accounts; personal taxation: credit ratings and a mass of other information which affect the individual is held on computers which are used by public or by private bodies.
Without being too starry-eyed about the future, it is quite realistic to forecast that a single cash transaction between the citizen and the State will replace the present cumbersome and inefficient system. What happens now? With one hand the State collects money from the individual in the form of personal taxation and insurance contributions; with the other hand it hands back money to the same citizen in a multiplicity of social and welfare benefits in cash. Both these processes can, and in the course of time I think there is no doubt that they will, be combined on to a single computer system. I will not go into the details of this now, but one scheme for what has been called an Automatic Unit for National Taxation and Insurance, AUNTIE, has been worked out and published by the Conservative Political Centre.
In all this, computers are still programmed by fallible human beings, and therefore the possibilities of error exist. I have seen no evidence to suggest that wrong information in computing systems handling personal records is in any way common. But when factual errors do occur, of course they are particularly unfortunate. In statistical terms—if the record has been gathered for this purpose —an error showing that a woman is still married when in fact she is divorced and living apart from her husband may be insignificant, but to the individual concerned it can be very serious.
Mistakes are also difficult to detect because of the remoteness and relative inaccessibility of the computer systems. Therefore, it may be several years before it comes to an individual's notice that an error is contained in the personal information recorded about him; or, even harder to detect, that the information recorded about him is accurate in so far as it goes but that it is incomplete, and may therefore be presenting to those who are using it a misleading impression.
More of a problem than unintentional errors, or incomplete information—and these are things that can and do occur in any system, although I think less in computer systems than in most others—is the question of access to the computer, and whether the user is authorised or not. Here, what I am discusing is the confidentiality which depends on the security
106
of the computer system itself, rather than the broader aspects of the individual's right to privacy, to which I shall refer later.
While I was in the United States recently I was able to visit the corporate headquarters of International Business Machines at Armonk in the State of New York. I.B.M. have developed a number of techniques of protection which are designed to prevent intruders, whether curious or malicious, from obtaining un-authorised access either to proprietary data or to personal information about individuals. These safeguards fall, in the main, into three categories. The first depends on a recognition that the environment in which the computer is operating must be as secure as the machinery itself. So the trustworthiness of the operating personnel is an important factor, and normal management controls, such as accounting practices of separating responsibilities between personnel, will apply. In this way, which is fairly standard with any confidential information in any sort of system, an authorised user will have access only to that part of a central file with which his own work is concerned, and not to the whole file.
The second category is a range of physical security devices, the simplest being a straightforward lock both on the computer and on the terminals to the computer, which may present problems in that they are very often located in some different place from the computer itself. There are some particularly interesting developments which are taking place in this field. The more advanced devices include ways of reading badges and other forms of physical identification and a technique which will enable the computer to grant or deny access on the basis of the physical characteristics of the user. Although it is not yet generally available, a technique has now been developed by I.B.M. which transmits the user's voice from a terminal to the computer, where it is compared with a "voice print" which has already been stored there for identification purposes.
The third category of security is provided by the capability of the computer itself. Codes and passwords, both changed regularly, are included in the programme, so that the computer will respond only when the correct symbols are typed in at a terminal. These straightforward codes

107
and passwords can be extended in a number of ways. On some systems the user keys in the password and, next, the identification number, and follows this with his own security code. The computer then checks not only that the password is valid and up-to-date, but also that the individual has in fact been issued with that security code. A more ingenious technique is one of question and answer between the computer and the user. This can be used either on its own or in connection with security codes and passwords, keys or badges. What happens here is that the user signs on, and the computer responds with a number of very simple questions which are displayed on a small television screen at the terminal. The questions are simple but they are ones to which only a particular user might be expected to know the answer. Examples are the Christian names of a grandparent, the birthday of one of his children or a former address. These questions and answers are stored in the computer at the time that the user is originally authorised to have access to the system, but the selection of questions which are presented when he signs on, or their combination, will vary on each occasion. Therefore, any un-authorised person who might be present and can memorise the answers to the questions will not be able to use this knowledge on a subsequent occasion because the questions presented will be different.
My Lords, there are other interesting examples of security systems, but I should like to move on to the wider issues of privacy. I think the question of privacy is a harder one to discuss, and one which, on the whole, gives rise to more disquiet than the technical problems of safeguarding information held on computers. While I greatly look forward to hearing the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and other noble Lords on this topic, it seems to me that the right of privacy is a somewhat ephemeral one and hard to define satisfactorily. I suppose that in its essential elements it consists of the right of the individual to select the time, circumstance and extent to which knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, behaviour or opinions should be disclosed to or withheld from others. I think it was Brandeis who described privacy as the right most valued by civilised men and,
108
more simply, as the right to be let alone. In plain language, this statement probably comes closer to what most people think of instinctively as their right to privacy than some of the more elaborate formulations.
Advances in technology have clearly had an impact on privacy. I do not think anyone would deny that. The whole subject of wire-tapping, electronic eavesdropping and "bugging", which we are not concerned with to-day but which has been debated in your Lordships' House before, has become more acute because of the technical advances in micro-miniaturisation and circuitry. Of course, all Governments, local authorities and other forms of authority have for a very long time recorded information about individuals. But we might remember that a considerable measure of protection, inadvertent though it may have been, was provided by the highly dispersed nature of those records. Furthermore, there was an inability on the part of those keeping the records to handle this vast mass of information which was accumulated over a period of years. Now, the centralisation of personal records on computers, on a national scale in many instances, makes the effective utilisation of this information possible. Before long, a man from London who is knocked down by a bus in Newcastle will have details of his blood group supplied from a central medical records computer network within a matter of minutes. So there are very great benefits to be obtained, of which that is one example.
But at the same time as these benefits there are, as always, dangers. It may be that we are adequately prepared to meet these dangers, but I doubt it. For one thing, there is no clear-cut concept of personal information as a precious commodity which requires a measure of protection. When we talk of rights in a legal sense we tend to think either of rights attached to property or of rights which are attached to the person. What is personal information? It is not a property right: it is not, strictly speaking, a right attached to the person. It lies in as half-land between the two. Although, in a way, details supplied by an individual about himself are an extension of his own personality, such information is not covered by the same legal protection as the individual can claim for his own

109
person. At the same time, it is not a property right. I do not want to go further into this subject because we are entering deep legal water and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will no doubt guide us through it when he replies. I hope he will be able to tell the House whether he feels that the present state of the law as it affects privacy and personal records is satisfactory, or whether there are deficiencies in the law and in current practice, and, if so, how the situation can best be remedied.
It may be that a strictly legal approach is not in any event the most appropriate one at this stage. When I first became interested in this subject in the last Session, I introduced a Bill into your Lordships' House which was entitled the Personal Records (Computers) Bill. This was identical with a Private Member's Bill, titled the Data Surveillance Bill, which had been introduced into the House of Commons by Mr. Kenneth Baker, the Member for Acton, with all-Party support. Both these Bills sought to limit the possible invasion of privacy through the misuse of computer information by providing a register of data banks. All such banks set up for central or local government purposes would need to be registered, as well as certain other categories of data banks which were listed in the Bill. Once registered, the operator of such a bank would have an obligation to notify all persons about whom he was holding information exactly what details were contained in their personal records. This would be done we suggested in these Bills, by sending a print-out within a specified period of the information first being included in the system. Thereafter a further print-out could be obtained at any time on application and on payment of a fee.
Another important feature of the Bill was that it specified that the print-out of an individual's personal record should be accompanied by, first, a statement of the purposes for which the information was first gathered; second, information of the use that had been made of it since the previous print-out had been received; and, third, the names and addresses of any third parties to whom the information had been sent. These provisions were an attempt to give substance to what is perhaps the clearest principle
110
that can be identified in this rather uncertain situation. To me, the guiding principle should surely be that the individual has a right to know of and to limit the circulation of information about himself. This, I suggest, is the most practical way of considering the relationship between personal information and the right of the individual to privacy. It is in this sense an ingredient of the individual's right to privacy and one that should not be infringed without the showing of an overriding social need and that protective safeguards have been established in the first instance and satisfied thereafter.
Now it may be that the proposals contained in my Bill and in Mr. Baker's identical Bill in another place are too far reaching and that for Parliament to set up a statutory system of registration of data banks would be premature at this stage. But this is a matter in which the law will, I am sure, at some point have to intervene. I believe most people would agree, I think, that the point at which the law comes in should not be too late; for if the present situation of technological drift continues it may be that the practice will determine what can be done, because there will be limits on the action of Government.
I am inclined to think at this stage, however, that we are in a phase that immediately precedes law making, hence the debate on a Motion for Papers where people having an interest in the subject will express points of view, rather than on the Second Reading of a Bill which makes specific proposals. What is needed, perhaps more urgently than proposals for substantive law, is for thinking and discussion to take place. so that the embryonic issues of the type which I have described this afternoon are identified and exposed. Public attention called to a latent problem can sometimes prevent a real problem emerging in the future. In this sense, what is called for is a style of "preventive" law which has as its elements public policies, ethical codes adopted by users of computer systems, and standards of business practice, as well as statutory rules to cover certain particular circumstances.
Public debate is already beginning in this country, as it is in developed countries elsewhere in the world, and particularly in the United States. The Consumer Council has expressed concern

111
about credit-rating bureaux and the increasing centralisation of information about debtors. Since in most cases the individual does not know whether information is held about him or not, or, if it is, the source from which it came, the possibility clearly exists that people may be given a poor credit rating without their knowing about it or deserving it. I was rather interested to see that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, Chairman of the Consumer Council, is proposing to speak later in the debate to-day. The National Council for Civil Liberties has also taken an interest in this subject, particularly as it affects the social services. I accompanied a delegation from the National Council of Civil Liberties in June to discuss this subject with the Minister of State for Social Security. At this meeting a number of guide-lines were discussed and argued which set out clearly the main lines for future development and summarised the concern about centralised information held in computer systems.
These guide-lines were, first, the individual's right to know what is recorded about him; second, his right to know for what purpose the information is required and to be told what the purpose is at the time that the information is given; third, the right to know which people or which agencies will have access to the information and that adequate safeguards exist to prevent un-authorised access; fourth, the maintenance of existing restrictions on the exchange of interdepartmental information; fifth, the right to correct information if it is wrong: and, sixth, the right to appeal to an independent body in case of dispute. I may say that these are not specific, narrowly formulated arguments put to the Government in a form which could be incorporated in legislation; they are principles which a number of people interested in the subject felt should be put to representatives of the Government at that point. Those six principles, I believe, cover the sort of safeguards that might be provided.
Public discussion is undoubtedly building up, and I hope that the debate in this House, with some of the considerable authorities on the subject who are taking part, will help it along. But for the debate to be fruitful and to move down
112
an informed road towards final action the Government must be in a position to respond. I am sure that we are all delighted that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is to speak for the Government at the end of the debate to-day. Apart from his great knowledge and wisdom in legal matters, his own Department is closely concerned with the subject matter of the Motion. But so are many others.
Last Session, when seeking to whom to address myself on the subject, I had some difficulty in finding any Department which accepted responsibility. Finally, the Home Office came forward, and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who was at the Home Office at that time, corresponded with me on a number of occasions. The Ministry of Technology, as the expert Department encouraging the wider use of computers, is also concerned, and so are the large users of computer systems: the Department of Health and Social Security; the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications; the Registrar General; the Department of Education and Science (which, as noble Lords will know, was the target last week of some criticism on these lines from the National Union of Students), and, I would think, the Civil Service Department. So, while it is quite natural that new subjects should cut across departmental boundaries, I think it is not unreasonable to expect that ministerial responsibilities might be adjusted accordingly. Surely, somewhere among the 100 or so members of the Administration responsibility could be established for thinking about this whole question of how advances in technology affect the traditional rights of the individual.
I know that a number of Ministers are personally very interested in this subject, and the noble Lord the Leader of the House may well be one. But until the responsibility is actually attached to somebody, simply because it falls between Departments it is, I think, very difficult for the Government to respond to this sort of public debate, not just in this House but public debate, over a period of months, outside.
My Lords, that is all I have to say in opening the debate on this Motion. I hope that I have not gone on for too long. Let me end by summarising the

113
argument. Computers bring great benefits in the more efficient handling of personal information, but they are open to potential abuse. This may take the form of infringement of confidentiality, something which can be met by more secure systems. At the same time, traditional ideas of privacy are being altered. In the new circumstances the individual has a right to know what is recorded about him and the use to which the information is being put. These rights should be recognised and they should be protected. Ethical codes and standards of practice need to be supported by public policies and, ultimately, by legal safeguards. Informed public discussion has an important role in evolving the most appropriate form of safeguard, but to be productive it must be matched and answered by the Government. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.15 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, the whole House will be indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for having initiated this debate to-day. I shall follow him fairly closely in what he said, and I think it is inevitable that those of us who have been involved in this subject will speak very much in the same vein. There are a number of major subjects in which modern society has become involved, largely as a result of rapid advances in the field of technology, and this is one of them. It reminds us that whenever we make technological progress we create other problems as a result of it.
The speed of technological progress today is so great that we have to think faster; we have to think further ahead and we have to act more swiftly than we have been used to in the past. In environmental matters technological advances often accelerate problems. For instance, there is the problem of pollution. Yet farsightedness and early remedial action can reduce the otherwise inevitable consequences. So it is with this threat to the freedom of the individual resulting from the very rapid progress in computer technology; and I think it is our job as political leaders to foster public debate of the issues involved, to further the education of the public and to see whether we can produce satisfactory answers to the problems with which we are confronted. I believe that we can.
114
Like the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, I have recently travelled in the United States. I visited some of the institutions responsible for computers and for using computers, and I was particularly impressed by the way some of the research institutions are using them. I have had the opportunity of discussing the future use of computers with a number of people, both in America and here, and particularly this problem of the protection of privacy. I have no hesitation in saying that I believe in computers: I am a computer man. I want to see the computer used and developed as an aid to man's thinking and planning. I can see, as so many other noble Lords can, the tremendous opportunities for furthering man's knowledge by harnessing the computer to take the drudgery out of calculations, and also to enable us to use models and simulations for the benefit of society. I want to see our whole statistical service revolutionised so that we have figures which are accurate, meaningful and, above all, up to date. It is absolutely staggering how out of date are so many of the figures on which we work.
I want to see the nation properly documented—I emphasise "properly"—so that we can identify such things as the areas of present poverty and potential poverty and get to work in good time on different methods of improving things. Above all, I want integrated decisions on some of the big, difficult sociological problems which face us. I believe that there is a tremendous amount to be done in the field of medicine. My noble friend Lord Amulree has pointed out to me that there are obvious advantages for both patient and doctor. If a patient changes his doctor or consultant, the results of previous tests and investigations may be made available quickly and in a comprehensive form by means of a print-out. This saves a great deal of duplication and much of the correspondence with which doctors and consultants are always burdened; and it eliminates the danger of damage or loss of bulky records. Yet to all intents and purposes, the information remains confidential.
I think that even in the patient-doctor relationship computerisation in medicine can be of immense value in the future. It might even result in saving or

