Sitting of 3 November 1980

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

  Alternative Energy Sources
  Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of the research and development budget of his Department is devoted to research into alternative sources of energy.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Moore): The Department's expenditure on research and development programmes in renewable forms of energy is expected to be about £11 million this year, some 30 per cent. of the Chief Scientist's budget.
  The Government as a whole are expected to spend some £55 million on R & D on non-nuclear technologies including oil, coal, conservation and the renewables. This is about 30 per cent. of the estimated total Government spend on energy technology R & D.
  Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend think that more should be spent on research into alternative sources of energy? If Britain cannot afford to do so on its own, does my hon. Friend agree that there is a strong case for a substantial expansion of the EEC programme?
  Mr. Moore: When considering whether more money should be spent, one should remember that the sum being spent has to be put in the context of the total spending on energy supply industries throughout the United Kingdom, which are some of the major investors in energy supply throughout the Community. Clearly, we expect to get our juste retour through the Community's new four-year alternative budget.
  Mr. Eadie: The Minister must be aware that there is a great deal of public interest in alternative sources of energy. Is he prepared to tell the House the delays that his Department has estimated in the alternative research programmes—which are varied and many—as a consequence of a lack of funding? I think that the Government should tell us.
  Mr. Moore: I reject any suggestion that there is delay caused by a lack of funding. The renewable energy research expenditure has until now been essentially pure research. There has been no delay caused by a lack of funds. Total expenditure, including that of the nationalised industries, on energy research and development this year in the United Kingdom will be about £374·6 million. Non-nuclear expenditure will be £159·4 million, or 43 per cent. of the total.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on progress in energy conservation, with particular reference to petroleum in motor vehicles.
  Mr. John Moore: Total primary energy consumption for the six month period March to August was about 8 per cent. below the level of last year. Oil consumption was down by 12 per cent.; petrol consumption was down by 0·1 per cent.
  Mr. Chapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that those figures are to be warmly welcomed, especially the belated changing trend in petrol consumption? Does he agree that British Leyland deserves the thanks of the nation for producing the Metro, with its superb increased performance in miles per gallon?
  Mr. Moore: It would be well for us all to compliment the Metro and to wish it well. It would be right and proper, in an impartial sense, to wish well to all fuel-efficient vehicles produced in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the Minister agree that one reason why there has been a reduction in energy consumption is the recession, and not conservation? Is it not unwise for the Government to charge British industry the world price for North Sea oil? Would it not be

  935
  better to charge a lower price and have a two-tier system? Although that might not lead to energy conservation, it might enable British industry to compete more effectively with its overseas competitors.
  Mr. Moore: I know, Mr. Speaker, that you prefer Ministers to answer one question at a time. My answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is that it is legitimate and fair to say that the recession is a factor in the reduction in energy consumption, but, equally, I do not think that anyone would deny that there has been considerable success in energy conservation programmes. I stress, as I always try to do from the Dispatch Box when given the opportunity, that these are long-term programmes that will have a long-term impact. We should not seek short-term instant results.
  Mr. Ashton: Are the Government aware that the Labour Party also welcomes the Mini Metro? As the Government are so enthusiastic about the way in which the Mini Metro saves money, will they get the Ministry of Transport, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Department of Energy to do something about vehicle excise duty, so that the bigger gas-guzzling cars pay more tax? We proposed that in our manifesto, but the Government dropped the idea.
  Mr. Moore: I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's words are conveyed to the Departments to which they are addressed.

  Energy Prices
  Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied with the progress made by the United Kingdom's European Economic Community partners towards an economic price for energy.
  The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Howell): European Community countries agreed at the Council of Energy Ministers on 13 May last on the pursuit of economic pricing for energy supplies. In practice most members have been allowing prices to climb to economic levels for some time past. Where there is evidence that other countries are unfairly subsidising their industries' energy prices,
  936
  the Government have not hesitated, and will not hesitate, to take this up with the Commission, as we have done in the case of Dutch gas to horticulture.
  Mr. Miller: I thank my right hon. Friend for his efforts so far, but is he aware that industry is anxious because it is not competing on equal terms with its counterparts in the EEC as regards energy prices? Is he also aware that that anxiety is exacerbated because we have our own natural resources, whereas many of our EEC partners do not? Does my right hon. Friend further accept that during a recession it is nonsense to be required to pay more for fuel prices when demand is declining?
  Mr. Howell: Having natural resources is one thing; achieving the maximum efficiency, extraction and distribution in our fuel supply industries is another. It is an aim to which the Government are dedicated. I recognise the widespread concern and complaints, and the Government have been looking into them in detail. In addition, we have asked the Confederation of British Industry to make comparisons, to examine them and to bring forward details. I keenly await those details.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does economic pricing mean prices that cover production costs, or market prices? If so, which market?
  Mr. Howell: Economic pricing for oil and gas means market prices, which are world market prices. As regards coal and electricity, it means pricing according to long-run marginal costs.
  Mr. Adley: Although I welcome my right hon. Friend's point about the horticultural situation, is he aware that many horticulturists have been awaiting recognition of their particular problems vis-a-vis the Dutch, and that they earnestly hope that my right hon. Friend will recognise the exceptional circumstances in which they find themselves? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that they hope that he will make some arrangements to enable them to compete with Dutch producers while the argument with the Dutch is sorted out within the framework of the EEC? Has my right hon. Friend anything to say that will help them?
  Mr. Howell: The difficulties of that industry are for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to consider. However, this issue has gone to the Commission for consideration, and the Commission has pressed the Dutch Government and Dutch industry. I understand that the matter will be considered by the European Court of Justice.
  Dr. Owen: As the Government refuse to cut interest rates and to act on the exchange rate, how can they continue to justify the fact that our industry is paying much higher energy prices than are most other Community countries, that firms are going out of business and that people are being laid off work because our energy prices make our products uncompetitive? When will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement to the House about freeing the coal, electricity and gas boards so that they can negotiate much lower tariffs for our major industrial users?
  Mr. Howell: The right hon. Gentleman has made some generalisations, which he must sustain. The coal industry is straining to be competitive within the existing strategy. As regards coal and electricity, I believe that it will succeed and that it is making great strides towards that end. Electricity costs depend greatly on coal costs, and on the efficiency of the industry. At present the industry is being referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Oil prices are world market prices, and are priced at competitive international prices throughout Europe. Earlier in the year, the British Gas Corporation increased prices to gas/oil levels at a faster rate than did some of our neighbours. However, in response to market changes it reduced the rate at which prices were being increased in the summer by about 25 per cent. for renewed firm contracts. Meanwhile, some continental gas suppliers have been putting up prices at a faster rate. to the same level and beyond. The right hon. Gentleman should examine the facts and bring forward specific details before making such generalisations.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Skeetasked the Secretary of State for Energy when next he proposes
  938
  to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board about pit closures.
  Mr. John Moore: Pit closures are matters for the National Coal Board to deal with in consultation with the unions according to the agreed procedures.
  Mr. Skeet: As a result of the substantial reduction in coal sales, will my hon. Friend reconsider part of the investment programme, such as the Vale of Belvoir? Will he redeploy some of the moneys on the marketing side of the business, particularly for fluidised bed combustor? Will he ensure that the miners do not claim an unreasonable pay increase as that will lead to further pit closures?
  Mr. Moore: With respect to my hon. Friend's great experience on energy issues, his questions should be addressed to the National Coal Board. It is not the Government's function to manage the industry. It is our function to set the overall financial limits, and the NCB decides how to fulfil the agreed strategy within those limits.
  Mr. Ioan Evans: If the hon. Gentleman holds consultations with the chairman of the NCB, will he ensure that no pits with known reserves are closed? In addition, will he make financial arrangements with the coal board so that coal from existing stocks can be used, rather than imports?
  Mr. Moore: The NCB decides such matters. I should have thought that those who want to ensure the long-term success of the coal industry would welcome the fact that, unlike many of our industries, the coal industry is more than 95 per cent. self-sufficient, even in this difficult year.
  Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Is my hon. Friend aware that vast sums of money are being = spent on stockpiling un- sold coal? Will he hold urgent talks with the chairman of the NCB on the question of reducing coal prices, rather than raising them? Does my hon. Friend accept that that will help to stimulate electricity demand and so remove some of the unfair competition that this country faces from its competitors in the EEC and elsewhere?
  Mr. Moore: Again, my hon. Friend invites me to make subjective decisions

  939
  about the management of individual nationalised industries. The framework that the Government established for the coal board is robust enough to take the inevitable strains associated with short-term changes in supply and demand, and thus to stay within the Government's external financial limits, which flow annually from our four-year coal strategy.
  Mr. Eadie: The Minister is responsible for the coal industry, but he has delegated responsibility for it. Will he ignore any predatory cries—from whatever quarter—for a pit closure programme? Does he agree that it would be a form of energy lunacy to contract the coal industry, when there is political uncertainty and instability in the Middle East?
  Mr. Moore: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's comments, but the coal strategy is for the long-term success of our domestic coal industry. Massive investment, in excess of £800 million a year, is being made in the industry. That is the strategy for a successful industry, not one in decline.

  North Sea Gas
  Mr. Cadburyasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will bring forward legislation to alter the statutory provisions relating to gas production so as to enable private companies to produce gas from the North Sea for resale to third parties in the United Kingdom for use as fuel.
  Mr. David Howell: There is already scope under section 8 of the Energy Act 1976 for North Sea gas to be supplied direct to third parties for use as fuel.
  Mr. Cadbury: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the industry suffers from a serious shortage of gas? Does he agree that the best way to accelerate gas production is to break the monopoly of purchase right, now enjoyed by the British Gas Corporation, and to allow private companies to produce and sell gas direct to industry?
  Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is correct. The industry is facing an excessive demand for the short-term supply of gas, arising from the rush of industrial customers away from oil and into gas. This has created intense strain and dragged prices up. The Chemical Industries Association has put certain suggestions to my
  940
  Department for greater access by industrial consumers direct to the North Sea. In fact, such consumers have some access already for feedstock purposes and in one case for fuel purposes also. I have said that the Department will consider these representations.
  Mr. Douglas: Is the Minister aware that he must be very careful about the way in which he tackles the issue of gas in the northern and southern sectors of the North Sea? Is he aware also that it is vital to ensure that firms and industries already established in the United Kingdom benefit, particularly from the ethane that will come ashore as a result of the gas-gathering system?
  Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman raises questions about the gas-gathering system which do not arise directly from this question. However, I recognise that difficult decisions will have to be taken by myself and my Department as well as by other parties concerned. We are closely examining the matter with a view to reaching early decisions.

  Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors
  Mr. Dobsonasked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the total capital cost to date of the advanced gas-cooled reactor programme, including money spent on stations not yet in operation.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Norman Lamont): I am advised by the CEGB that the total capital cost to date of its existing advanced gas-cooled reactor programme was £1,100 million at 31 March 1980—this figure aggregates expenditure incurred at historic cost price levels; it excludes the cost of initial nuclear fuel and interest during construction. In addition, £28 million was spent on Heysham II up to March 1980.
  Mr. Dobson: Can the Minister explain how he or the CEGB arrived at those figures, when in August 1979 the CEGB told me in answer to a letter that the total cost was £1,349 million?
  Mr. Lamont: Perhaps the hon. Member will send me the letter, and I will then attempt to reconcile the figures for him. I cannot comment any further.
  Mr. Rost: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that it is right to go ahead with