115
prolonging life. I was particularly interested to hear the other day (I know that other Members of your Lordships' House and another place have an interest in this) of the proposed research programme at Westminster Hospital where, if they can raise the modest sum of £20,000, they hope to use a computer associated with television to monitor conditions in a patient with coronary artery disease. This computer will allow them to analyse each successive heart beat and present the result in the wards sufficiently rapidly to keep pace with the changing conditions of the patient. Not only would this be good for the patient, but the hospital will learn a tremendous amount about what happens when a coronary is approaching.
The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, will correct me if I am wrong, but I am told that the heart beats, or it should do, 100,000 times a day. The analysis of heartbeats by modern methods would involve thousands of calculations and these can be done only by a computer of this sort. I believe that this is exciting work, but inevitably personal information will arise from the various experiments that go on in this field. I was reminded of the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, which he recounted in his speech to the World Assembly on Human Rights, when he said that he suffered for 14 years because something had got into his medical records which had been misinterpreted, either by insurance companies or by others. I must say that I have every sympathy, but I believe that there is a price which can be paid for this sort of thing, and also, if we are farsighted enough, we can build in the necessary protection in connection with the use of personal information so that that sort of experience is not normally repeated. Therefore I say that I want the computer. In fact, I should like to see a national data bank in existence, containing all the relevant information which a modern society needs for intelligent planning. But—and it is a big but—we must first devise and adopt reliable safeguards for the protection of the individual. This is not only vital; it is paramount. I think that the crux is: how to encourage the full use of the computer while protecting the freedom of the individual.
It is tempting to suggest that we should straight away pass a law on the subject.
116
It is tempting to suggest that we should straight away appoint a Select Committee to find a solution. I doubt whether these are the right approaches. I believe that we should commission either an institute or a specially selected team to make an objective study in depth of the problems and of all the possible solutions. For all I know, the Government may already be doing this. There are problems in different fields: in the technical field, in the legal field, in the moral field and in the political field. When we have all the alternatives available and the proper approach to the different issues involved, then Parliament and the Government can make the political decisions which are needed.
I should like to emphasise that it is a political decision that is required. In a matter such as this Parliament cannot "pass the buck". There is a tendency for people to say: "Leave it to the programmers, to the manufacturers, to the people who handle these machines." This, to my mind, is wrong and unfair. This is a political decision, which must be taken against the most informed background we can produce; and it is for Parliament then to pronounce on this. That is why I say that a study in depth should precede any political action which we are called upon to take.
I have no doubt that our future planning can be a great deal more effective if we have the right statistics to work on. But if we have a National Data Bank, or anything like it, or a collection of banks, we must have a means of differentiating between statistics and personal information: because once there is access to personal information, the way is open to personal dossiers and their abuse. Up to now this sort of problem has been solved by the slowness with which the machine and the people operating it have dealt with the processing of such information as exists, by the restrictions which have been imposed on access to information, and also by the fact that information has not, within the last five years, been centralised. But all this will be changed in the second development decade if we use the technological information which is open to us. This is why we need to study the protection which can be made available.
We may well have to set up (I am not putting this forward as a proposal, but

117
giving it as one of the issues to be decided) an independent Commission, under somebody of the calibre of a High Court Judge, which will be the vital arbiter as to who has access to information, what security measures are required by the Government, and who is to pronounce on the access that will be permitted on this very important subject. But we should remember, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said, that the computer is a remarkable instrument and it is possible to include protection in the computer programmes themselves. We could, for instance, include in all programmes an instruction to the effect that certain information about people should not be divulged to anyone unless a code password or pass key belonging to the independent body was fed into the computer. This could be put on a data cycle. It is possible to operate devices that will automatically separate the names of people from their statistics, particularly on things like credit rating, crime and tax matters.
One protection which has already been mentioned, and which would be of vital importance, would be to insist that every individual was informed whenever it was proposed to use or divulge his personal data and of the purpose for which it was to be used. In fact it is possible to build into any computer programme an instruction that the individual, organisation or company is immediately to be informed, if information in the data bank has been extracted, of the person by whom it has been extracted and the time at which it was extracted. This cannot be difficult because this is the way computers are built. And this may be the best protection we can get against industrial and commercial espionage.
I do not believe that any of these problems are insoluble, but I think that a lot of hard thinking and great judgment have to be used in striking the right balance between the needs of society and the requirements of the individual. We can have as many statistics as we like, but we must recognise that at the point where a name and number become associated with the statistics then the personal dossier comes into being, and this is what can lead to George Orwell's 1984, unless we find a way of avoiding it in good time. I think that we ought to give a good deal of thought as to
118
whether a National Data Bank needs to possess all the information available. For instance, there may well be some protection in having criminal statistics available on the basis that names are never associated with them on that particular computer programme. Credit information could be maintained in the data bank and in the joint stock banks and not used on a personal basis. The personal statistics could be there, but not associated with names or numbers.
One thing we should do is to define the statistics that are really needed for dealing with the planning problems of the future. I should think that there are few occasions on which these need to be reduced to a personal basis. What we want are facts and figures about age groups, population trends, consumption, production, and so on. During the coming decade, there will be much more use of models and simulation programmes to determine, before decisions are actually made, what are the likely effects. We shall be able to demonstrate quickly by the use of a computer what are the possible effects of making unintegrated decisions and what other options are available if we want to make a comprehensive decision.
There are a number of examples in America of this sort of thing. In one town, they put in a freeway which was fairly close to the town, and the immediate effect was that the middle class went to live about 30 or 40 miles out and left a desert in the middle of the town, without rateable value and revenue. This problem could be simulated on a computer, to see what the effect would be if such a decision were made; and that could be done before action was taken. That is what I believe we have to support, the idea of using the computer, which can be a magnificent tool in the right hands, for the benefit of society. But we must at all costs ensure proper protection for the privacy of the individual. We shall look forward to hearing from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor the Government's view on this matter.
3.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lord, I am grateful, as I am sure are all noble Lords, to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for raising this matter this afternoon. I am personally grateful for

119
his choice of date, since as a result this debate falls within my presidency of the British Computer Society and permits me to say something to your Lordships not only on my own behalf but also on what I believe to be the feelings of my fellow computing scientists. The British Computer Society, as often happens in modern technological societies, combines the functions of a learned society, pub-lishin a scientific journal, with the functions of a professional institution concerned with education and ethical standards. We are particularly concerned with ethical standards and we have set up our own working party to consider this matter. I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that the whole sympathy of the computer scientists is with the potential victims of any misuse of their science. The potential victims and the scientists are on the one side, and the impersonal, hard-hearted administrative machine, which neither understands the techniques of the one nor sympathises with the needs of the other, is the common enemy.
I am not going to take up time with reciting a panegyric upon the use of computers, although computers have been, perhaps, the centre of my emotional life for the last twenty years. Some twenty years ago I found myself, as Managing Director of the National Research Development Corporation, virtually the sole means of channelling public money from the public purse to the computing industry, then in its period of gestation. May I, in parenthesis, say that it remains true now, as in the past—and it is one of the few generalisations about this fascinating subject which remains true—that after a brilliant period of gestation computers are now approaching their infancy.
After ten years of that work I thought that I was out of it, and lay fallow for a couple of years. But some six or seven years ago I found myself Chairman of the Software Committee which was set up by the Science Research Council, and this particular subject has been my personal concern for the last seven years. The subject has attained a new level of achievement, on the one hand, or approached a new level of difficulty or even embarrassment, on the other. For we have the accomplishment of what is called multi-access computation—that is
120
to say, that you have one computer with a large number of people working into it, and not one of them knows that the others exist.
Arising out of this has come the need for file security. It would be disastrous if one person wrote something into another person's file. In the case of a written document, if anybody alters it an expert can tell that that document has been altered. The document may be merely expunged, as they did in the Middle Ages, or have a line drawn through it, as later, or the ink may be scratched out with a knife and something overwritten; but there is always a trace left. In the case of a magnetic mark on a tape no trace is left. A particular dot, or bit, as it is sometimes called, can be written and overwritten many times without leaving a trace. So it is impossible to find out whether something has been overwritten or not, and it is necessary to have a security system to make sure that it is not.
It is extremely important not to get starry-eyed about the security provided by the security system. These systems can be beaten, but the kind of proposition which runs, "the system cannot be beaten" has the same logical status as the proposition which says: "I have forgotten nothing"—because it is obvious that if I had, I would not know that I had forgotten it. The great overload facility for the British universities at Chilton, known as the Atlas Laboratory, where one of the six Atlas computing machines —which were of most enormous credit to this country in the days when they were young—is installed, recently acquired a very large disc file, and then a satellite computer, together with 16 on-line consoles, some of which are in Oxford and some at the Chilton Laboratory. These enable people to communicate direct on line, simultaneously, apparently, with the Atlas computer.
I was Chairman of the Atlas Computer Laboratory Management Committee during the six months when we set up the file security and were trying to break it. There was, of course, nothing improper in doing this; the people who had designed the security system had an open invitation to break it if they could. They broke it over and over again, but with decreasing frequency. There was an occasion when I was at the laboratory playing with the

121
thing myself, and somebody actually broke it and interfered with what I was doing while I was doing it. That was a personal reminder to me that one ought not to get starry-eyed about the efficacy of these security systems.
With your Lordships' permission, I should like to quote a remarkable person on this subject who would, I think, highly commend herself to noble Ladies in this House, because it can be but rarely that a member of their sex achieves the distinction of being both a professor in an American university and a Commander in the United States Navy. I refer to Doctor, as I first knew her, then Professor and now Commander Grace Hopper, the doyenne of software in computer use, who has been writing difficult higher-order software from a time to which the memory of computers runs not to the contrary. We were discussing this very problem in connection with her status as consultantin-chief to the United States Navy. She made two statements to me that I have her permission to quote to your Lordships this afternoon.
The first is that these systems are proliferating throughout the United States everywhere, and not one of them has not been beaten within six months by somebody clever enough to do it. Of course, an amateur could not, but the man who designs the system, or his assistant, can usually break it if he tries hard enough. The second is that she has persuaded the United States Departments which rely on her for advice to grant every member of every public department who has records on a computer an automatic right of print-out. Anybody whose records are kept on a computer has an unqualified right at any time to say: "I want to see what the computer says about me." So if anything happens to change his status he knows that the computer has a record of it and can demand a print-out in intelligible form while there is time for human memory to be still available to correct the thing if it is wrong.
In all matters where the computer is going to be the interface between man and the machine—and I do not care whether it is a physical engineering machine in a workshop, or an administrative machine, or a social machine—we must be prepared to invest a little extra money in a soft-sell. You cannot send
122
people to prison because the computer says so; there has to be a better reason than that. This soft-sell has got to come from running the conventional system and the computerised system in parallel, at some extra cost, long enough for people to gain confidence in the system. This, with the right of print-out, will, I think, gradually make people accept the new way of going about things. In other words, we are not entering a phase of the computerisation of everything; we are entering an intermediate phase in which the two systems must be run in parallel for long enough for everybody to gain confidence in both.
There is another matter which I think is essential, and that is that the administrator cannot have it both ways. If matters are to be kept secret, then they must be kept by the conventional system; if they are to be put on a computer, then there must be a right of print-off. We cannot mix the two. There are, of course, certain matters which it is very proper to keep secret. The whole system of references and referees depends on security between the referee and the potential employer to whom the reference is addressed. If a man applies for a job and gives references, and those references are taken up, they must remain confidential as between the referee and the future employer, for the very simple reason that nobody will give references if, on those occasions when bad references are given, they are landed with a personal embarrassment through breach of confidence. Therefore references must not go on the computer. And there may be other records which should not go on the computer.
At this stage of our knowledge nothing should go on a computer unless we are prepared to grant the person to whom the computer records relate the right of print-out. The same applies to what I might call inter-Ministerial data transfers —and I do not mean those as between Ministers, but as between Ministries. I do not think one Ministry should have automatic right of access to the data files of another except by authorisation at some appropriate level, possibly at the level of the Minister himself. I do not see why the Minister of Education needs to know that somebody has been to prison unless he is applying for a job as a schoolmaster, in which case, if there are records about these matters kept at

123
the Home Office, the Home Secretary's permission would have to be obtained for a particular piece of information to be available—not in general, but in particular terms—to the Ministry that asks for it.
If your Lordships will think of it as some kind of principle which could almost be added to the list of human rights, then one of the basic human rights should be: "No secret information on a computer, and right of print-out for the person to whom the computer records relate". These, I believe, are basic freedoms which are necessary for all those who might easily become the victims of mistakes, let alone malice, unless we take precautions against it.
3.41 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for his speech, and for providing us with this opportunity to debate this most important subject, I would ask his and your Lordships' indulgence if, while dealing with computers, I deal also with technological methods of obtaining the information that goes into the computers. The methods have now become a matter of urgent—I repeat "urgent"— public interest, because of a recent technological invasion of the right to fair trial, and the threatening of the machinery of justice. I am not going to elaborate on that matter, but what I have to say has a very distinct bearing, both upon recent events, and upon the problem we are discussing to-day.
I am delighted to follow the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, because I want to reinforce many of the things he said. This whole matter we are discussing today is something of world concern. In March, 1968, I delivered a paper, to which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, referred, on this subject to the World Assembly of Human Rights in Montreal. This became the subject of a resolution sent forward to the Inter-Governmental Conference on Human Rights at Teheran last year. That Conference instructed the United Nations to undertake an investigation of the technological threat to human rights. I have been asked to join in that investigation, and shall be doing so at the beginning of next year.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, referred to George Orwell's 1984. My Lords,
124
1984 is already here: all the components of George Orwell's sinister account of how The Machine enabled "Big Brother" to dominate people's lives and minds already exist; they have only to be assembled. In the meantime, we are being conditioned to their use. We are being hypnotised by innovation, bedazzled by gadgets. We are being bamboozled by what Orwell called, "newspeak" and "double-think". "Rights" are being claimed to justify "wrongs". Unscrupulous methods are being justified (and we have had a recent instance of this) because they are supposed to expose unscrupulousness.
I have on many occasions attacked "the tyranny of the dossier": the secret record, official or unofficial, in which the information is unchallenged—is not printed out, as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, asks us to do with the computer—and, indeed, is unchallengeable. The individual concerned does not know that it exists, and has no means of rebuttal. To-day the electronic computer has the capacity to compile a dossier on every man, woman and child in the community, with total recall of every childhood illness, every adolescent indiscretion, and every instance of adult nonconformity—the envigilation of every aspect of an individual's life.
It is all very persuasive, my Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, has emphasised, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, did before him, the great advantages—which I reinforce—to be gained from the use of the computer. But we must be aware of very serious and imminent dangers. Why should we not have a glorified electronic Somerset House, a central data bank, a Master Memory, in which information can be as detailed and useful as possible? That phrase, "as detailed and useful as possible", was used in justification of a United States' proposal to combine the records of over twenty Government organisations in one system. My Lords, I ask, "Useful to whom?" Let us consider what could happen in Britain. With our National Health Service, one could have a complete dossier, recalling one's childhood—infantile measles, that incipient tuberculosis at sixteen, the last filling or bridge which the dentist put in, the nervous breakdown that one had when one was jilted, and so on. One

125
could have the prescription for one's spectacles—everything could be there.
Alongside would be one's police record, including the fingerprints innocently given when applying for a security job; the licence endorsement earned because one was caught going up a one-way street, and so forth. Also there would be the secret dossier compiled when the security officers checked on the security application; when they questioned the neighbours, or the girl friend, as to why she did the jilting. Included, too, would be one's picture, either from a passport photograph or from a casual camera; and one's eavesdropped conversations. So would your employment record, including the time you had a row with the boss and walked out; your social status, including the house mortgage, bank account, income tax returns, your clubs and political associations (including the accidental ones that you never knew about) and your educational record and so on.
Of course, all this information could be obtained anyway; and individually, and in itemised form, much of it is not at all sinister. Indeed, as has been said, it would be quite valuable if a hospital casualty officer could dial the National Health Service computer and obtain an account of the patient's medical history. It might even prevent the casualty officer from giving me a particular pain-killer to which I am dangerously allergic. Dental fillings might be used to identify the corpse, and the optical prescription for spectacles to identify the spectacles found at the scene of the crime. Each item could in itself be completely harmless; but out of context, or in different conjunctions, it could be enormously dangerous.
What I have warned about would be a king-size dossier, an imperial-size dossier. However factual, a data-bank accumulation cannot be more than an identikit, a caricature, of any individual. Forgotten illnesses, transactions, associates, job-severance, and the like, could have different meanings in different circumstances. When, during the war, I had accidental access to my police dossier under the old system (and I can assure your Lordships that we will still have accidental access under the computer system), I read it with absolute fascination. I thought, "What a sinister, exciting,
126
character this fellow Calder must have been! I wish I had known him." One episode, the real circumstances of which I had practically forgotten because they were so unimportant, assumed the glamour and deviousness of a really exciting James Bond. But I did not recognise myself, and could have given completely simple explanations of incidents which had acquired suspicious significance.
Let me give an example of the kind of thing which can happen—and I apologise if I have given this instance before in your Lordships' House. Some years ago —in fact, twenty years ago—I was at a non-Governmental Conference, the World Power Congress, in Belgrade. We were discussing energy requirements, and the Congress was attended by distinguished scientists from both sides of the Iron Curtain—I think it was almost the first time that both sides had attended. During the coffee break one day a group, including the late Sir John Cockcroft, Emeleanov, the Russian, a top-ranking American and others, were having an uninhibited conversation. Hovering around the group was someone who looked extremely familiar, and whom I presently recognised as an American Secret Service man I had known during the war.
I went over and introduced myself. I said, "That's a nice tie you're wearing, Pat", and flipped his tie. Sure enough, there it was—a microphone underneath. I frisked his side pocket and there was a recording machine, no bigger than a paper-back book. I took him aside and said: "Who listens to all those millions of miles of tape recordings that you are building up? How can you sort it out? How can you decide what is really significant? How can you identify, with certainty, the voices? You cannot say, 'That's Sir John Cockcroft'. My only consolation," I said to him, "is that you cannot. Nobody can. There is too much of it."
To-day, my Lords, that is no longer true: All this information is fed into the computer. Something like 15,000 agents of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States (I am not giving away official secrets; it is not even secret) are feeding information into what is tantamount to a kitchen blender. All the information is going into a computer.