  941
  ordering two more AGRs of an unproven reactor system? Should he not wait at least until we have a realistic estimate of the costs, reliability and the length of time the reactors will take to build?
  Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend refers to these reactors as unproven, but of course we have the experience of Hinckley. That experience shows generation costs of 1·35p per kilowatt hour, which compares extremely favourably with electricity produced from the first half of Drax, at 1·52p per kilowatt hour. I assure my hon. Friend that the cost estimates for the AGR have been examined very rigorously, and some of that evidence was placed before the Select Committee.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Energy what excess of electricity generating capacity is likely to arise in 1983 if the forecast by the Electricity Council of a simultaneous maximum demand of 46·2 GW for 1982–83 proves correct.
  Mr. Norman Lamont: I am advised by the CEGB that it expects the declared net capability of the system in the winter of 1982–83 to be 59·6 GW, resulting in a margin of capacity of 29 per cent. This figure is, however, dependent on the rate of commissioning new plant and decommissioning old plant in the meantime.
  Mr. Hooley: As we already have about 10 GW more in the pipeline than is currently on stream, and as this will produce over and above what the Minister has said will be excess capacity, what is the point of a huge nuclear programme to produce electricity which, clearly, will not be required?
  Mr. Lamont: The hon. Member has heard the questions that have already been put at Question Time today about energy costs. The point of placing new orders for new plant is to get competitive electricity. All the evidence that we have is that nuclear electricity will be competitive, and that is why we wish to replace old expensive plants with cheaper modern nuclear ones.
  Mr. Watson: Does my hon. Friend believe that the 28 per cent. planning margin, as used by the CEGB, is realistic? Does he not think that it might lead us to invest too much in electricity generating plant capacity?
  Mr. Lamont: This is the industry's judgment of what is required to guarantee security of supply. My hon. Friend will know that during the winter before last we came within 1 GW of an interruption to supply. When my hon. Friend quotes 28 per cent., he should allow for the outages of plant due to malfunctioning. The estimate is that we could come within 3 per cent. at peak periods.
  Mr. Ashton: If there is 29 per cent. excess capacity, and if modern nuclear power stations are to replace the old ones, how many pit closures will there be in 1982–83?
  Mr. Lamont: I do not think that arises out of the question.

  North Sea Oil Production (Safety)
  Mr Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will now make a statement on his progress in improving safety in the North Sea, in the light of the Burgoyne committee report, and the Norwegian inquiry into the loss of the Alexander Kielland.
  The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Hamish Gray): I shall make a detailed statement on the Government's response to the Burgoyne committee report in opening the debate which we are due to have on 6 November. I am placing in the Libraries of both Houses a summary of the Government's response to all the recommendations in the report.
  As regards the Alexander Keilland disaster, we still await the report of the Norwegian commission of inquiry. Its findings will be taken fully into account in developing our own offshore safety requirements.
  Mr. Dalyell: As well as a response in the Library to the recommendations, will the Minister place in the Library a response to the note of dissent by Mr. Lyons and Mr. Miller, the trade union representatives on Burgoyne, who argued very convincingly that the health and safety aspects should not be vested in the sponsoring Department?
  Mr. Gray: I hope that the hon. Member will attend our debate on 6 November, when he will have the opportunity to make his point.
  Mr. Greville Janner: Will the Minister reply to the question posed by my hon. Friend? Does he not feel that it is wrong that the Department of Energy should retain its supervision over offshore oil in this respect? It is the only Government Department to do so. All other Government Departments have had their powers vested in the Health and Safety Commission.
  Mr. Gray: These points will rightly be dealt with when we have our debate, and the House will not wish me to take time now in dealing with them.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question.")
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister answer the question that I put to him—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Occasionally—in fact very occasionally—I call an hon. Member to ask a second supplementary question. Too often it is a Minister from the Front Bench. Today I am calling an hon. Member from the Back Bench.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister put into the Library, before the debate on Thursday, a response to the note of dissent by Mr. Lyons and Mr. Miller, the trade union representatives, who argued that the health and safety aspects should not be vested in the sponsoring Department? This is a matter of great consequence.
  Mr. Gray: I repeat that this Matter will be dealt with fully during the debate.

  Oil Exports
  Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he anticipates the United Kingdom will be an exporter of oil.
  Mr. Gray: The United Kingdom has exported some oil for a number of years, but for the last few months production has exceeded consumption so that we have become a net exporter. For some time ahead, production and consumption will be finely balanced with monthly production, except perhaps during the winter, exceeding consumption.
  Mr. Janner: Can the Minister assure the House and the country that if the Straits of Hormuz are blocked we shall still have enough oil available for this country's needs?
  Mr. Gray: It would be difficult for anyone to anticipate the world oil supply in the event of such an action. There is no way in which this country can divorce itself from the problems of other parts of the world. At present it appears that we shall survive any immediate threat.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Minister not realise that, in addition to worry over the export of oil, it is feared that there will be loss of opportunities caused by the export of petrochemicals? Will he give an assurance that one of the intentions of his Department will be to secure petrochemical production in Scotland and that, if necessary, he will be prepared to consider giving a rebate on royalties or reducing petroleum revenue tax, to allow cheaper feedstock to be made available to encourage petrochemical companies to establish or expand in Scotland?
  Mr. Gray: Certainly it will be the intention of the Department of Energy to ensure that the highest possible amount of petrochemical development takes place in the United Kingdom. It seems likely that Scotland will have its share of benefits in that case.

  Coking Coal
  Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Energy what consultations he has had with the National Coal Board and the British Steel Corporation about the importing of coking coal in 1981.
  Mr. John Moore: It is for the BSC to arrange its own coal supplies after discussions with the NCB. I have not been involved in these discussions, though I have been kept informed of developments.
  Mr. Dormond: Is the Minister aware that the agreement reached for 1981 between the NCB and BSC includes the purchase by the NCB of 1 million tons from pits in the North-East? Is he satisfied with that arrangement? Is he further aware that the coking coal involved necessitates a subsidy from the NCB of

  945
  £14 per ton? Should not that money come from the Government, as is the case with our competitors?
  Mr. Moore: To answer the first part of the question would, as I said earlier, require me to be involved in the detailed management of the industry, which is not my function. The agreement provides for both organisations to be free to operate commercially and to reach agreements. The agreement announced was successful for both sides of the industry, as opposed to the taxpayer.
  Mr. Michael Brown: Do I take it from that answer that BSC has commercial freedom to purchase its coking coal from the cheapest source?
  Mr. Moore: As the Government have made clear on many occasions, nationalised industries are free to pursue their commercial interests. BSC has negotiated an arrangement, the details of which are commercially confidential, and it is pursuing further negotiations concerning a longer period. Yes, the BSC has commercial freedom.

  Coal stocks
  Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to meet National Coal Board chiefs regarding coal stocks; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. John Moore: I keep in close touch with the NCB, but have no specific plans for a meeting on this subject.
  Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the latest figures suggest that about 36 million tonnes of coal are at the pit top and that we are rapidly reaching the figure that caused the tragic pit closures in the 1950s and 1960s? Does he accept that because of the industrial recession caused by this Government we shall be back on the merry-go-round of pit closures unless more subsidies are given for stocking coal and for coal generally, similar to those given by our Continental competitors, which will put an end to coal imports, which stand at about 6 million tonnes this year? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such measures would ensure a healthy and viable coal industry into the 1980s?
  Mr. Moore: Facts are more interesting than opinions. Stocks are below the 1978
  946
  level and are not much different from the 10-year running average. There are 15·1 million tonnes at pitheads and 19·2 million tonnes at power stations, not 36 million tonnes. In relation to imports, we should remember that about 87 per cent. of the modest imports to the United Kingdom come from Australia and the United States, and not from those countries that seek to subsidise their domestic coal industries.
  Mr. Hannan: Can my hon. Friend put the imports into perspective? What is the relationship between our coal imports and exports?
  Mr. Moore: That is an interesting point. We export approximately 3 million tonnes of coal, compared with the expected total imports for 1980–81 of 8 million to 9 million tonnes, which is a 6 million tonnes excess of imports over exports. In the first six months of the year the three countries on the Continent that are heavily subsidising their coal industries, France, Belgium and West Germany, exported 34,000 tonnes of coal to us, whereas we exported 404,000 tonnes to them.
  Mr. Eadie: When next the Minister meets the NCB, will he remember that the miners were promised that they would not become victims of a fluctuating market? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that stocks of coal can be an appreciating as well as depreciating asset?
  Mr. Moore: I take the hon. Gentleman's last point. We should remember that, despite increased imports this year, which were decided on after the bad winter of 1978–79, and the accelerated coalburn decided on by the previous Government, we are still looking to 95 per cent.-plus domestic self-sufficiency, moving to between 96 and 97 per cent. over the next few years. All those interested in coal's long-term future should welcome that.

  Pressurised Water Reactors
  Mr. Lennox-Boydasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has considered what terms of reference he will give to the inspector conducting the public inquiry for the first pressurised water reactor, in the event if its being granted safety clearance by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate.
  Mr. Norman Lamont: No decision has been taken, but my right hon. Friend and I have made it clear that the inquiry will be full and thorough.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that the public inquiry will be unusual, because it cannot take place unless and until the pressurised water reactor has been given qualified approval by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate? Does he accept that it will undermine the authority and standing of the inspectorate if its findings are able to be overruled at the inquiry?
  Mr. Lamont: In a sense, that is right. Preliminary safety work has to be done by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, which has an enormous job. It is having a tremendous burden of work put on it.
  Mr. Maclennan: What is the target date for the completion of the public inquiry?
  Mr. Lamont: I do not have a date for completion, but it is the Government's intention and belief that we shall be in a position to start the inquiry in 1982.

  British National Oil Corporation
  Mr. Eggarasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the future of the British National Oil Corporation.
  Mr. David Howell: It is the Government's intention to give the British public an opportunity to share the benefits of the nation's oil wealth through the creation of a revenue bond scheme linked to the fortunes of specified BNOC fields in the North Sea. Details of the scheme and its timing will be announced soon. We also propose that the forthcoming legislation on the future of the corporation should contain powers to enable the public to have a direct equity stake in BNOC's North Sea business.
  Mr. Eggar: I welcome that statement, but is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on the Government Benches regret that the Government will not be selling equity in BNOC in the immediate future? Why is that?
  Mr. Howell: The revenue bonds will make available a stake in the fortunes of the North Sea to thousands of people who do not normally deal in stocks and
  948
  shares. I hope that the whole House will welcome that. With regard to a minority equity stake, while the Government believe that it is necessary to keep control of BNOC, we intend to take those powers although there are considerable complexities to be unravelled before such powers can be put into practice. I look forward to my hon. Friend's support when we bring such measures before the House.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: What control or influence over the policy and management of the corporation will the owners of the bonds as such be given?
  Mr. Howell: The owners of the bonds will not have an ownership stake in the corporation, but they will share in the risks and revenue of the North Sea. I do not see anything against the idea of thousands of families sharing in those risks.
  Mr. Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although many of us welcome the cautious and measured way in which the Government have approached the matter, we want the units available in the bonds to be as small as possible in order to make a reality of popular capitalism?
  Mr. Howell: Those views will be taken into account. It is desirable to spread the involvement of popular capitalism. I understand the views of Labour Members and their extreme hostility to wider ownership in any form.
  Dr. Owen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he needs to issue "granny bonds" as the price of a U-turn we shall be happy for as many as possible to be issued? However, does he realise that if he goes ahead with legislation to introduce a private equity stake in BNOC he will open up for debate all the major questions of principle and of great international importance relating to the United Kingdom continental shelf? In addition, doing that simply as a fig leaf to placate some of his discontented Back Benchers will be playing around with one of the most central issues of energy policy in this country. If the right hon. Gentleman does that, it will be opposed, and opposed vigorously, and it will do no good to our national interest. Will the right hon. Gentleman also let us know whether he intends to allow the BNOC to develop the Clyde oilfield, or whether he

  949
  intends to interfere in the development of that field?
  Mr. Howell: No decision has been made on the Clyde development, although I have indicated that as part of our depletion policy there will be delays on developments in certain cases. As to the right hon. Gentleman's lecture on North Sea oil policy, I suggest that he reserves that for the debates that we shall have in the House. I think that he is aiming at the wrong target. If there were a proposal to do away with Government control of the BNOC, some of the right hon. Gentleman's worries might be outstanding. As it is, our proposals do not raise the worries on which he has lectured us, though no doubt we shall hear that lecture again.