127
which is churning it up and turning it into something which is supposed to be data information. And then, of course, they cannot discover where the curious smell came from. It is coded nowadays, so that if any one wanted a total recall of Sir John Cockcroft in the incident I referred to, it could be retrieved. Cockcroft might be saying, "You know, Emeleanov, you and I have a lot in common. We must get together. I might be able to give you a few tips." They might have been talking about carnation growing. But, out of context and in a hostile political atmosphere, it would sound sinister or even intended treason.
In the old days one had some comfort in the thought that, however thorough the collection of information for a dossier might be, there were certain inescapable limitations. Walls still gave some privacy in the home; distance was still some protection, and size made methods of acquiring and storing information either conspicuous or excessive. Those safeguards of privacy and of human rights no longer exist. Miniaturisation has now reduced electronic devices to concealable proportions. I think that all of us at any time, at any moment, at the drop of a hat, become thoroughly indignant about the tapping of telephone lines. But we have moved a long way from the days when I was, euphemistically, "under police protection" of De Valera in Dublin during the Blueshirt troubles in the 'thirties, and I was telephoning my newspaper from my hotel bedroom. I could hear a breathing on the line and guessed that my detective —the man who was following me—was listening in. I stopped and said, "By the way, Macguire, are you getting all this down?" And a voice on the line said, "Surentogawd, no, Mr. Calder, I am not. Would you mind going a wee bit slower!"
Modern tapping devices are much more sophisticated. One can stick them on the base of a telephone like a piece of chewing gum, or tune in on a conversation from a distance by induction; and those devices are not restricted to the police, whose activities we can at least try to circumscribe through the Home Secretary. To-day, with tiny match-head transistors, one can have a listening post concealed in a cocktail olive, fitted into a lamp socket, or concealed in the
128
upholstery of a car. Stethoscopic microphones can be stuck by suction on a wall to pick up conversations in an adjoining room. As I mentioned once before in your Lordships' House, it is now possible for microscopic receivers to be fitted into the filling of a tooth or supplied as a dental plate. That Belgrade secret-service man to-day would not use anything so clumsy as a microphone under the tie. He would have a tie-pin microphone or a wrist-watch microphone. In fact, at one time when I was travelling in the Arctic I had a wrist-watch microphone; and it was very convenient because my hands could not write and I was able to dictate to myself—but it was to myself, not to somebody else, not even to a distinguished newspaper.
"Bugging" (as the term is) is no longer confined to attachments in rooms. You can have a "walking bug". In fact, when I was trying to evolve this phrase I wondered what the proper name for a "walking bug" or a "human bug" would be. But this is much worse, in my opinion, than wire tapping, because none of us knows what indiscreet remark or observation, which could be misconstrued, is being picked up by the person next to us. There are long-range directional microphones, sound telescopes, which can pick up conversation from a distance. There are Polaroid windows behind which people can sit unobserved and clearly observe others without their knowing that they are being observed—the modern version of the Judas window. This is the age of the casual camera photographing people without their knowledge. This may provide fun and games for television programmes, but its snooping uses are not at all funny. There are infra-red cameras photographing in the dark; there are "Peeping Tom" cameras (which I notice were used in a recent incident) which from a distance zoom in on our private lives the way that U.2 'planes and observation satellites spy on military installations of other countries.
I should like, with your Lordships' indulgence, to say something about tapes because this is rather important in terms of transferring to computers. I would remind your Lordships that pictures can now be transferred to magnetic tapes and stored in a computer memory, just as sound records can. I have had a good

129
deal of experience—for perfectly innocent reasons, I assure you—in the manipulation and doctoring of tapes; and from that experience I should want to see evidence obtained on tapes banned for ever as substantive evidence in a court of law. I insist that, even when used for the best of motives, tapes are entirely untrustworthy. Most of your Lordships who use tapes for dictation know, sometimes with humiliation at the way you swallow your words, how words become garbled. This week I was taping a memorandum which referred to the Government's setting up a joint committee—on metrication, by the way—and it came out in the transcript as a "giant committee". I know that your Lordships are going to say that super Ministries should have super committees; but it was not "giant"; it was "joint". Therefore, in the most scrupulous circumstances, disembodied evidence is in my opinion entirely unreliable. I could elaborate at length on this point, but I repeat that tapes can be doctored.
I should like to give your Lordships an example of how the past tense can be transferred to the future tense on tape. I was on an expedition in the Arctic, and was picked up off an island in the remote Arctic by a Hastings of the Royal Air Force and flown over the Pole. I thought, as I was doing, among other things, recordings for the B.B.C. and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, that it would be a good idea if I simply did the story of how you find the Pole. Many people describe the Pole that is there, describe what the Pole looks like, but this time I thought it would be rather interesting to describe how one would find the Pole. So I put the microphone of my tape recorder in the ear-hole of my flying helmet, and of course got the entire conversation on the inter-com between the pilot, the astro, the navigator and so on, as they were moving and converging on the Pole. It was rather exciting.
But, having got it, I realised that it was unintelligible. Unless one explained what it was they were talking about, one was using a "gobbledegook." So I went back into the Hastings and I recorded the chief navigator explaining what in fact it was they were talking about. Then, when I got back to Edmonton to prepare the programme, I realised that the only way it
130
could conceivably finish was on the Pole itself. That is to say, one did not go back and say, "What they were talking about was so-and-so." I discovered that the navigator had been speaking, of course, in the past tense, saying what we had been doing.
I was prepared to throw the whole thing away and think of a new idea when the engineer of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation said "This is silly; we can move the whole of this into the future". We did it, and I only wish I could give your Lordships a demonstration. I thought of doing it, but that would be a gimmick, unworthy of your Lordships' House. It can be done simply by the transposition of phrases, and in that way we were able, without adding one word or putting any words into the navigator's mouth, to transfer the whole thing from the past tense to the future.
I insist that it is possible to do this in many other ways. This kind of thing, with all the hazards to human rights, can be stored in computers unbeknown and uncontradicted by those whose interests are involved. One must add to this the fact that computer storage capacity nowadays is almost unlimited. With modern miniaturisation, cubic metres can be reduced to cubic millimetres. The bulk of the glass thermionic valve is cut down to the pinhead of the transistor; the drawing room console to the pocket receiver. Present-day technology permits the embodiment of 100 to 500 integrated circuits on a silicon wafer 2½2 centimetres in diameter (you will notice, my Lords, that I am saying "2½ centimetres" and not referring to inches, because I am the Chairman of the Metrication Board) and less than a millimetre thick, or a complete computer and communications system containing more than 1,000 circuits—and I repeat, 1,000 circuits—can be embodied in a disc no bigger than a lop coin. Your Lordships will also notice that I have not referred to the "florin".
In the realm of machine memories, an eight-coloured laser beam can store 100 million bits of information on 2½ centimetres of photographic film. The equivalent of a library of 20,000 volumes can be stored on an 8 by 10 sheet of nickel foil. With cryogenics, that is freezing at Absolute Zero or, as we say in the Metrication Board, at Kelvin Zero, it would

131
be possible to store all the information in all the libraries of all the world—the British Museum, the Library of Congress, the Bibliothéque Nationale, and so on—in a cubic capacity less than that of the human cranium.
All the computer memories could be linked together by satellite telecommunications—an "instant Interpol". Think, my Lords, of the opportunities for abuse by authority! Here is what Herman Kahn and Anthony J. Wiener say in their book The Year 2000. They are referring to things which exist today:
"A capability for listening and recording temporarily (or even permanently) can be made very inexpensively. One can imagine the legal or illegal magnetic or other recording of an appreciable percentage of all telephone conversations. The same technique could be applied to 'bugged' conversations in bars, restaurants, offices and so on. It would then be possible to scan rapidly these conversations … For simple computers,"—
they are not talking about the Master Minds, they are talking about the simple computers—
"the criteria would be certain words—underworld jargon, obscenities, or words such as 'bet' 'horse race', 'kill', 'subvert', 'revolution', 'infiltrate', 'Black Power', 'organise', 'oppose' …"
You pick up these key words and then land your victim. Why should not Kahn and Weiner go on to include "human rights", "peace", "United Nations", or whatever you like? By this method every anti-anything, every informer, every common mob could feed the master mind with intelligence or, in certain circumstances, draw upon it. Every mischief-maker could have his own transistorised, computerised, do-it-yourself C.I.A. kit.
Computer experts make reassuring noises, and I really was encouraged that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, was not making the reassuring noises that one might have expected, not from the Earl of Halsbury as an individual, but from the Chairman of the Computer Society. It is not something about which we can have any comfort or any reassurance at this moment. Some people say that the Master Memory could be made secure against access by unauthorised persons, but I would say, with great deference to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that I am not in the least impressed by what has been said about I.B.M. I do not accept the technological security of these
132
systems, and I doubt whether anyone ever would. I do not deny that they go to an enormous extent in trying to arrive at some solution; but I do not accept that, ultimately, one can get this system so secure technologically that even those safeguards which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said he wanted can be guaranteed. I would endorse every one of them, but I want a great deal more built into the computer protection than that.
I would follow the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and say that we ought to make it quite clear in terms of public records that what in fact is private, in the ultimate sense of the personal, should be printed out for the person concerned, or be maintained under the old system. As I said on the television programme on this whole subject, I hope that this great computer—this Master Mind, this National Data Bank, and all the other things that are being proposed—will have its own built-in self-destroying system and remember to blow itself up when a new Hitler takes over.
4.7 p.m.
LORD IRONSIDE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for introducing this Motion. I see that he is moving for Papers; perhaps it would have been more appropriate for him to move for magnetic tapes. In fact, in about ten years' time we may be able to do that, and it will be easy to wheel them in on a trolley, but I hope no noble Lord will ask for a print-out!
I was fascinated to listen to the speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and although I was in the computer industry myself for a time he has taught me a number of new things. I was glad to find that the advances in the computer industry are going along what I take to be very orthodox and promising lines. In my opinion, the whole question of the use of computers for information purposes must be put into perspective. I find certain aspects of the matter alarming, but I also find in other ways that computers are in fact fitting in with the accepted codes of behaviour. For example, in current accounting, where personal bank accounts are dealt with, banking ethics are fully applied and understood.
What is it, then, that we are alarmed about? I believe that basically we are

133
alarmed about the computer becoming the master of our futures, whereas it should be the slave to our desires. The computer is not a viable being; it is merely a machine doing what it is told. That, I am sure, my Lords, has been said many times before; and though computers are said to be capable of thought, they are capable of modifying their own programmes only according to set instructions. All this is quite controllable, and I personally do not believe that computers will take charge. Always they have to be given a man-made instruction. However, because we are only just beginning to scratch the surface on the soft-wear of computers rather than the hard-wear, it seems to me that we must now pay much more attention to the ground rules of their operation, and I think that in practice it is this which really concerns us more than anything else. Having codes is one thing, and having appropriate legal remedies against their misuse is another. I believe more of the first means less of the second.
It has been possible in the past to keep a fairly watchful eye on the practices of Government Departments and private bodies in regard to the use of information, but this is becoming more and more difficult to do. Only this afternoon we had an example of trying to find out what is going on in the Post Office these days. A short while ago we had a Post Office Data Processing Bill which we went through very thoroughly, and I should like to pay tribute to the Post Office for the way they have set up their computer operations. In the past I have been closely connected with this. I have understood what they have done, and I think that even now they are paying great attention to the rights of access of individuals to their computer sytem and are paying great attention to the internal checks and security which they must apply to the machines.
In the past a transfer of information from one place to another involved some physical or visible process. That does not apply now, with computers that can talk to each other in private and can be remotely interrogated. Unless you are intimately connected with the management or operation of these so-called "word shunters" or "number crunchers", you have no idea what is going
134
on inside them. Clearly and understandably there is a danger that they can be misused, and we are, I think, at present unsure that professional standards and existing codes of practice cater sufficiently well for them.
Essentially, I think the most important thing is for any codes of practice or enactments not to inhibit the carrying out of normally acceptable functions and business transactions by placing ridiculous, time-consuming and costly checks on what are considered to be no more than routine tasks or mere formalities. The greatest fear is that highly private information given by individuals in the health and security field is transmitted to other Government Departments for entirely different purposes, without the individual's consent or knowledge. Statistically such information may be of great use in long-term national planning, and the individual may benefit considerably from its being used in this way, but the information involved is not usually the sort of information that one is in any way compelled to give, except perhaps in the case of censuses. It is usually information given voluntarily on a privileged occasion, as one might give it to a banker, solicitor, doctor or any other professional person governed by codes of practice.
One is protected by professional codes and practices and by some regulations, but one has to be very careful indeed, these days, particularly where credit rating and status is involved. For example, it is not uncommon to have to give highly personal information in seeking life insurance, and most of the questions asked are probably quite pertinent ones, but life insurance proposal forms are laid out in such a way that the information can be fed into a computer. One has no way of knowing whether it is or whether it is not, even though one may not take out a policy.
It is the declaration at the bottom of the form which interests me most of all. In one case that I know of this ends by authorising the company:
"to make inquiries of any office to which you have at any time made a proposal for life insurance and the giving of such information."
How does one know what "such information" might be? It could be anything. If you sign the form, you make a pretty sweeping authorisation to the company. I know that if I signed such a form I