  Energy Prices
  Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will meet leaders of British industry to consider comparison of energy prices in the United Kingdom and in countries which are major competitors of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. David Howell: Yes, Sir. When I met the CBI representatives last week they told me that it would be a few weeks yet before their report on comparative international energy prices would be ready.
  Mr. Hardy: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the share of energy costs in industry's total costs is far more significant than he seemed to recognise in the House before the recess? He may not have seen the total figures, but is he aware of the evidence compiled jointly by the public and private sectors of the steel industry, which demonstrates that we pay far more heavily for steel than do our European competitors? Does not that evidence more than justify the U-turn that everyone, apart from the Secretary of State and half his colleagues in the Cabinet, perceives to be necessary?
  Mr. Howell: For energy-intensive industries, energy is, by definition, a substantial cost. As we have moved into an era of high-priced energy all over the world, industries that use a lot of energy and cannot employ devices for greater energy efficiency without major new investment obviously face considerable
  950
  difficulties. No one can question that. At my request, the electricity supply industry is reviewing the whole bulk supply tariff system. That will cover the position of large users. Overall on electricity supply, the CM has told me in preliminary talks that it does not think that there are major worries in comparison with other European competitors. Of course, I recognise that comparisons with North America are a different thing.
  Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although his Department may consider United States' prices to be another matter, they are a strong competition to British industry? May we have an assurance that when we have a response to the CBI report it will take into consideration the energy and fuel prices in the United States?
  Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend and I do not have to await the CBI report for me to recognise the extreme seriousness of the American and Canadian subsidised oil and gas prices, which are causing major damage to the whole of Europe—it is a Europe-wide problem—and exacerbating world energy difficulties. My right hon. Friends and I have been pressing the American and Canadian Governments continually for some time, and we intend to go on doing so with increased vigour, because these are serious and damaging policies for the whole of Europe.
  Mr. Dobson: When the British part of the figures has been prepared, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the figures comparing the AGR production costs of electricity with coal-fired production costs include an estimate for the three much-delayed stations, which have not worked and which have cost so much, and are not based only on the rather misleading and fraudulent figures of the one station that the CEGB has managed to get to work?
  Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman is trying to get in a point that is related to another question. Other nations have a larger nuclear proportion in their electricity supply systems, and as nuclear electricity has so far proved cheaper that is a considerable advantage to those other countries. That makes the case for a larger nuclear element in our electricity supply.
  Mr. Moate: If the CBI demonstrates that particularly the heavy energy using industries are bearing a much heavier energy cost than our Continental competitors—a fact that my right hon. Friend seems consistently to have denied—what powers have the Government to intervene, and how quickly will they intervene in what is an increasingly urgent matter, particularly for the steel, paper and board and other similar industries?
  Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is not correct in saying that the facts have been consistently denied. I have always recognised that in certain energy-intensive industries there are particular problems. We are waiting to receive from the CBI the evidence of specific firms—not even industries generally—that are in difficulties. It appears that industrial gas prices in Continental Europe are moving ahead fast. Indeed, they are moving ahead of British prices. There have been complaints about oil product prices in the United Kingdom market, and when I have more specific details I shall raise the matter again, as I have already, with the oil industries to find out whether they can maintain fully competitive prices for their refined oil products. I understand that for most oil products they are competitive, though there may be some higher prices here for heavy fuel oil.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
  Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he can now arrange a date for work to begin on repairing, restoring and cleaning the Palace of Westminster, and in particular to ensure the safety of the structure.
  The Chancellor of The Duchy of Lancaster, Leader of the House of Commons and Minister for the Arts (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is considering the Services Committee's fourth report—1979–80—of the survey of the stonework. He has agreed that urgent repair work should go ahead. The timing of a major stone cleaning and repair programme depends on the availability of funds.
  Mr. Janner: Is it not poor economy to allow the Palace of Westminster to continue to decay, when every year that goes by multiplies the cost of putting it
  952
  right? When will the right hon. Gentleman conclude his consideration of the Select Committee's report and start work?
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I am not responsible for the programme. Questions should be addressed to my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Janner: What about the arts?
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is not a matter of arts. It is a matter of the structure of the building. All apparently dangerous stonework in areas in regular use has been removed, and the work already approved by my right hon. Friend who has responsibility in this matter should ensure that the external structure is safe.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does my right hon. Friend look in occasionally on the Palace of Westminster during recesses? If he does, does he agree that one often finds the whole place being torn up by the roots? Is it not about time that our unfortunate constituents who are taxpayers should be stopped from being taken to the cleaners every time we leave this place? Should not the redecoration and reorganisation that occurs every time we go into recess also be put into recess?
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall pass on that observation to the appropriate quarter, but a certain amount of renovation for wear and tear, particularly in places such as the Division Lobbies and the Staircases, is necessary.

  Select Committees
  Mr. Robert Atkinsasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is satisfied with the provision of accommodation for the new Select Committees.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yes. Five additional Committee Rooms were brought into use in April last.
  Mr. Atkins: Does my right hon Friend agree that, even allowing for the increased number of Committee Rooms, the pressure of Select Committee meetings on the meetings of Back-Bench

  953
  groups on both sides of the House is causing considerable annoyance, because of the cancellation at short notice of meetings in rooms that have been booked? What will he do about it?
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: As we all know, there is a general shortage of accommodation in the Palace of Westminster. One has to arrange a system of priorities within limited resources. Of course, the ultimate solution is the provision of a new building, but I am afraid that that is unlikely to occur in the foreseeable future.
  Mr. Ernie Roberts: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the problem, which has been raised with him right from the beginning of this Parliament, of the conditions under which many right hon. and hon. Members, especially on the Opposition side, have to work in this House? They are worse than many workers in industry have to put up with, and that is saying a lot. If conditions of this kind operated outside in private industry, action would be taken by the work force. I ask the Leader of the House to look into this matter and to see that conditions are made tolerable. He will he aware that there are as many as 12 of us sitting in passages trying to do our work.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is another aspect of the general problem to which I referred. However, I think that there are disadvantages in every hon. Member being in a hermetically sealed room by himself. For many years I occupied a desk in a passage, and I found that I knew more about what was going on in the House then than I do now.