135
should probably first specify that the information I give would be solely for the purposes of assessing the terms of the proposed policy, and, secondly, I would only authorise the giving of information relating to that which I had myself previously given to another company on their own particular proposal form. One might say that if one gave the information in verse one could at least copyright it; but that may not be possible at all. Presumably there already exists a traffic in information in insurance circles; but with the use of computers and the linking of insurance companies to banking and credit card networks it seems to me that privacy perhaps is not so privileged as it used to be.
One of the most simple cases of transferring information without an individual's knowledge is, of course, the sale of mailing lists, where an individual and his address are linked. So far as I am aware, there is no bar to this type of purchase or sale. It need not in fact be just this; other private details could be traded as well not necessarily acquired in privileged circumstances, but I think the main point is that information given under privileged circumstances and which is not normally available from public sources should not be misused as a result of being machine handled, and this is what I think this debate is about.
I want to refer to one other aspect of the information business, and that is the data bank, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Byers. This term, data bank, is used in the United States and is defined in American dictionaries, but not in British ones. It is, I think, a misnomer, at least at the moment, to us. It has nothing to do with the deposit of money, but is used to denote a mechanised data deposit. These "stores" can deal with vast amounts of information which are available on random access; and by "random access" I mean that one can get the information out by pointing at the position in the core store where you know it to lie, rather than having to search in a sequential manner right through the memory. So far as I am aware, in the United Kingdom anybody can establish a mechanised information store. No licence is needed to operate them. Such stores have nothing to do with banks, and general information
136
handling is not governed by banking codes or practices relating to customer information.
Mechanised storage of personal records is attractive, like the mechanised current accounting, which the banks use to great advantage; but I think that our fears are in respect of a national personal records store, or indeed regional ones. It makes no real difference, I think, whether you are talking about a national store or regional stores, because computers speak to each other so easily these days. Information could be retrieved or shunted from one place to another at the drop of a hat, for all sorts of purposes, authorised and unauthorised. Clearly, in operating data banks or stores along these lines the Department of Health and Social Security is most involved, and adequate safeguards are needed to cover statistical needs, medical needs, to prevent unauthorised use and to prevent, also, the accumulation of incorrect or unsubstantiated information.
It has been mentioned that one safeguard should be the right to check information held, but my own view is that such a right should not be too cheaply traded for the most important working principle in any system; that is, knowing that in the quest for higher efficiency through the use of mechanised storage and retrieval systems the individual's right to privacy is completely safeguarded. I think it is worth recalling here the Service custom, at least in the Navy, as I know it, where a man is allowed to see the official and original copy of his personal record once a year for the purposes of checking its correctness and to request that action may be taken to investigate any discrepancies. The sort of information that appears is not only where he has served but what his conduct is; what his misdemeanours are, and, in the old days (I do not know whether it applies now) whether he had had venereal disease or not. These are private matters. The point here is that in the case of records held for those in the Armed Services (and so far as I am aware, in the R.A.F. for example, these are held on a computer nowadays; in the Navy I do not think this is so, and in the Army only pay is held on a computer) there is I think no civil law remedy for dealing with discrepancies and misuse, and therefore in these cases there should be rights of access.

137
But so long as private individuals are assured that personal information voluntarily given to Government Departments is restricted to the use of that Department for the proper purposes for which it was provided, then there will not be much public apprehension and there can always be a civil remedy for misuse. It may be that we need more civil remedies; at the moment, we rely on a number of existing enactments to deal with these situations when they arise. The establishment and maintenance of standards related to mechanised storage and retrieval is highly important. Developments in the use of computers—that is to say, the softwear—are only just beginning; there is no end in sight at the moment. And, having listened to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, I think everybody will agree with this. But I dread to think of the time when the private individual may once a year have to queue to look at his personal record at some Ministry or other, to see that the Government have correct tabs on it. Let us, on the other hand, work towards getting the ground rules right so that we remain masters of the computer and do not become its slaves.
4.20 p.m.
LORD SHER FIELD: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, upon introducing a Motion which a first sight might appear to raise a rather narrow aspect of the total effect of computers on our society, but which, in depth, is of far-reaching importance, as I think the course of this debate has already shown.
I cannot add much to the authoritative words of the three preceding speakers, but I have tried to obtain some indication of the scale of the problem. This has been given in a survey undertaken by Scientific Control Systems, Ltd. for the General Post Office within the last few months. From this survey, it appears that there are already available here computer memory stores with random access capable of storing 1½ billion characters, equal to approximately 5 million separate records, at equipment costs of between £150 and £500 for each 5,000 records. It is also estimated that the number of terminals installed in the United Kingdom capable of communicating with these stores was 3,000 in March, 1968. The number is expected to rise to 5,000 in
138
the current year, to 50,000 in 1973, and to 250,000 in 1978.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, said, we are approaching the time when records could be maintained on a computer relating to almost every aspect of the life of a private citizen from birth to death—a complete personal dossier; and not merely a print-out, but a display on a screen. My own limited experience is that those who are immediately concerned with the development and management of data-processing systems are the most acutely aware of the potential dangers to the liberty of the citizen. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has spoken in this sense this afternoon, on behalf of the British Computer Society.
One's first impression is that these dangers are being overstated and overstressed. After all, personal records of all kinds are already kept in many forms—police records, health and hospital records, and personal records in both the public and the private sector. Banks, credit-service companies and other financial and credit institutions abound. Access to these records can be obtained in appropriate circumstances, and though in most cases they are rightly used, they can be misused if they are in the control or within the knowledge of unscrupulous persons. Therefore, prima facie the greater availability of information of this character through data banks or, accepting Lord Ironside's formulation, mechanised information stores, does not change the situation except in degree. I3ut of course it takes considerable effort and persistence to get at most of the existing records. The present system is inherently inefficient, so much so that it has been said that this inefficiency in itself provides protection to the individual—what has been called the protection of the manilla envelope or file.
The question, therefore, is whether the change in the degree of efficiency of data-processing systems and the practicability of immediate access to comprehensive information about an individual, partnership or firm, is so dramatic as to be regarded not just as a change in degree but as the creation of a completely new situation. When I was searching for an analogy to help in answering this question it occurred to me that the development of bombs was much in point. For a long time, the increase in power of

139
conventional bombs was regarded as the normal improvement of an accepted weapon of war—unpleasant, of course, but not different in kind. And a certain protection was afforded by the inherent inefficiency of bombing, and the ability of those attacked to ensconce themselves in a bombproof shelter—the counterpart of the manilla envelope. Then came the nuclear bomb. Immediately the public refused to accept that even the first nuclear bomb was "just another weapon"; and this view was vastly strengthened by the advent of the thermonuclear weapon. Special measures have been accepted by international agreement to deal with this entirely new situation. I think I am satisfied that the advent of data banks on the scale which is anticipated involves a similar change in an existing situation.
The question is, whether the instant accessibility to comprehensive information about an individual or firm will lower the standards governing access to such information and impair its confidentiality. I believe that the threat is of two kinds: first, the use or misuse of information assembled by a number of Government agencies and departments and brought together in one dossier; secondly, the use or misuse of information gathered by private credit or information companies or falling into the hands of individuals. A specific case is that of medical records already being put on computer. If, for example, these reveal some disability such as a psychiatric disturbance in early life, this would have a devastating effect on the possibility of the individual's securing employment in later life.
As noble Lords have pointed out, the information can, in practice, be safeguarded by a system of coding which prevents access to any person who does not know the code. But however good the system, I doubt whether there would be much confidence in this form of protection. On the plus side, centralised computerisation of police records must improve the efficiency of police detection, and therefore benefit the community.
The available and relative cheapness of data storage in itself offers great temptation to acquire a vast mass of statistics and information—an almost unlimited opportunity to apply Parkinson's Law.
140
Much of this information is likely to be unnecessary or irrelevant, but it could still be misused or misinterpreted by those who, according to the old saying, use statistics like a drunken man uses a lamp post, for support rather than for illumination.
Quite apart from unauthorised or malicious use of information, there is always the possibility of error. I am informed that a mechanical breakdown in a computer is uncommon, and that if it occurs the results are normally so wild that little harm may be done. On the other hand, mistakes in programming and input can lead to errors much more difficult to detect. Take the development of the credit service industry in the United States. Already, I believe it may be impossible for an individual or firm to get any credit anywhere. Yet this disability may be based on inaccurate or misleading information; and at some point in the process the human being has to tell the computer whether Mr.X is or is not creditworthy.
So far as the Government are concerned, noble Lords interested in science fiction, if there are such, may have heard of a book called The Great Computer, reputed to have been written under a pseudonym by the well-known Swedish physicist, Alfven. It is a retrospective view of development up to the point at which computers finally take over the management of society. It recounts how, as computerisation proceeds over the years, industrial workers, universities and schools, the legal profession, the Health Service, and Parliament itself, progressively become superfluous as the computer assumes their functions. All that is left is the bureaucracy which is still needed to service and maintain the computers. And when the system breaks down, as in the book it does, the cause is an inter-departmental conflict.
Science fiction apart, all this points to the need for safeguards, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has done a service by tabling his Personal Records (Computers) Bill, which suggests the form which these safeguards might take. On the face of it, these appear to be reasonable, but I am not competent to assess the difficulties involved in legislation on this matter, and there may indeed be great difficulties, especially in definition. But I have no doubt that the Government

141
have been considering this problem, and this debate gives them an opportunity of telling the House how far they have got. The development of data banks is proceeding at such a pace that consideration is urgent since action cannot be long delayed. The effect of these developments may be both practical and psychological. In practical terms, the present law of confidence or confidentiality is not, I believe, defined sufficiently to be clear and precise. The rights of the individual whose records are placed on a computer arc not clear. Secondly, inaccurate, incomplete or irrelevant information may be stored and used, and the individual may not be aware of it.
From the psychological point of view, unless these fears can be set at rest and safeguards devised, the knowledge that personal information is to be recorded may not only be profoundly disturbing, but may lead an individual to act unnaturally "for the record". The acquisition of more information may lead organisations, including even the Government, to be guided by an accumulation of fact rather than by value judgment. Whether anything can be done to control the accumulation of superfluous information is another matter. Some wag has said that the final solution to the problem of exponentially increasing amounts of data is to record them only on computers and to instruct the machines to erase at random 75 per cent. of their memory banks every so often. Self control rather than regulation or legislation may be the only possibility here.
Having identified some of the risks inherent in the explosive advance of data processing systems, it is, I think, important not to become, or allow others to become, emotionally involved in this issue. A calm assessment of the risks, and of the possible legal safeguards is needed, and in due course maybe appropriate legislation or regulation must be introduced. But the risks should not be exaggerated, nor is it reasonable to expect that remedies should be absolutely foolproof.
There is a tendency in many fields to overstress the dangers to our society involved in the speed of technological innovation. I think the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, was rather spine-chilling this afternoon in this respect, and I was
142
glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, say that the introduction of his Motion was in no way concerned to limit the progressive development of computers. But, my Lords, resistance to-day builds up to almost any technological advance, whether it be a roll-on, roll-off dock, an automated coal mine, a supersonic aircraft, or a badly needed airport. The beginnings of an anti-technological revolution are everywhere to be discerned. Let us not forget, my Lords, in the context of this debate, that the electron is man's best friend since the horse. Like a horse, it must be tamed, and not allowed to get out of control. But it must also be improved and encouraged for the benefit of, and in the service of, our society.
4.35 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I too should like to join the other speakers in thanking the noble Lord. Lord Windlesham, for introducing this quite fascinating debate. It rather makes me fear to tread where so many with so much knowledge have spoken. I was particularly taken by the analogy of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, of the atom bomb; the story of the bomb escalating into the atom bomb and creating a completely new situation. The advent of the computer, the scale at which it is now and what it can do, is an equally fundamental change in human society. To that I would add a third, the discovery of the genetic code, and the possibility of its manipulation in the inheritance factor which the human race transmits to its succeeding generations.
Laws are established to safeguard the rights both of the individual and of the State. Sometimes we are perhaps inclined to forget that the State also has rights when we fear for the protection of the individual. It is because of the importance of both sides that I want to make a plea for action soon, and that it should not be delayed as long as the noble Lord, Lord Byers, suggests, waiting for a Royal Commission to investigate.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt, the one thing I did not ask for was a Royal Commission. I asked for a team to study it in depth, not a Select Committee or a Royal Commission.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I apologise for making that mistake. By and large, laws are based on the concept of property, things; and that goes for the intangible paper ones which are not really intangible at all, such as banking, because they are fundamentally based on actual property. That is why the analogy of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, is so absolutely correct; it is because they are not material things in the same way. The field of information utilities gives us a completely new set of problems. We owe a great deal to these information utilities, and it is absolutely clear that we cannot, as a nation, progress without them. An increasing number of technicians have to work them, and these technicians will welcome the safeguards round the use of these utilities. They are asking for them now.
I was as horrified as other noble Lords by the instances given by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, about things which can be fed into the computer with disastrous results when they are spewed out at the other end; how this can come about either deliberately or by human error, and how vital it is that this access in order to falsify be guarded against, and that those who look after the computers, who run them, should be men of the highest integrity. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said, if I understood him aright, that he hoped that secret information would not be recorded. My difficulty in following the noble Earl on that point is that of defining what would be secret information; and who would decide what was secret information.
I was most interested in Lord Ritchie-Calder's report of what is happening in America about the printing out of information to the person concerned— and this, of course, is included in the Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, introduced last July. But I think we must pause for a moment and think of the effect of printing out all the information to the person who is the subject of that information. I am afraid that I have some reservations about the right of an individual to have a print-out of all the information held by a data bank. It could be very salutary to him, but it might also be traumatic, especially in the case of medical records. With certain persons, I feel that it will almost certainly lead to acts for the record, which could defeat the
144
object of keeping the records. Moreover, once you have the record adjusted to your own satisfaction, you could then use it as a sort of testimonial when applying for a new job, or perhaps even when asking for a rise of salary, to ensure that justice is done to your own IQ.
My Lords, it is not possible to control by detailed legislation the complicated problems and the dangers raised by these new devices. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, too, have spoken of a code of ethics for those who work the computers. This, I think, is an essential step; but I wonder whether we should not go one step further than that, and recognise that those who are working the computers now are a discreet profession—using the word "discreet" in its different sense. They are a separate profession. They can be distinguished from all others. They can be distinguished, even, from the pure mathematicians, which most of them also are. I would suggest that it has now reached the stage where it should be recognised as a profession, and that as a profession it should be given power to control and guide the actions of its members, just in the same way as the medical, dental or veterinary professions have their own councils. I should like to suggest that the time has come when thought might be given to the establishment of a Royal College.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to mention it, an incorporated society exists already. It has its own ethical committee, and it has its own examinations system. There is no need to do anything else.
LORD BALERNO: With respect, my Lords, I think it has no powers of discipline.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: It has powers to expel.
LORD BALERNO: I should have thought that, becoming a definite profession, it would wish to have, and that it would be useful for the people who are working the computers for it to have, full powers of control similar to those in the other learned professions, not excluding the legal profession, because, as I see it, their responsibilities are every bit as great.

145
My Lords, I want to suggest that any legislation that may have to be passed—and it will have to be passed—should be as simple as possible, leaving the greater part of the running of the work to the functioning of the code of ethics and the supervision of the British Computer Society. There should be laid down, of course, things which could not be done, such as the use of computer records as evidence in courts of law and the exchange of data records between one Government Department and another; and there should also be, I would suggest (the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ironside) a civil remedy for the misuse of records. I should like to take the position one step forward, because several noble Lords have made the point that it is very important to have the right people working these machines. 1 should like just for a moment to draw your Lordships' attention to the problem of training people to work the computers.
The computer board of the Ministry of Technology has done a very good job indeed in making provision for this training at the universities. Those universities at which the work is being done are all of them, I am sure, humbly hoping for extension to the machines which they have been given, but there is one further point. Apart from the use of these computers, which are being used mainly for research purposes, there is the point of training students at the universities in how to use computers—training them, as it were, to become professional computer operators and also training them, as student scientists or sociologists, how to use the computers in their work. There are several universities I know of at which the pressure on the existing computer facilities is such that they cannot be spared for teaching the undergraduates, and this may affect the adequate supply of people for the computer profession, if one could call it that. I understand that in educating such undergraduates the actual teaching can in no small measure be best done by the computer itself. It appears to me that no animals proliferate quite so fast as do computers.
I think, my Lords, it is fair to ask whether the Government, who have laid such emphasis on technological advance, are likely to be doing anything about
146
this problem. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said that this was a position of technological drift, and I agree with him. Nothing can be worse for the clean and tidy minds of the technologists than to be in a status of drift. Their frustration, which arises from drifting, will lead almost certainly to bad habits being formed. I would suggest that the time has now come for appropriate legislation and for the proper ordering of the profession; otherwise, the problems will become increasingly difficult as vested interests get themselves dug in.
4.49 p.m.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, I should like to add my voice to those of others of your Lordships in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for initiating this extremely useful debate, and to apologise to him for not being in my place to hear him speak. But I had to keep a statutory engagement in the University of London. I also want to thank him, on behalf of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors, who are extremely concerned about this matter which he has raised. They know that some apprehensions exist among university staff and students over this problem, and I wondered whether to-night, just for a few moments, I might dwell on how the universities are trying to cope with this problem of confidentiality.
Some time ago the Department of Education and Science and the University Grants Committee raised with the universities the need for a central computerised record which would contain information about staff and students. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors realised that the time had come to modernise the statistics of education and they saw that a central record system would in fact be of advantage to them. If such a record were compiled the task of making the annual returns of new data and the up-dating of existing materials would be much easier. So also they recognised, though they had some apprehensions, that the task of obtaining data for some specific new inquiry would be easier—and I may say that the universities are being asked by outside agencies for new inquiries almost every month.
But, my Lords, having weighed up the advantages, the Vice-Chancellors' Committee saw that there were dangers.

147
They therefore insisted that three safeguards should be observed. The first was that all records about university staff should be anonymous, and that the key which linked the names to the reference numbers used by this central recording body should rest in the possession of the universities themselves and not in the possession of the Department of Education and Science. Secondly, the Vice-Chancellors insisted that this information should be controlled by a standing policy group, to be comprised of the Chairman of the Vice-Chancellors' Committee and three of his colleagues, two representatives of the U.G.C. and one representative of the Statistics Section in the Department of Education and Science. This body should control the use to which data assembled in the Department would be put.
Thirdly, and finally, the Vice-Chancellors insisted on a formula as a guarantee against the misuse of materials. Under this formula, the Education Departments in Curzon Street, Scotland, and Northern Ireland were to give an assurance that unless a particular university gave specific permission no individual information on staff or students would be made accessible to persons who were not employed in the Education Departments' statistical divisions. They also received an assurance that individual data on staff and students would be used solely to provide statistical tabulations and not to reveal information about individuals.
My Lords, what is the information in this central record office which the Vice-Chancellors are so "steamed up" about? The information, broadly speaking, is basic personal data derived from the forms which the students fill in for the central clearing house, the U.C.C.A., for admission to university; also their qualifications on entry to university and details of the courses they follow; their examination results, and the qualifications they have on leaving university and their first employment. As regards staff, here again basic personal data is given, but not the name of the individual; and the history of his academic or other appointments is set out, together with details of his present appointment. It has always been agreed that in no circumstances will any information be given about staff or students' religion, political affiliations or
148
disciplinary offences. As an additional safeguard, for what it is worth, there are the usual facilities for a print-out. The whole central record scheme is really only just beginning to come into operation. There have been pilot exercises, but data on all undergraduate students began to be assembled in October this year, and the post-graduate and university staff records will be started before the middle of 1970.
My Lords, I suspect that the present position, which I have tried to outline, will not last very long. The Education Departments apparently already feel that this agreement is not quite as helpful statistically as they would have hoped: and they may wish, so I am told, to reopen at some later date the question of access to individual data. If they do so, I must make it plain that the universities will expect to be consulted, as they hold very strong feelings indeed on this subject. And it is not only the universities who feel this way: the National Union of Students, which was never consulted about this matter, now believes strongly that it should be consulted and is undoubtedly uneasy. I understand that the President of the National Union of Students has written to the Secretary of State, as indeed he has to the Chairman of the Vice-Chancellors' Committee, expressing his worries about the present situation. Sir Derman Christopherson, our Chairman, confirmed that no information about individual students would be released from the central record operated by the U.C.C.A. unless the universities' policy committee gave authorisation. He also confirmed that even tabulated information from the central record is under the control of this central policy body.
Why should dons and students be so worried about this? I have been told that although the Department of Education and Science (I think it was then the Board of Education) had compiled data and statistics immediately after the First World War, and have been doing so since, in all that time there has never been any complaint about misuse of this confidential information. We in the universities have every belief that the high record of the Department will be upheld in the years to come. Nevertheless, I think there is this difference—and it is one to which the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, drew attention. The difference

149
is that it would have taken a Hercules to dig out certain specific individual information from the hand-made files of the past, whereas to-day Atlas is not a mountain but the name of a computer in a university. That is the ease with which things can be moved to-day. It is so easy, in other words, to provide information that the temptation—which is hardly recognised as a temptation— to bureaucrats to begin to use information in some new way may be found very difficult to resist.
That is why there must be safeguards. That is why it is important to ensure that a man or a group of men, and not a machine, must be held responsible for the information which is conveyed and treated. We have here a most admirable example of the way in which modern technology can help institutions and, in particular, a Department of State to found its policy on fact instead of fancy, on data instead of upon inspired guesses. Yet, at the same time, there is here the very reason why the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was so acute in choosing this topic for debate; there is here the risk that information can be misused. All the more reason, therefore, for the Legislature to curb the Executive in this particular matter.
4.58 p.m.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, this is developing into a very interesting debate and in a form which I think is unusual in your Lordships' House. It is in the form of a theme with variations. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, stated the theme very clearly; nobody has stated a different one. We have had some very fascinating variations of various kinds but the theme has been universally agreed. I will state it again. First, it is vital to realise that the advent of the computer has brought a change to modern society no less fundamental than the arrival of television. It cannot possibly be allowed to develop without some checks and balances. Secondly, there are certain facts which people making contracts with other people or having certain professional relations with other people are entitled to ask for and to which a computer bank can give far quicker, more accurate and more up-to-date answers than anything yet devised. Thirdly, information of this kind can be easily abused.
150
My Lords, that is the theme. I do not want to elaborate on it very much, except with a few reflections which only underline what has been said already in relation to the important feaure of credit rating. Credit rating is something which already happens and clearly—there has been some evidence of this from America—it is something which can be abused. The fact is that a trader is entitled to ask questions about the credit rating of a prospective purchaser. Indeed, tomorrow, during the Second Reading or the Administration of Justice Bill, I shall suggest that it might even be necessary to deprive a trader of his remedy if he does not make proper inquiries as to the credit rating of the person to whom he is selling.
A computer bank is the obvious answer to this problem. It can be abused, as has been said already; it may be used, for example, for blackmail, or the computer may make mistakes which could seriously damage the person concerned. So the safeguards which the noble Lord suggested become necessary. These, I think, are agreed by everybody to be registration of computers; the notification of anyone on the list of names that he is on it and what is said about him. This is the slogan—for which eventually we shall die in the streets—as coined by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury: the unqualified right to print-out. That, it seems to me, is the most important thing in the debate. The person concerned should also be told to whom the information is given and, possibly, why it was given.
My Lords, we do not want to be too sensitive about this. I am reminded of a discussion I once had with some men in prison about whether they would rather appear before a lay magistrate or a judge. They were all for the lay magistrate; they said, "You have a far better chance." I asked "But what if you are innocent, and wrongly accused?", and they said, "Oh, the judge every time." I think that we can be too sensitive about the recording of truth. It seems to me that, with the increase in crime, the innocent may have to sacrifice a little of their privacy in order to help the defenders of the law to detect the guilty.
Some things were said to-day which worried me. The noble Lord, Lord Salerno, conjured up a picture of people

151
walking along the street wearing very long faces, who, when asked, "What is the matter?" would say, "I have just had a most terrible print-out to-day." I believe, seriously, that this could be so. It is not an easy subject and it needs looking at. Of course, the quid pro quo has to be strong legislation to ensure that the information obtained is used scrupulously, and for the safeguards to be as strong as they can be.
Regarding the question of credit rating, the noble Earl, Lord Halshury, suggested—I think absolutely rightly—that if one used this method over references nobody would give them; I certainly would not. The whole point of a reference is to speak the truth in confidence. This already is not the case, at least it is half the case, in credit rating. What happens now is that one firm tells another firm, and a third firm collects the information. The only person who is never informed is the person about whom the information is given. I have the feeling that if the client, or whatever is the right description of the person being discussed, were to know what was happening, the information would not be forthcoming. Of course, if it were not forthcoming, the credit rating system would break down. This would have very serious effects in other ways, because we on the consumer side are trying to force hire-purchase people and others of that kind to make these inquiries before they lend; otherwise people who cannot afford things will buy them when they ought not to, which could be a disaster.
I do not want to make too much of this. I believe that there are very serious problems which will not be sorted out now; that we have to go straight in and legislate, and sort out the problems afterwards. The trouble is that things are already happening fairly fast. Computers are developing rapidly, and I feel that we cannot wait. I would not even have a Select Committee as the noble Lord, Lord Byers, suggested. I should like to see the Government accept that this is a matter on which immediate legislation is necessary. We shall never get it through without the Government providing time—
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I do not know why I should have been misunderstood. I said, "not a Select Committee".
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: The word "not" is very important, and I am sorry that I misunderstood the noble Lord. I got the impression, as did the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said something which suggested further examination before legislation.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I believe that this is such a complicated subject that we could get the wrong legislation, and I should like to see a special team make a study in depth, which need not take long. From what I saw in the United States I think that there are so many loose ends which need to be pulled together that I should hate to go in for the wrong legislation.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I am suggesting the other point of view, but we could argue this point indefinitely. The matter is urgent—whether one should inquire first and then legislate, or legislate first and then see what happens. I know what view the lawyers would take. I would take the view that one should sail straight in and do the obvious thing. My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Lord Windle-sham, for initiating this debate. I hope that it will impress upon the Government the necessity for action of one kind—either that of Lord Byers or mine.
5.6 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I should like to support the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for urgency in this matter. I dare to plunge into this ocean of utterance coming from the academics and experts of great eminence because I see this as a debate less on technique than on principle; and I am much encouraged by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, right at the beginning of the debate gave his evidence to the effect that we have to take political decisions. This debate provides an opportunity to restore something of the faded image of principled politics latterly rather in discredit almost as a piece of archæology.
As I see it, the computer, wearing to-day's epaulettes of power, merely adds a new dimension to dangers that have been long present in society; indeed, that are as old as Adam. I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, for

153
drawing my attention to what I think is a valuable quotation from a former distinguished Lord Chancellor, Lord Sankey, who argued that apart from the obscenities of Nazism and Fascism, the historical process of Government was aggregation of power at the centre—whether political, economic, social or industrial.
My Lords, the State is the social statement of the few in the name of the many, and nowadays much of its élan derives, surely, less from principle than from moral indignation, sometimes based on a rather hazy, "do-gooding" concept of principles. The tyranny that we confront to-day is not the tyranny of the old tyrant; it is the tyranny of the busybody society. The tyrant's motives we know as vanity, greed and the rest; and, more or less, we can come to terms with them as opportunity arises. But the busybody acts from righteousness, and with righteousness there is no compromise; there is only the submission of loss of soul. It is, in effect, the busybody society—not the efficient society—with its cloak of doing good and its pretence at bestowing compassion, with which we are dealing. Once again, I go back to Lord Sankey who, in a pregnant phrase, remarked that one of the most insidious and dangerous perversions of power was the dossier, whether in the Manila folder, which we nowadays remember with relish and affection, or whether it is the varactor diode burrowing away at its work inside the computer.
Nor is it any longer so certain, when we think of the State in its welfare aspect, that the law of confidence has not been subtly eroded. The full protection of the Hippocratic oath has surely shrunk, for contact with the complex medical organisation to-day must mean that confidence is extended beyond one's personal physician; indeed, it is card indexed, and we know it.
The right of privacy is something very nearly absolute, the right of the individual to choose states of intimacy, or of anonymity, of reserve or of solitude. The State is the social statement of the few in the name of the many. Neither the few, still less the many, care much for privacy. The right is dramatically ravished every time a newspaper proprietor allows an editor to send a reporter to interfere in the private grief of a citizen. Society cares even less for a
154
ravishment much more difficult, probably much less thought about but, I believe, infinitely precious—I refer now to those few who profess the contemplative life, who on our behalf span the whole magnificent spectrum of man's dialogue with his Creator, whose lives refute the heresy that activity is action.
These poets and artists of silence and enclosure are affronted by the encroachment of noise, largely from the sky, and their absolute enclosure is no longer possible. Here is a precious right of privacy for which the many care not at all, the few, I believe, very little. But when we are thinking of the right of privacy we come surely to the final heresy, summed up in words of appalling presumption in an article in Science Journal, which are no doubt out of context but worth while quoting, none the less:
"We do not know what properties of privacy have social value and need to he preserved."
In other words, there are properties of privacy which, by implication, may not have social value and, if so judged, may be scrapped—that is to say, minorities may be scrapped, if they are not seen to be socially valuable.
We are face to face surely with another error in current thinking. I refer to the major heresy of quantification, as a kind of natural descendant of the philosophy of materialism. The theory in its crudest form is that statistical evidence can add up to a value judgment. What about the motor car owner, the boot of whose car has thrice in a year been stove in by a car charging it from behind? The insurance company writes and tells him that he is an insurance risk, that he is "accident prone". It may be quite untrue. It is a value judgment arising from a statistic. Perhaps a more celebrated case is that of a former distinguished Prime Minister of this country, the statistical evidence of whose frequent consorting with prostitutes led to the conclusion, widely held, that he did this for pleasure. It took a libel action years later to prove that he did it purely in the interests of evangelism, and the proof was conclusive. Here was a value judgment made on statistical evidence of a kind. And, as the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, has reminded us, there is a Parkinson's Law about all this. We are entrapped in a kind of spiral, for as the

155
capacity for information handling grows, so does the tendency to engage in cleverer manipulation and analysis of reported data, which in the end demands assembly of data on an ever larger number of variables.
Computer-based personal data banks exist, or will exist, in the Health Service. There is a danger signal to be read from the United States. Mr.Paul Baran, of the Rand Corporation, warns us that thirty years ago Congress was promised that social security numbers would never be used for another purpose. Yet to-day it is a rare personal record form which does not require the person filling it in to give his social security number. What I am afraid of—and it seems to me that there is widening anxiety on this score—is that a social security number in Britain may in due time become the key figure, slotting into and locking other data banks, education first, then tax, with credit rating and even personnel selection following on.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in what I thought was a most effective and telling phrase—and may I say now how grateful I, too, am to him for introducing this debate—referred to a state of technological drift. I see it reported in one of the planning unit reports of the British Medical Association, and it may have been reported elsewhere, that an interdepartmental committee in Whitehall is now studying the question of a national identification number. I have sought to give in advance notice to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of some of the questions I wanted to raise. I addressed them from Edinburgh by post to the Government Chief Whip and I only hope that they arrived, having been posted in Edinburgh at the weekend; but if the noble and learned Lord has not received warning of the questions I wish to raise, perhaps he will be able at some later date to give the information.
I should like to ask whether it is the case that an interdepartmental committee in Whitehall is now studying the possibility of introducing a national identification number. If that is so, is it further the object to devise a personal index for an all-personal national system? I should also like to ask which Government Departments and, if it is known, as presumably
156
it must be somewhere, which local authorities, actually have personal data banks now. Do Government Departments swap personal data between themselves? How far has the Central Statistical Office developed its coordination of the Government's personal data resources? Does the Board of Trade computerise information which comes to it in the course of company applications under the Local Employment and other Acts, and hold this available for reference later in other connections? Will the police computer, which I have read of as being likely to be on stream in 1972, be limited to persons with criminal records or will it extend to those under suspicion? And if the latter, how can the ordinary citizen, who might have given petty annoyance to the police by reporting a minor police offence, be sure that he will be safe? There is one final question which I think should be asked. Does the Inland Revenue invite information from the joint stock banks? Once it is computerised, it is much easier for that information to be made available.
Technical remedies and protection are readily pictured. There has been reference to the registration of data banks. Technically, it seems to be possible that data can be segregated by subject and purpose, and in the case of medical data graduated and graded by confidentiality between the different sorts of information—let us say, the history of bones, on the one hand, and, say, a history of psychiatric disorder on the other. One gathers that "scrambling" is possible to enable us to secure that the operators of computer systems cannot obtain a print-out at will. No doubt it is possible to arrange random checks, and alarm signals of an attempted burglary; and we have had from the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, the declaration of the citizen's inalienable right to a print-out. I must say that I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, that there are difficulties in applying that principle, but I am sure that the principle is sound.
But to quote Lord Sankey once again, we are up against more than a technical situation. The historical process of government, he said, was aggregation of power at the centre. Now the means of aggregating that power are multiplied mightily. And we are warned by the