  Hours of Sitting
  Mr. Dormandasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will now introduce proposals for changing the hours of sitting of the House.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: No, Sir. The Procedure Committee recommended against any radical reorganisation of our hours of sitting. I believe that the debate last year when the House considered this section of the Committee's report showed that this view reflected the general opinion of the House.
  Mr. Dormand: Will the right hon. Gentleman make some firm recommendation himself and not keep shuffling the matter on to the Procedure Committee, although I take the point that that Committee must have a view? Does he consider that we conduct our affairs in the most efficient way? Why does he think that every other Parliament in the Western world is able to conduct its affairs in normal working hours?
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Procedure Committee has considered this matter, and I gave the House an opportunity to put into operation the principal change that was recommended, which was about Friday morning sittings, and the House passed that. As long as there is a substantial body of hon. Members, who are opposed, for example, to morning sittings. I do not think that it is possible for them to be enforced against hon. Members' wishes.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend look again at the question of Friday morning sittings as they affect Government statements? Does he agree that the experiment of interrupting the proceedings at 11 o'clock for Government statements is not satisfactory either to Ministers or to hon. Members, and that it would be better if the House met at 10 o'clock, if 9.30 be too early for Ministers, when perhaps statements could be made more easily?
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: The purpose of interrupting the proceedings at 11 o'clock is not for the convenience of Ministers. It is for the convenience of hon. Members, especially with Private Notice Questions, and so on, so that they may have time. I shall consider my hon. and learned Friend's suggestion, but I doubt whether it would be satisfactory. I think that it would create more problems than it would solve.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the Leader of the House look at the Sessional arrangements? Does he realise that the House rose this year on 8 August and that children of Scottish Members, including my own, went back to school on 13 August? Does he agree that for those hon. Members who are away from home for most of the year it is at least desirable

  955
  that the House should so arrange its business that they manage to see their children?
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yes. I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. It is partly in my hands, I agree. I hope that we shall have a lighter legislative Session. But it is also in the hands of hon. Members. I hope that they will facilitate the legislation that the Government produce.

  Televising of Proceedings
  Mr. Whiteheadasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will bring forward proposals for the televising of the proceedings of the House.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: This is a House rather than a Government matter. If it were the general wish of hon. Members to consider this question again, I hope it would be possible to arrange for a further debate on the issue.
  Mr. Whitehead: Is the Leader of the House aware that in each of the last four Parliaments there was at least one major debate on this principle? As this Parliament is now drawing to the evening of its days, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that, before this Parliament comes to the end of its days, we shall have a major debate on this principle?
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I should have thought that this Parliament was in the first flush of dawn rather than in the last rays of the setting sun. I have indicated in what I have said to the hon. Gentleman that if there is a clear demonstration that a large number of hon. Members wish this to be discussed again we shall provide time for a debate.
  Mr. Moate: Before considering televising Parliament, should not the House consider whether the sound broadcasting of Parliament has been a failure or a success? To assess that, will my right hon. Friend arrange for the publication of figures showing the total amount of sound broadcasting that takes place and the total cost to all the parties involved?
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall look into those questions. It is my opinion—and there may be other opinions in the House—that, on the whole, the sound broadcasting of our proceedings has been a success and has given people listening to
  956
  it a much better idea of the House of Commons than they had before.

  GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICE
  Mr. Robert Atkinsasked the Paymaster General if he has been satisfied with the effects of Government publicity arrangements during the summer adjournment.
  The Paymaster General (Mr. Angus Maude): Yes. I am satisfied that Ministers have taken every opportunity during the Summer Recess to explain Government policies.
  Mr. Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that during the Summer Recess clear evidence became available that the connection between excessive wage settlements and unemployment began to get through to those working on the shop floor?
  Mr. Maude: Yes, Sir. There is clear evidence that a number of groups of workers, in the engineering industries especially, understand that excessive wage settlements lead to a loss of jobs. Recent opinion polls also show that a great majority of British workers understand that. I am satisfied that it is due partly to the activity of Ministers in explaining the situation that the change in opinion has come about.
  Mr. Skinner: Has the Paymaster General any estimate of how many moles there are in the various Government Departments? If he cannot tell us. will he admit that it is a secret?
  Mr. Maude: I do not think that we have as many moles as there are in the Labour Party during the leadership election.
  Mr. Marlow: During the Summer Recess my right hon. Friend let it be known through the press that he was about to launch a massive propaganda campaign on the subject of Europe. If he intends to do that, will he restrict himself to the facts about Europe, rather than trying to sell the public an unsaleable product?
  Mr. Maude: I did not let anything of the sort be known. The purpose of the Government information service, on this

  957
  as on all other subjects, is to provide factual information and nothing else.
  Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman attribute, for example, the enthusiastic support of the CBI for Government policies to the merits of the policies themselves, or to his own brilliance as a publicity monger?
  Mr. Maude: Unlike some Governments, this Government do not try to control the opinions or the actions of private industry. The CBI is entitled to its views, and no doubt it will see the light in time.

  OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS (DISCLOSURE)
  Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Paymaster General if he is satisfied with the procedures adopted by the Government information service in dealing with the unauthorised disclosure of official documents.
  Mr. Maude: Investigation of cases of disclosure of information is not a matter for the Government information service. It is normally the responsibility, in the first instance, of the Minister in charge of the Department in which the leak occurs.
  Mr. Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the first leaked document, which dealt with the Government's Common Market propaganda campaign, has been reviewed in the light of the Conservative Conference decision, by a 2 to 1 majority, that the Government should concentrate on the facts and not just on
  958
  the alleged advantages? In this connection, will he learn from the sad experience of the Labour Party and do all in his power to avoid a damaging confrontation between the conference and the parliamentary leadership?
  Mr. Maude: I have said already that the purpose of the Government information service in respect of Europe is to make clear to the British people the economic effects. I am satisfied that if the Labour Party wishes to have a confrontation at the next election on the subject of withdrawal from Europe, the good sense of the British people will defeat it even more handsomely than would otherwise be the case.
  Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the distinction between fact and fiction in relation to the sale of council houses? Is it not clear that in relation to council housing the Government have been using the Government propaganda machine for party purposes? Is it not time that that was stopped? If the Tory party wishes to propagate its ideas it should do so, but not by using Government machinery.
  Mr. Maude: No, Sir. I regard that as a most extraordinary idea. What the Department of the Environment's publicity campaign has been doing is simply to inform the British people—
  Mr. Heffer: No, it has not. It has gone beyond that.
  Mr. Maude: —not of Conservative propaganda, but of the contents of an Act of Parliament that the House has passed.