157
noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, that even among the most complete technical safe. guards—keys, locks, checks—that have been devised, none of them is completely proof against rupture.
We need something that convincingly grapples with the situation, and this is where we come to an act of political decision. I was much interested in Lord Annan's description of university performance. It points to part of a solution. We need, or shall need, some kind of watchdog body as far removed from the Government as our ingenuity can make it: some body whose members are perhaps nominated in turn, or at intervals, by such independent and unrelated bodies as the Computer Society, the B.M.A., the University Grants' Commission, the T.U.C., the C.B.I., and the British Council of Churches—what you will; and no doubt chaired (and I take again the point made by Lord Byers) by a High Court Judge.
With reports of a social security computer coming along at Reading; with the Central Statistical Office apparently working hard, and burrowing away; with a police computer seemingly only two years away; with, we are told (and I hope we may be corrected), studies going on now about the possibility of creating a national index for every citizen—with all that the urgency is drastic. Both the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, stressed this. There is no time to lose. Word will get around what is afoot. Not many of the public read Hansard, but what is said here eventually seeps down the line and the public do in the end get to know it.
If the computer's help to our wellbeing is not to be stultified by the emergence of a wild race of latter-day Luddites, plausible safeguards must be seen by everybody to exist. As citizens we are not quite yet a race of battery hens, although the tower block brings our civilisation pretty close to the broilerhouse—that vertical cul-de-sac, with meaningless layers of equal accommodation, each unit unrelated to the other (save in the housing department's computer), isolating each of them from mother earth, a disinfected, organised nowhere, packed with good statistical fodder.
My Lords, tame the monster now, or the agonies of choice between efficiency for power and the claims of human contentment
158
will make the present race of protesters look like a well-mannered corps de ballet> for decency, manners and gentility. Tame the monster now, or see Animal Farm sire a new race of happy computer hippies by varactor diode out of social frustration. These hippies will exult in the merry ease with which data-processing can at critical points be thrown amok—demagnetising cheque index numbers with a pocket magnet, or punching holes in to-morrow's gas, light and phone bills to put the consumer thousands of pounds in credit, and spin the Post Office Giro into orbit for ever. We tame the monster now, my Lords, or else!
5.25 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, first let me add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for initiating this debate. Computers, as all your Lordships know, have many applications in the field of medicine—for instance, in the organisation and the administration of the Health Services and in the actual practice of medicine and surgery in the processing of the data derived from laboratory tests and from monitoring devices. In research, of course, computers are very much used at the present time and can find co-relations between statistical data which no other process could possibly find in any reasonable amount of time. Thus, new concepts may arise in the field of causation of disease, and this may lead to prevention. Research does not, to my mind, present any particular ethical difficulty from the point of view of the computer. As the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and others have said, statistical information concerning, for instance, illness can quite easily be used without the disclosure of the names of individuals. I think computers will go on being used in medical research and should be encouraged, and, as I say, they present no great problem.
When we come to the question of storage and the use (for it is no use storing unless it is used) of personal records we run into much bigger difficulties. At first sight, it looks good. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Byers, who gave the example of the man from London who has a street accident in Newcastle and whose blood group can be ascertained in a matter of minutes from a central record. It could, of course, be obtained in a matter of perhaps five more minutes by the usual means used in

159
hospital. This would mean pricking his finger, but I expect that he would have to put up with more than that before he was finished.
There are many difficulties which arise. First of all, how many data do you keep, and what do you get back if you ask for them? If you ask for a blood group, do you also get the dental fillings and the incipient tuberculosis in adolescence to which the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, referred? Do you get so many data that it is going to take you more hours to get through them than it would have done to find out a few things for yourself? Then there are great opportunities for mistake—and this has been mentioned in the course of the debate—especially in the input of data into the computer records. Having long experience of the inaccuracy of medical data, will they get a new sort of spurious reputation for accuracy if you get them by wire from a computer?
These are not the biggest difficulties. How much medical information really is confidential? Can it be categorised, as the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, suggested it might have to be? I do not think it can. I think medical data which are not particularly confidential in one context might be so in another. For instance, the blood group might be a quite confidential datum in a case of disputed paternity. We all know that we should not like our own psychiatric record—and I speak for myself as much as anyone—and things like venereal disease, abortions and so on, disclosed. Some of the others are very much more on the borderline.
I had a letter once from a doctor who was a medical officer of health. He asked me whether I would kindly tell him about a man I had been treating for high blood pressure. This doctor was not asking me for my opinion because he had to treat this man, he was asking because this man had applied for employment with the town hall, where the medical officer of health worked. The man was going to have some somewhat heavy work to do. I wrote back and said that I could not give the data he wanted because he was asking for the data in the role of the employer, and not in the role of a doctor.
160
Most data, it must be admitted, are not highly confidential. The present very inefficient and clumsy system of filing is really very protective, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield. who mentioned this point, will agree. The hospital records at present are kept usually in a central store, but they are not allowed out without the permission of the doctor who was in charge of the case. We are bound to lose that if we go to a central record, because during a lifetime a man is under the care of a number of different doctors at a number of different places. That is an attraction of central records in a certain way, but it is also a danger.
My real difficulty, and something that worries me most, is the incompatibility in the medical field, as I see it, of certain aims which the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, put before us so splendidly and clearly. This concerns "No access without authorisation." Does this not very considerably cancel out the advantage of the almost immediate reference to the records? Who is the person who is going to authorise that a certain patient's records can be used? Is it the patient himself? If so—and this brings me to my other point—does the patient know what is in those records? If it is the patient himself who can authorise that his records may be called for, the patient himself may be unconscious at the time that you want the records. This seems to be a little incompatible with the rapid use of central records.
The other matter is perhaps the most important of all, and that is the right of the individual to have a print-out. This would really be an absolutely new departure in medicine. I know that we are often accused of keeping things secret, not telling the patient everything, and we are very rightly accused. It is a mistake which many doctors—particularly in hospital perhaps—make; they do not tell their patients enough. We have some regard for what effect the information is going to have on the patients, and like to tell them ourselves, and not for them to get within a few minutes, whenever they want it apparently, a print-out of their medical data. I think this is quite incompatible with the present idea of the use of medical records. I think this could disturb the confidence with which doctor

161
and patient give information to each other. For all these reasons, it will not worry me very much if the introduction of these methods into the personal records of medicine is long delayed.
5.36 p.m.
LORD CARRON: My Lords, may I join in the thanks accorded to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for initiating this debate, particularly within the terms in which it is stated. May I also apologise for not having been in my place earlier, owing to a previous engagement, and for my intervening at this stage.
I think there is an aspect related to this debate which should be put in your Lordships' House. It seems to me that a lot of apprehension has been expressed in the debate by many of those who have not been subjected to the kind of fears that could emerge from the compilation of a central register brought into being by computerization—to use that awful word. Let me say right away that I am an admirer of the computer technique and I subscribe to all the advantages which computers can confer in their proper field. But when we get into the field of records, and the freedom of the, individual, then we are on far more dangerous ground. I speak from a world where the compilation of records—particularly to the disadvantage of people—has been in existence for many, many decades. As I am sure your Lordships know, my history is in the trade union movement, and so I would say, without fear of contradiction, that in very broad areas in industry in the United Kingdom there had been compiled, long before I was born, what were called "black records" of people in industry, and particularly of trade unionists.
It might well be that in certain cases some of the recordings had been justified, but in many others the "black list ", as one would call it, had been completely unjustified. In many cases a certain individual, who was not at all subversively minded but might have been trade-union minded, had been black listed and perhaps denied employment for a lifetime. That was because of the compilation of records which had been compiled completely ex parte, where the individual concerned had no knowledge, nor had his organisation any knowledge, of the records and black listing to which he was subjected.
162
If we are going to compile records for a computer, we need to remember, as has already been said during this debate, that a computer is a machine, and a machine cannot think. A computer can operate only on the information which is fed into it. In the industrial field, just as in the academic field or the medical field, if we are going to have one party, and an interested party, solely compiling the input to the computer, then 1 would say that terrific injustice can be done to a considerable number of people. I think it is well enough known that I have not been regarded as very much of a subversive, nor, during my period of office in the trade union movement, very much as a strike-happy individual. However, it could be recorded—if a record was compiled—that I was the leader of the only major stoppage in the engineering and shipbuilding industries since 1922. That could be compiled factually. So I could have a terrifically black record stored in the records which would arise from computerisation, which I think would be rather out of character so far as I am concerned. And what could occur to me could occur to a vast number of individuals.
So, my Lords, I would subscribe completely to the view that has been expressed, that if modern techniques impel us into this field of compiling extensive records, the compilation of those records should be watched over by sonic kind of watchdog. I should not want to create a kind of Civil Service bureaucracy in this field; but I certainly think that if records of individuals are to become filed, whether in;the academic field, whether in the medical field or in the field which I know so well and which I think is particularly susceptible to wrong treatment--if the records of people in industry are to be compiled-it should not be from one source only; but considerable attention must be paid, and a considerable watchdog effort made, by a second, or even a third, party to ensure that massive injustice is not done to individuals.
5.41 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, the Motion which was placed before the House by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, calls attention to a matter which is giving ever increasing cause for concern to thoughtful

163
persons in many parts of the Free World. Though the problem he has raised—and we are all, I know, extremely grateful to him for raising it—is the direct consequence of very recent developments in technology, it is essentially by no means new. It is in fact the well-known problem of how to deal with the undesirable by-products of scientific discoveries which were designed to bring immense benefits to mankind, and indeed have done so, but which eventually have been found to have side-effects, not always foreseen, that are far less acceptable. Many examples will occur to your Lordships. I mention only one. Derivatives of the opium poppy were refined, and ultimately synthetic analogues were produced, which gave us a pharmacopoeia rich in analgesics which have gone far towards overcoming the dreadful problem of pain and have made possible a great advance in life-saving surgery. But these same discoveries have bestowed on us another gift—that of drug addiction.
The development of computers, which is steadily expanding, represents one of the greatest advances in modern technology. They are already beginning to revolutionise science, industry and commerce, as the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said. They are bound to play a tremendous and, indeed, essential rôle in the modernisation of Government and of State undertakings. We could not hope to hold our own in this modern competitive world without them. But they threaten to bring in their turn the potential undesirable consequences which the noble Lord has invited your Lordships to consider.
Most of your Lordships know a great deal more about computers than I do, but perhaps I may be forgiven in pointing out, to start with, that the computer is only a calculating and recording machine; and as such, although its invention is of immense importance, it is merely the latest aid to recording information and manipulating figures. Indeed, when a calculating machine which can reasonably claim to be regarded as the first computer was laboriously assembled by Charles Babbage in 1833, the apparently awesome invention was briskly and accurately put into its place by the comment,
164
"the engine has no pretentions whatever to originate anything. It can do whatever we know how to order it to perform".
It will come as no surprise to the noble Ladies in the House that this discerning comment was the product of feminine common sense, its author being, I believe. Lady Lovelace, daughter of Lord Byron. I regret to have to add that the engine was intended to be part of a larger machine, the project for which, though subsidised by the Government, was eventually abandoned. But perhaps its fate lends a little weight to my argument that the computer represents merely a new stage in a long-established and developing process.
I have recorded Lady Lovelace's comment, which is still valid, because I think that it is important to dispel the rather awesome mystical aura with which, on occasion, sensational journalism and advertising have sought to surround the computer; for example, by asserting that it can play chess or determine the authorship of Books of Scripture or Greek classics. Let me emphasise that the computer is incapable of independent reasoning; most of its errors, of which I shall have more to say later, merely reflect the errors of the human beings who programme and service it.
I think I remember my noble friend Lord Walston saying on a previous occasion that if you fed into a computer the criteria for determining the best management of a farm, your own acreage, the kind of crop your land grew best and the current prices for crops and livestock, the computer, after making a sufficient number of alternative findings, could find out which was the best way to run your farm. And it is, I think, well known that the Ministry of Defence have computers on which they play war games. Indeed, I understand that one General, having fed into a computer the rival troops, the kind of troops they were, their arms and dispositions, then asked it: "Do we advance or retreat?" With all the possible permutations and combinations, it naturally took the computer a little time to work out the problem, and it produced the answer, "Yes". So the General said: "Yes what?" And the computer said, "Yes sir".
My Lords, in spite of the astrological columns of the newspapers, I hope that we shall always retain some degree of cynicism about the latest form of the

165
Delphic Oracle. This was in fact borne in on me quite early in life, because in the dining room of my house at Harrow we had a very high, white ceiling. It being natural for boys to make experiments in physical dexterity, it was found, with a little practice, that if you got a sufficiently pliable table knife and a pat of butter you could flick it up to the ceiling. This game was very popular indeed, and the ceiling became covered with round pats of fat—which was popular with everybody except the housemaster. I remember that he read us a lecture at the end of term and warned us that no such thing must ever happen again.
When we came back at the beginning of the next term, there was a nice new clean, white ceiling. Until half-term all went well. Then, one awful day, there in the middle of the ceiling was a pat of butter. The housemaster, it was known, was making inquiries, and it was said that there were boys who were being detained for questioning. At that time I was in a small group making our experiments into the occult with an Ouija board, so we asked the Ouija board the 64,000-dollar question: "Who put the butter on the ceiling?" And it had an answer—"G.O.D." We said, "What for?" And it said: "S.W.A.N.K." My Lords, I digress. That was an early experience in learning not to trust too much to the occult.
What are the great advantages of a computer to which I have already referred? First, it provides a much more convenient method of recording and manipulating masses of information and making involved calculations infinitely more quickly than the laborious compilation of written or typewritten records and the retrieval of calculations made from them by human beings. Thus, the computer can become a core of a highly complex administrative system. Secondly, although some computer techniques are in an early stage of development and improvements are being steadily devised, there is already evidence that the computer, when properly programmed, is much less prone to error than human beings. In view of the publicity given to occasional gross errors found in computer print-outs—the enormous gas bill, the manifestly absurd pay record, and so on—this may seem a rather surprising claim. But it must be
166
remembered that in most cases when a computer appears to err it is merely carrying out a defective instruction in its programme. In other words, the error is human, not a failure of the machine. And human error is already widespread in personal records compiled by traditional methods.
It is already arguable that the occasional error, large though it may be, in a computerised system, represents a distinctly smaller hazard, especially when measured in terms of injustice to individuals, than the multiplicity of smaller errors commonly found in the clerical system of bookeeping. Indeed, tests carried out in connection with certain massive Post Office operations concerned with salaries and wages, in the course of which the performance of the new computer was matched against that of the existing clerical system, each processing the same data and aiming at the same end product, showed that on average only one error occurred in the computer system for every ten in the manual system. Furthermore, the built-in balancing controls of the computer ensured that almost all errors were immediately brought to notice, whereas a large number of errors in the manual pay-roll system tended to pass unnoticed. This very favourable ratio of accuracy will tend to increase as more experience of computer operations suggests improvements and refinements. This reduction in error cannot but benefit the ordinary citizen as an individual, and on the broader plane of industry and commerce the resultant increase in efficiency is clearly of the greatest importance to our national prosperity.
Lastly, in some ways a computer offers a higher degree of confidentiality than a system of manually maintained records. It is true that someone with the necessary expertise and unobserved access to a computer may quickly extract a great deal of personal information if, which is by no means always the case, that particular computer has a wide range of data on individuals. But this does not mean that an individual can nip briskly into a computer hall and get what he wants by flipping a lever or pressing a button. There is much more to it than that.
The illicit searcher after knowledge would need to be thoroughly familiar with the system and the particular code