SOUTH KOREA (DEATH SENTENCE ON POLITICIAN)
Mr. Speaker: Private notice question, Mr. Peter Shore.
Mr. John Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you give the House some guidance about the criteria for getting a private notice question tabled and accepted on a matter for which this Parliament and the Ministers of Her Majesty's Government can have no possible responsibility? If I were standing as a candidate for the leadership of the Mereworth parish council, would my private notice question be accepted?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that it is not my custom to give reasons why I have called private notice questions. I would say to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells), in passing, that it is not unknown for this House to express its opinion on matters for which Her Majesty's Government are not responsible. Mr. Peter Shore.
Mr. Shore(by private notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the representations the Government have made to the Government of South Korea about the death sentence imposed on Mr. Kim Dae Jung and now confirmed by the court martial authorities.
The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Ian Gilmour): The Government's concern about the death sentence has been expressed to the Korean Government on a number of occasions, both bilaterally and in association with the other members of the Nine. Although confirmed by the military appeal court, the sentence is subject to further appeal.
Mr. Shore: The House will be grateful to the Lord Privy Seal for that statement. Although there is, as I understand from the Lord Privy Seal, a further judicial procedure, it is extremely important that the views of both sides of the House should be communicated to the South Korean Government. Will the Lord Privy Seal make clear that it is not only the sentence but the whole court martial proceedings that appals us, the flimsiness of the case against the Mr. Kim and, most profoundly, the lurch backwards of South Korea to military and authoritarian rule.
960
[Interruption.] Will the right hon. Gentleman make plain to South Korea, in whose defence the United Nations, including Britain, was heavily involved 30 years ago, the loss of international support that will follow if this sentence is carried out? Will he discuss urgently with the United States and Japan, as well as with the Nine, how their joint influence can best be deployed to achieve justice for Mr. Kim?
Sir I. Gilmour: As I have already indicated, there is a further appeal to the supreme court. If that is rejected, the president can exercise clemency. The right hon. Gentleman will understand, however, that South Korea is a sovereign State. This is an internal matter for the Korean Government. If the right hon. Gentleman really wants to save Mr. Kim's life—I have no doubt that he does, as I am sure is the case with all hon. Members—he will bear in mind that public pressure is far from necessarily being the best way of securing the objective he has in mind.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call one more hon. Member from either side.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend say why he has made representations? Is it because he objects to the sentence? Is it because he feels that the form of the trial was unjust? Having made representations, it will help the House if he says why he has made them.
Sir Gilmour: That may be so. I have already told the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) that I do not believe that public pressure is the right way of securing what we have in mind. It will be clear to my hon. Friend that we on the Government side of the House and our allies have a strong interest in the stability of South Korea. We do not believe that the carrying out of the death sentence will be conducive to that stability.
Mr. Dalyell: In contrast to the ignorant interventions from below the Gangway on the Government side, is not the real issue democracy in Asia? Is the right hon. Gentleman, as one of the official delegation from this House to the United Nations last week, aware that there are many delegates from developing

961
countries in Asia who see this matter as being of crucial litmus paper importance for the advancement of democracy in Asia? Will he ask our delegation at the United Nations—where this matter is our responsibility—to do everything possible to save Mr. Kim's life?
Sir I. Gilmour: We shall consider what further action is appropriate. We shall also be discussing the matter with the Nine. I repeat earnestly that I do not think that conspicuous public pressure is the right way of achieving, the ends that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you clarify the position? Can the granting of leave to ask that private notice question be treated as constituting a precedent for future purposes?
Mr. Speaker: I exercise my discretion as I think best. What I did is not quoted as precedent. It is not held against me or for me. Private notice question, Mr. John Smith.
Mr. MacLennan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you reaffirm that it is the rule of the House that when criticisms of the Chair are to be made there is a way for it to be done and that the manner pursued by the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), by repeatedly shouting from a sedentary position, which should never have been allowed, is not in accordance with the precedents of the House?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not hear the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne). Both sides of the House get excited from time to time about questions that are allowed or not allowed. The hon. Gentleman knows, if he made an interruption, what I think about it.

SEAMEN (INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE)
Mr. John Smith(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the 24-hour strike at British ports currently taking place which has been called by the National Union of Seamen.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Norman Tebbit): This industrial action was taken by the National
962
Union of Seamen in response to Cunard's wish to operate two passenger ships under the Bahamas flag although crewed by British officers. This decision is a matter for Cunard, but I understand that it is the company's view that it is not possible to operate these ships profitably under the British flag and that the alternative to operating under the Bahamas flag would be to sell the ships. That, according to Cunard, would threaten to make the future operations of the QE2 uneconomic, too.
I regret the reasons which have led to Cunard's decision. They underline the need for all our industries to have internationally competitive labour costs.
I also regret that the National Union of Seamen's action has involved companies with which they are not in dispute and which have no influence in its solution. This has caused considerable inconvenience to the travelling public and has done little to help those companies to remain competitive and to continue to employ British seafarers.
Mr. Smith: As the Minister responsible for British shipping, does the Under-Secretary of State—or the Secretary of State—intend to intervene at any stage in the dispute? Is he not aware that fundamental issues of crucial importance to the British seafaring community are at stake, namely, that if Cunard is permitted to switch ships to flags of convenience many others may follow and countless numbers of jobs may be lost to the British seafaring community? Should not the British Government support the moves at UNCTAD to curtail the growth of flags of convenience, which are, in essence, devices to avoid tax and to lower standards of safety? Should not the Government indicate their deep dislike of British shipowners, such as Cunard, resorting to this disreputable tactic by indicating their view and dissuading shipowners from a course that may lead to continuing trouble in the British shipping industry?
Mr. Tebbit: I have indicated that my right hon. Friend and I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern about these matters. It is not possible to require British shipowners to run ships at a loss. When the right hon. Gentleman parrots the UNCTAD criticisms of flags of convenience, he should remember that many