167
used on the computer in which he was interested. Some of these codes have already been discussed this afternoon by noble Lords who are experts in this field. The illicit searcher would need to evade unobserved the security arrangements which normally restrict access to a computer containing personal records. And if he possessed this knowledge and succeeded in gaining access he would still be liable to encounter other security devices.
But the manual recording system is apt to be even more vulnerable. It is easier to protect, and to limit access to, a computer than to guard thousands—perhaps hundreds of thousands—of personal files. A computer does not go and leave a file in a restaurant. A computer does not gossip. A computer does not betray. Information has to be extracted from it. It is proof against opportunist malevolent curiosity, and it is secure against what might be called the low-grade snooper.
Yet perhaps the greatest cause for distrust of the computer is the fear that confidential information stored in it may be improperly disclosed or, worse still, may contain erroneous information, damaging to an individual, of which he has no knowledge; or that information supplied in confidence for a limited purpose may be passed on, with the result that a cumulative dossier may he formed, containing a full account of the most intimate personal particulars. My Lords, these fears are very understandable but they are not, or should not be, confined to information stored in computers. These risks are inherent in any system of personal records. But the fears are there and the superior efficiency of the computer inevitably intensifies them.
What protection has the individual citizen against abuse or error? He is not entirely naked and unprotected under the existing law and practice. Government Departments, local authorities and national corporations attach great importance to maintaining the confidentiality of personal records. So do concerns such as banks, industrial and commercial firms and insurance companies. Officials in personnel departments run the risk of severe disciplinary action if they are guilty of a breach of confidence. So far as Government records are concerned, the Official Secrets Acts afford some
168
degree of protection, and where there is confidential information in a particular part of the public sector the law not infrequently makes the misuse or improper disclosure of information a criminal offence. Recent examples that come to mind are the Abortion Regulations 1968 and the Post Office Act 1969. And, of course, officials are responsible to Ministers, and Ministers to Parliament.
The safeguards against misuse of personal records in the private sector are noticeably weaker. There is, of course, the costs sanction. I understand that neither of the two companies owning the largest credit registers in the country contemplates putting the registers on to computers. I thought of this when the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge, said that he attached—as I know he does; and I share his anxiety—great importance to the whole question of credit-rating agencies, and he said that obvious remedies must be taken. As the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has said, we must register the computers and then we must write down very clearly what are the circumstances on which the person on whom the information has been recorded is entitled to see what is on the register about himself. That is why I have taken a particular interest in this point.
The largest credit-rating agency have 14 million names on their register. They were asked, "What is your computer system?" They said, "Computer?—we have not got a computer." "Well, are you not going to put this all on computer?" "No." "Why not?" "Well, we have made inquiries and we are told that to put these 14 million names on computer would cost over £2 million."
My main feeling, if I may respectfully say so, as a result of this debate is that I have the greatest sympathy in regard to the dangers which many noble Lords foresee in the whole field of privacy but that there is too great a tendency to say, "This is all due to computers". There are, of course, the remedies of the law of defamation, which afford some protection if erroneous and damaging information is published. But the path of the aggrieved litigant is by no means free from pitfalls: he may have difficulty in preying publication; he may be defeated by a successful claim to qualified privilege, for example

169
where erroneous and damaging information has been given, but in good faith, and he cannot prove malice—which indeed may not have existed at all. Worst of all, the injured party can hardly bring a suit in respect of information which damnifies him if he does not even suspect that it exists or, if he does so suspect, does not know where it is held.
My Lords, I must say that to state the problem is easier than to solve it, but I am in favour of the problem being carefully scrutinised, and I venture to suggest that our consideration of it will be more effective if we confine our discussion to essentials. In the Personal Records (Computers) Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, introduced this summer, he sought to impose obligations on persons maintaining data banks which do not contain personal information relating to identifiable persons. I would suggest to him, in all friendliness, that by so doing he has unnecessarily complicated the issue. It must be accepted that the use of computers storing impersonal information (including impersonal statistical information derived from personal records) is beginning to spread widely and in a matter of years will become commonplace. The mere registration of such data banks would be a gigantic task, and what useful purpose would it serve in the context of the present debate, which is expressly concerned with personal records and individual privacy? I submit that it would not be reasonable to concern ourselves with computers that are merely hyper-efficient registers of stores, costs or other statistics.
Secondly, I suggest that the question of confidentiality, or at least the question of what sort of record should be confidential, is also not relevant to our main theme. There is clearly room for argument on such matters, but this has nothing to do with computers as such. A confidential record is a confidential record, whether it is in shorthand on the back of an envelope, in a traditional confidential file or in a computer. All raise the same questions of confidentiality and accessibility.
Before going further, may I reply to specific questions which I was asked. The noble Lord, Lord Ironside, raised the question whether whoever gives information about themselves should not always be entitled to a copy of the information
170
he had himself supplied. This is, to my mind, a very reasonable suggestion.I had exactly the same experience as I gather the noble Lord had with a life insurance company. The doctor asked me questions. He typed whatever I said on a form which I was then given to sign. I did not like to spend too long reading through it because I thought it might look as though I did not trust him. But the next day it occurred to me that I was doubtful about something I had said, and so I asked the insurance company if I could have a copy of the form, and they said, "No, you cannot".
The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, raised the question of computers in universities, and asked how far, if they were used for teaching, it would interfere with their use for research. This was, I thought, a rather indirect hint that the Government ought to supply more money for computers. As the noble Lord knows, there is a limit to Government expenditure, and it is for the universities to decide how they use what they have.
The noble Lord also suggested that computer records other than police records should be inadmissible in evidence in court. I think we could hardly do that. I would venture to remind him that only last Session we passed a Civil Evidence Act, one of the express objects of which was to make computerised evidence admissible. This, I am afraid, is essential, because so many people now keep their records, whether pay records or stores records, only on computers and in no other way at all. The noble Lord will remember that we had a little trouble with the Act, because it is a very technical subject, and we laid down in the Act the safeguards that the party who did not have the computer was to be able to use to satisfy himself about what was fed into the computer and whether it was working properly. Subject to that, I think it is essential that such evidence should be admissible.
Then the question of Government records was raised, and particularly with regard to the Ministry of Education. I am happy to confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has told us, and as there is apparently some degree of apprehension among university students may I just emphasise it by saying this. In co-operation with the educational institutions and authorities concerned,

171
rigorous control is exercised over the selection of each item included in the record, the processes by which the data are transmitted and the way they are used. Information about an individual's politics, religion or character do not form any part of the records system. The central records of individuals' educational careers are being built up only for the purpose of preparing statistical tabulations in which no individual is separately identified. The object is to improve the statistical information about the working of the educational system and to provide better data for planning its future development. In particular one aim is to measure the flows of students and teachers from one part of the educational system to another, as a result of which it should be possible to provide young people with better information about the alternative educational opportunities open to them.
Information about individuals has also to be kept for administrative purposes, both by institutions and by central and local government departments, in the interests of the individual concerned; for instance, the payment of pensions to teachers and grants to students. Some of this information may at little extra cost be used for statistical purposes as input to the central record. Confidentiality rules are strictly applied to all records of individuals held by the Department. In the case of the records of students in further education establishments, an explicit formula provides that no information about an individual shall be divulged outside except with the express permission of that individual; and within the Department access to such information is confined to the statistical and computer divisions. In the university sector, control over the way in which the data held by the Universities Central Council on Admissions are used is exercised by a group representing the Committee o2 Vice-Chancellors and Principals and other educational interests.
The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, raised some further questions: first of all, as to the possibility of personal index numbers for every citizen for computer reference, and whether it was true that there was a Departmental committee working on this. In view of the way in which that sort of report spreads, may
172
I say very clearly and categorically that there is no such Departmental committee and no work is being done on the project at all. Then the noble Earl asked which Government Departments had personal data banks. Of course, a large number necessarily do: in the public sector, medical records, academic records, social security records, Civil Service records, police records, Ministry of Defence records, local authority records, and land charges records. The Land Charges Registry is planned to go on to computer within the next year or so.
Then the noble Earl asked whether Government Departments handed such information to one another, and in particular whether the Inland Revenue asked banks to provide information. The answer to that is: only where there is statutory provision for it; for example, with regard to interest payments. Then he asked about the police computer. All I can say about the police computer is that it is not expected to be in operation until 1972, and it will contain exactly the same information as in other forms is already in existence and has been for a long time in New Scotland Yard.
Our own generation in particular—and I say this in view of what my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder said—is understandably daunted by the fear of "Big Brother". This fear must be put into proper perspective. A computer is not a Big Brother, and Big Brothers existed and were ruthlessly successful long before the advent of the modern computer. But there is no doubt that a sophisticated system would be very useful to Big Brother. Conversely, such a system, properly operated, can be of very great benefit to the community. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, mentioned the field of chronic disease. There again, it is becoming more and more essential for the success of treatment that an accurate and full medical history of the patient should be readily available in the strictest confidence to the doctor or doctors in charge of the patient's case. We may very well have to consider to what other persons, if any, it should be available.
The question whether computers operated by Government Departments should be subject to some form of independent control also raises considerable difficulty. On this, I would only say at the moment that I doubt whether any Government

173
would be prepared to accept that a power of control as proposed in the noble Lord's Bill should be vested in an official, however eminent. This type of control would seem to me to derogate seriously from Ministerial responsibility, which is still an essential feature of our Parliamentary system. Unless we can rely on the integrity of officials and Ministers alike, subject always to accountability to Parliament, no system can be guaranteed against serious abuse.
Concern about the protection of the citizen's right to privacy is now widespread in the Free World—and let us be deeply grateful that we live in a part of the world where such concern can be conceived and freely expressed. This apprehension is not confined to a handful of radical thinkers, nor to a handful of progressive Governments. The International Commission of Jurists has already held a conference on the Right to Privacy. The Council of Europe has for some time been exploring the subject. UNESCO has also begun to interest itself, and so has the United Nations itself. The specific problem of computer privacy is prominently on the agenda of both the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Inter-governmental Council on Automatic Data Processing. Are many hands going to make light work, or is the broth going to be spoilt by too many cooks? I wish I knew. But the subject is so important that it is not easy to argue that these bodies do not have a legitimate interest, still less that they should abstain from investigating and discussing a matter of such vital importance. And the dialogue is by no means confined to jurists or Governments or international associations. In our own country, as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury has told us, the British Computer Society has built up a Computer Privacy Specialist Group.
This intense activity on such a wide front is surely proof, if any were needed, that the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is justified. But I fear that it is also an indication that there is no obvious, instantly available solution to the problems raised. Indeed, there is far from general agreement as to the nature of the citizen's right to privacy. I do not believe that, in this country at least, the average citizen wishes to contract
174
out of his legitimate obligations to society. In my judgment, he is willing, however grudgingly, to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, although he is also, fortunately, very conscious that unless Caesar is constantly and alertly watched he may become over-ambitious, greedy for power, and indeed even ruthless. But in our modern, closely knit society we cannot escape involvement. We are, nevertheless, entitled to insist that the dignity of a citizen in a free society be recognised and that his basic freedoms be respected.
In short, my Lords, I return to my original basic theme. We need the computers we already have; we are going to need very many more. We can confidently expect not merely that their numbers will continue to expand with startling rapidity—the present rate of increase already represents an unprecedented technological achievement and the potential rate of expansion is enormous—but also that they will continue steadily to become more technically effective. It is our duty to ensure that we procure for our people the immense benefits that will be derived from the legitimate use of computers. We have no room for Luddites. But equally, in common with the rest of the free world, we must seek to guard against their abuse. And while I cannot pretend that an immediate, comprehensive solution is likely to arise from this debate, I am sure that we are right to discuss the problems and difficulties. The more we can learn, the better our chance of arriving at an acceptable solution or of making a worthy contribution to the international search for one.
So may I sum up? First, the Government are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for introducing this Motion for debate this afternoon. The subject is both an important one and an interesting one. Secondly, I do think that some noble Lords who have spoken have very much exaggerated the danger from computers in the sphere of invasions of privacy. There are, I believe, between 5,000 and 6,000 computers in the country. Outside the Ministry of Defence. who use many of them as part of their weapon equipments, the Government own some 200, the Universities about 40. Most of these computers are

175
largely engaged in some phases of research work or are part of an automated factory system, or are concerned merely with records of wages and pay and stock. There would be no real point in registering these and saying that no-one must go near them, or operate them, until they have passed an examination in some special ethical code; and the few that do contain personal records are not inherently more liable to abuse than similar records in manual files. On the contrary, so careful are we, so far as the Government are concerned, not to reveal anything that the citizen tells us, that your Lordships may have noticed recently that the Prices and Incomes Board had to send out the most complicated questionnaire to solicitors in order to find out what their earnings were, because the Inland Revenue, quite rightly, would not tell them, although of course they had the information all the time.
Fourthly, behind this debate there is a wider question: that of the right of privacy. As your Lordships know, it is one in which I have for long been interested: the extent to which a man or woman not in private life is entitled to say, "This is my private life which is of no legitimate concern to the general public"; the extent to which there should be protection for business organisations against industrial espionage; the extent to which there should be protection against the invasion of our homes by the telescopic lens, or the bug under the bed, or the private detective, or even the too pressing methods of the doorstep salesman. All I can say about that, which is a by far wider and more important subject is this: my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I fully recognise the importance of these issues and are very conscious of the widespread feeling about activities of this kind and the growing desire to find means of protecting the citizen from unreasonable infringements of his privacy. It may be that there is a need for an inquiry into this whole field, which, as I have indicated, goes so much wider than the topic covered by the noble Lord's Motion this afternoon. The Government are giving close consideration to this whole matter, and I hope that they will be in a position to make a further statement shortly.
6.16 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, in withdrawing this Motion I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in what has been a most interesting debate. There are three lines of approach to the subject under discussion. First, it is possible to oppose the creation of data centres and computerised intelligence systems completely. I do not think anyone sought to do that. The second view is that traditional administrative and legal safeguards, plus self-restraint on the part of those operating the systems, are adequate, and I regard the Lord Chancellor's speech as coming within this category.
The third position assumes that neither a total ban nor traditional restraints represent desirable alternatives. I believe that the common theme of the debate, as Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge called it, was that most noble Lords want to see both better information and analysis of information, while at the same time ensuring that the privacy of individuals is adequately protected. There were some variations as to whether or not immediate legislation was required. Several noble Lords thought it was, among them Lord Donaldson, Lord Lauderdale and Lord Balerno. Some noble Lords argued that further inquiry was needed. Lord Byers was in favour of that, and, from what he has just said, the Lord Chancellor seems to be too.
I must confess that I was sorry the Lord Chancellor did not commit himself to a more positive statement on behalf of the Government. He spoke of the activity, international as well as national, that is taking place; but there is a real danger that Her Majesty's Government are going to fall behind informed opinion. That is so even on the crucial issue raised by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and others, which must have received some thought within the Government: that is whether or not when personal records—we can leave out health records—are held on a computer, is or is not the individual concerned entitled to have a print-out? The Lord Chancellor himself told us of his difficulties with an insurance company, but he did not feel able to give any statement of public policy.
In closing the debate I should like to say, as I did when opening, that it seems to me the Government Departments concerned, of which there are several, must

177
resolve the question of departmental responsibility. Until there is somebody who is asked to grasp this nettle—and we can all accept that individual members of the Government are concerned and interested—until specific responsibility is fastened upon somebody or some Department, the sort of inquiries and action that we have been speaking about and which most noble Lords would like to see promoted, are unlikely to start. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

INSOLVENCY SERVICES (ACCOUNTING AND INVESTMENT) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
VALUATION FOR RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

INVALIDITY PENSION
6.21 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what representations they have received about, and what reconsideration they have given to, the proposals contained in paragraphs 25-27 of the White Paper (Cmnd. 4124) on Earnings-related Short-term and Invalidity Benefits dealing with Invalidity Pension. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I am asking this Question in order to try to have part of the Government's social insurance proposals elucidated, a part that I personally have found obscure and, so far as I could understand it, unsatisfactory. I need hardly say that in raising this part of the Government's insurance proposals I am not to be taken as approving the rest of the proposals; I am neither expressing nor implying any view at all about them for the moment. The time for that will no doubt come later.
The Government have issued to-day some notes in a Paper entitled, The New Pensions Scheme, and perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I read
178
what the Paper says about invalidity pensions, because this is very short. It says:
"This new pension is specially designed to help people of working age whose illness or injury keeps them off work for a long time or who can never work again.
"Invalidity pension will be paid to anyone who is still sick after drawing sickness benefit for 28 weeks.
"It will be calculated on life average earnings in the same way as the new earnings-related retirement pension with the years up to pension age filled in by crediting earnings at, normally, £630 a year in current terms (i.e. about half the national average). The benefits will gradually build up over 20 years.
"For those who will never be well enough to return to work, the invalidity pension will be paid until it is replaced by retirement pension."
I am aware of the administrative difficulties inherent in any system of invalidity pensions which differ substantially from supplementary basic scales. I need only mention one which presents itself in two forms; first of all, the difficulty of being sure at any time that the person claiming an invalidity benefit is in fact incapable of ordinary work. This is largely a medical and psychological function, but it has strong social overtones, for it is highly desirable that everyone who can work should be given the opportunity, the means and the encouragement to work, in his own interest and that of the community. The second aspect of this is the particular difficulty of being sure that a person who is approaching pensionable age is incapable of work; especially when, for one reason or another, there is apparently no work for him to do in the locality. But this is not really a problem of unemployability because of invalidity, but a problem of unemployment.
I should just like to say that this is a genuine Question, unlike some Questions that are asked in Parliament. It is not that I know the answer; I am seeking information. I am anxious to know what representations have been made, and I am anxious to be assured that the Government have reconsidered, or that, if they have not, they will reconsider, their proposals relating to invalidity.
My reasons are these. As the noble Baroness may remember, at the time of the passing of the 1966 Act, which provides for earnings-related short-term benefits for the first six months of unemployment or widowhood, and I think the first

179
28 weeks in sickness, I expressed the view that the Act should have included benefit for long-term or permanent invalidity on the same basis as for the short term. Until then, anyone whose sickness was prolonged continued to receive flat-rate sickness benefit, if necessary, for the rest of his life—at any rate, to retirement age—and it was really the same amount. Since then, the position is, I believe, that after 28 weeks of sickness the insured person receives only the flat-rate benefit and loses his earnings-related benefit. As I understand it, under the Government's present proposals this situation will continue until 1972, when it is intended that the Government's long term earnings-related pensions scheme will begin to enter into force.
I am not absolutely clear what the words I have read out from the new pamphlet mean, and perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, will be able to explain that in her reply. But it does appear that anyone whose sickness continues after 28 weeks will be credited with one half of national earnings for the subsequent period of his incapacity and, if necessary, up to pensionable age. I am not quite clear from the note whether he is to be credited with it only over 20 years. This is what the pamphlet seems to suggest, but perhaps this is not what it means. I should like to ask whether this means that he will be treated as having earned one half of national earnings—at present reckoned as £12 a week—for each of the weeks of his incapacity. The proposal appears to mean that a person who is permanently incapacitated will, from the time he ceases to draw earnings-related short-term benefit, receive an invalidity pension for the rest of his life—certainly up to the time he retires, but I think it comes to the same thing—one part of which will be based on his actual earnings up to the time of his incapacity, plus flat-rate credits, and the other part will be the flat-rate credits calculated at the rate of half the national average earnings for the period from his incapacity to the time when he will reach pensionable age.
Table 2 in White Paper. Cmnd. 4124, shows what invalidity pension a man whose earnings before his incapacity were at the average national level—that is, £24 a week—would receive. If, for
180
example, a man was incapacitated at age 29, his benefit would be £7 17s. plus a flat-rate increase for his wife of £3 2s. -making £11 in all. Naturally children's allowance would also be payable; and under long-term proposals there would be periodic adjustments. But is there not a strong case, in what is essentially a form of insurance, for credits to be calculated on the basis of what a person was earning at the time he was incapacitated; or at least on the average of his earnings over a period ending with that time—say five years—adjusted to take account of changes in the cost of living? It certainly seems anomalous that in an earnings-related scheme the credits should be on a flat-rate basis, however much or however little a man was earning when sickness struck him down.
I do not underestimate the difficulties, and I am well aware that the cost would fall on other contributors. But this is precisely what happens in the case of earnings-related short-term benefits. Indeed, it was one of the reasons why I should have preferred that invalidity should be linked to short-term benefits. What particularly concerns me is the man or woman who at an age below 45 is totally incapacitated for life. This is what I am really asking about, rather than the temporary incapacity, after 28 weeks, perhaps up to a year, or something like that. Supposing a man of 25 or 30. earning £36 a week, was struck down by a disabling illness, on these terms he would have a pretty bleak outlook for the rest of his life. I recognise that such a man could have taken out a permanent health insurance policy that would guarantee him an extra £5, £10, £20 or more a week up to, but not of course beyond, normal retirement age in the event of his being unable to earn. But the real value of this sum would be likely to dwindle over the years, so that he would have to look forward, in total, if you take the invalidity State pension and the permanent health pension together, to a steadily decreasing income in real terms—one could describe it as "growing penury." That would be at a time when for everyone else the standard of living would presumably (or should I say "hopefully", which I think is the term?) be rising. This is the essence of the case. Supposing the man was earning £36 or more a week and he was 42 when he was

181
incapacitated, this is what he would have to look forward to.
I realise, of course, that he might be entitled to other allowances, such as for constant attendance; and I am not primarily thinking of a man who is entitled to industrial injuries disablement benefit—someone who receives that benefit because his incapacity is due to an accident or sickness arising from and in the course of his employment. I cannot help feeling that if a person has to pay contributions directly related to his earnings up to £36, he should receive an invalidity pension also directly related to his rate of earnings. In other words, whatever scheme is introduced should insure his earnings-capacity. That, I suggest, is what is really needed. Most of us, and particularly those of us who have served in another place and had constituents—and among noble Lords present I think they comprise the majority—have come across cases in which a promising young married man, possibly a young accountant or business executive, has been struck down. For such a person this represents a very drab future, living at a level far below that to which he has been accustomed all his life.
I recognise that the extra cost of the invalidity pension under the Government's present proposals, as they are, will rise, according to the White Paper, from £8 million in the first full year to just over £100 million—this is the extra cost—19 years later; but I presume that there will be considerable savings in supplementary benefits to set off against this increase. I see from Table 1 of the White Paper that of all the persons who had been drawing sickness benefit for more than 26 weeks on June 3, 1967, 73 per cent. were over 50; and of those whose period of sickness had lasted over 52 weeks—the group which includes most of the permanently incapacitated—only 81,000 out of 323,000 were under 50, and only 30,000 were under 40.
I do not know, of course, what proportion of the 81,000 had been earning more than half the annual average, or what the average earnings of this group had been. I am giving these figures to show that although this is really a comparatively small matter, for the people concerned it is one of the greatest hardships that can befall one in life. So although the problem is not of immense proportions,
182
and partly because the problem is not of immense proportions, I hope the Government, if they have not already reconsidered their proposals for this group of people—the group comprising those who will need the credits for the longest periods—will reconsider them now.
6.35 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I in a very brief intervention, ask the noble Baroness two or three questions? They are not in any way catch questions but questions that I think the man in the street will be asking about this pension, in which I, like my noble friend, am particularly interested. Having attended conferences in the past when the problems of the long-term sick were discussed, I can appreciate what a task the noble Baroness has when she comes to reply, because this scheme has inevitable complications. I think that one question which will be asked—and I am sure the noble Baroness will be able to answer this straight off the cuff—is whether in any circumstances, even if the man concerned goes sick in the very first week of his working life, there is any abatement of his pension on account of insurance record. In fact, whether he has worked for one month, one year or twenty years, will his basic invalidity pension he the sum calculated according to the formulae in this table?
The second question I was going to Task concerns dependants. The noble Baroness may say that all the information is given in these paragraphs, and that benefits for a wife and children will in fact follow the scale of other pension schemes. I was just wondering whether in fact dependants' benefits go further than that of a widow and children; because there can be dependent relatives who do not fall into either of those categories.
My third question concerns what is called the earnings rule and casual earnings. All of us who have ever had responsibility in the employment field have tried from time to time to include among our employees a man or a woman who really is not fit to do the whole job but who, if left out, would just be wretched for the rest of his or her life, and in the case of the father of a family, would be put to terrible stress in maintaining his

183
self-respect. It must be a terrible thing for a young man to lose his job and to be told that he can no longer follow his trade again. But there are a great many who can do useful work, even if they cannot work full-time or follow their old calling. What we should not like to see is these men disallowed a benefit like this and told that they must take another job which may be far from their original skill and far below their original level of earnings. We must not do anything to discourage those who would like to carry on doing useful work within their powers, earning what they can from doing so and, it may be, drawing something here, too.
There is always a risk in these things, I know, especially when we come up against an earnings rule of some form or another, of having to accept a few hard cases in order to keep the whole system on an even keel. But an earnings rule for those over 60 when associated with a retirement pension, which is in fact designed to go with retirement, is something quite different from an earnings system associated with an invalidity pension which may be imposed upon a young man with a young wife and young family. I hope that I have made my points clear, and if the noble Baroness feels that she would prefer to write to me in reply rather than answer this evening, I will of course agree.
6.38 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to say at once that if I do not get the replies to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, by that mysterious method known as "the usual channels" I shall see that they are sent to him. I am sure that he will appreciate from his own experience that, to be of any value at all, factual questions must have completely factual answers.
To the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, I say at once that I take his point about the flat rate benefit in relation to an earnings-related scheme, but I am not sure that I am going to be able to give him the answer to it. What I can say is that my right honourable friend is still in the throes of considering the whole of this very elaborate scheme, as the noble Lord will know; so I only hope that
184
any comments the noble Lord has made in that connection are not too late to receive consideration. But I think that if we take the reply that I have to give, it may well supply at any rate some of the answers to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn.
As the noble Lord has said, the Government's proposals for a new benefit for the long-term sick were first outlined in the White Paper, National Superannuation and Social Insurance, published in January, 1969, and the proposals were repeated, with a table, which the noble Lord has quoted, in the second White Paper, published in July. The White Papers explained that the present main structure of short-term benefits would continue, but that there would be a change in the provision for people who were sick for more than 28 weeks. At present, providing that 156 contributions have been paid, flat-rate sickness benefit can be drawn indefinitely. Earnings-related supplement to this flat-rate benefit can only be paid, however, for the first six months of sickness. Under the new scheme it is proposed that when short-term sickness benefit—namely, flat-rate plus earnings-related supplement—has been paid for 28 weeks it should come to an end. After this a new long-term sickness benefit, to be known as "invalidity pension", will take its place.
I think it right to put on record that invalidity pension will not be restricted to cases of permanent or prolonged illness, as its name might imply. It will simply be paid to everyone who is still sick when the initial short-term benefit has ended. Sometimes it will go on being paid for a long time, sometimes until pensionable age, when it will in turn be replaced by a retirement pension. In those cases it will in fact be a premature retirement pension. In other cases it may be paid only for comparatively short periods, until the person concerned gets better and goes back to work.
I will explain why the Government have put forward this proposal. In the course of the detailed review which we made, over a period of some four years, of the whole of our social security provision, we had a look at the various statistics of the people who were receiving sickness benefit—and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, raised this point. We found that in practice the great majority of

185
people who had been receiving sickness benefit for more than six months were in their fifties and sixties. As the White Paper of July pointed out, on the latest available figures—for June, 1967—nearly three-quarters of roughly 400,000 people who had been sick for more than 26 weeks, were over the age of fifty. I would immediately take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that this merely highlights his valid comment that the group will be of necessity a very small one.
Thus a large proportion of those who have serious and lengthy illnesses are nearing pension age, and the majority of them, unfortunately, are unlikely to work again. We have been particularly concerned, in designing our new scheme of social security, to improve the position of the seriously ill and the disabled, for whom the provision of the flat-rate scheme is inadequate. As well as the invalidity pension which we are discussing to-day, we have, as your Lordships will be aware, put forward proposals for an attendance allowance for those who are so severely handicapped as to need a great deal of help from other people. Thus so far as beneficiaries below pension age are concerend, our proposed new scheme directs improvements in benefits particularly to disabled people most severely afflicted, to people of working age with an injury or illness which keeps them off work for a long period, and to people who can never work again.
My Lords, the two White Papers to which I have referred set out the details of the way in which, under our proposals, invalidity pension will be calculated, and I do not propose to explain them at length to-day. It is perhaps sufficient to say that the pension will be calculated on the claimant's life average earnings in the same way as is proposed for retirement pension under the new scheme. Of course, for the years which still have to elapse before he reaches pension age there will be no earnings in his record. Again, Lord Drumalbyn raised this point. To fill this gab the White Paper proposals envisage crediting the claimant with notional earnings of, normally, £630 a year. The same method is proposed
186
for the calculation of widows' benefits. And, like retirement and widows' pensions, the White Papers proposed that invalidity pensions should build up gradually from the present sickness benefit rate, reaching the full new-scheme levels after 20 years. I think that that goes some way to meet the point that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, made; but it is perhaps not quite as rigid as it would appear from the tables.
The main reason why we have sought in our proposals to align invalidity pensions as closely as possible with retirement pensions is that, as I have stated, the majority of people who will qualify for invalidity pension will in fact be nearing the end of their working life and will not work again. In most cases, therefore, the invalidity pension will in effect be a premature retirement pension, and it is clearly desirable that when they go on to the true retirement pension at pension age there should not be any sharp change in their benefit rate.
We have received very few representations about our proposals for invalidity pensions, which have in general been warmly welcomed. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn will know from his own distinguished career that it is not customary to reveal the names of the organisations unless they themselves wish this. Apart from inquiries about the position of individuals, the only specific points on which comment has been made to us have been the basis of the calculation and the proposed 20-year transitional period, which I have just described. The noble Lord will not expect me to anticipate the publication of the Bill by telling him this afternoon whether we intend to modify our proposals as a result of the representations: but I can assure him—and I should like to emphasise this—that every aspect of the White Paper proposals has been carefully re-examined in the light of the representations which have been made; and I will add my voice to that of the noble Lord when I see my right honourable friend. The Bill setting out the Government's final proposals will be published very shortly.

  CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION SCHEME
  CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION SCHEME