963
people in the UNCTAD countries regard the British flag as a flag of convenience. There are many foreign-owned ships sailing under the British flag. The right hon. Gentleman should be more careful in what he says
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a private notice question. I shall call two hon. Members from either side of the House.
Mr. Hill: Is my hon. Friend aware that the QE2 operating out of Southampton is the only remaining large passenger ship under the British flag? Is he aware that the Southampton-based crew have already said that they would prefer a private ballot on whether they should lose their jobs for ever to taking part in a temporary strike?
Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend repeats some of that which has been published in the newspapers about the views of the seamen on board the Queen Elizabeth 2. It is not for me to speak for those seamen one way or the other. However, I emphasise again that the jobs of all the seamen in Cunard, and any other British line, depend crucially on maintaining our competitiveness with our commercial rivals. A pay rise last year of well over 24 per cent. did little to help maintain that competitiveness.
Mr. Heffer: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that British seamen in the past received poor wages and worked under poor conditions and that only in the last few years have they begun to receive decent wages and work under decent conditions? Is it not clear that the action taken by Cunard, if followed by other British shipowners, could destroy the advances made by the National Union of Seamen? Is he further aware that many of my hon. Friends who know about seamen and shipping and come from large port areas are fully behind the National Union of Seamen in the steps that it is taking? Is he aware that it is fighting, not only in the interests of the seamen but in the interests of the shipping industry and the future of our seafaring nation?
Mr. Tebbit: I fully expect the hon. Gentleman to be behind the efforts of anybody to pull the plug out of British
964
shipping by making it uncompetitive with its rivals.
Mr. Marlow: As my hon. Friend said, many companies that are not party to the dispute and that cannot affect the outcome of the dispute are suffering financial loss. What part of the Employment Act which the House passed recently will enable such companies to recover compensation from the National Union of Seamen? If they are not able to recover compensation, will the Government bring forward legislation in future, and if not why not?
Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend will recollect from his part in the debates on the Employment Act that section 17 refers to the action which may be taken by companies whose businesses are damaged by unlawful secondary action. It is not for me to decide whether that action should be taken; it is for those who believe themselves to be damaged.
Mr. Clinton Davis: Why does not the Minister pay a tribute to British seafarers, who all too often are taken for granted? Why does he fail to take this opportunity to proclaim the benefits that British seafarers have brought to Britain? Why does he not take this opportunity to condemn a move, which might be mirrored by other shipowners, to take advantage of and exploit seafarers in other countries and at the same time deny British seafarers jobs? Is not the Minister aware that flags of convenience are a shabby device which this and any other Government should expose?
Mr. Tebbit: If flags of convenience are a shabby device today, so they were when the hon. Gentleman was Minister for four years, during which time he did singularly little to change the world's reactions to flags of convenience. Of course I am aware of the contribution which has been and continues to be made by British seamen to the British economy and, indeed, to our life as a whole. I repeat that there is no prospect of requiring British shipowners to operate ships at a loss. The question in this case, according to Cunard, is whether the ships are owned in Britain and whether they have British officers on board and those jobs are saved, or whether all the jobs are lost.
Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you ask the appropriate authorities in the House to consider the questions and answers to the last private notice question? Surely it is common knowledge that our exchange rate is 30 per cent. above what it would be in terms of trade balance or trade competitiveness—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is an expert on our procedure. I fear that he is trying to ask the question that he would have asked had he been called. The value of the pound cannot possibly give rise to a point of order, although it is of interest.
Mr. English: I have a much more serious point to make, Mr. Speaker. To people outside, we seem to be discussing a superficiality. In the context of an enhanced exchange rate, the receipts of Cunard, which are determined by the value that they receive in dollars—
Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, we have passed that subject. Unless he has a point of order about procedure in the House. we must move on.
Mr. English: I have a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: I shall be very surprised if that introduction leads to a point of order, but I am willing to listen.
Mr. English: I am sure that it will lead you, Mr. Speaker, to understand that the reputation of the House is at stake. If questions are asked, answers should be given in full. I do not mind Ministers referring to some matters, but they should not omit others, particularly if they might be the responsibility of successive Governments.
Mr. Speaker: I am of the same opinion as I was earlier.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (MILK AND PIG PRODUCTION)
3.45 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I beg to move.
That this House takes note of European Community document 9280/80 concerning proposals for Council Regulations restricting investment aids for milk and pig production and while welcoming the objective of the proposals to institute useful measures to reduce the cost of the common agricultural policy, particularly in the dairy sector, supports the Government's intention to safeguard the essential interests of United Kingdom producers.
The proposals contained in the document to which I have just referred originated in a much wider package of measures, which first emerged from the European Community Commission in March 1979, just over 18 months ago. The main objective of that package was—and is—to make the existing structural directives more effective and to find ways of assisting agricultural development in those parts of the Community that are too poor for the directives to be of much effect.
The Commission's general policy over the years on agricultural structure has been to encourage capital investments where they lead to increased and improved efficiency on those farms that after modernisation, can reach a level of income comparable to that available in other sectors. This policy has been supplemented by various other measures. Overall, it is a policy that the United Kingdom has felt able to support. We have always held the view that any increased efficiency that might result could contribute to a reduction in the pressure for price levels which are too high to achieve a reasonable balance between supply and demand.
As the House knows, the fundamental problem with which the Community is grappling in the CAP is the tendency for it to produce surpluses. When those surpluses are produced heavy costs are entailed in disposing of them. It is in our interests and those of the Community to achieve a sensible policy, and our efforts in the budget restructuring must be to get on top of the problem of surpluses and the costs that they involve. This is the background against

967
which we must look at the proposals to restrict assistance to investment in dairying and pig production.
The Commission has been the first to admit that modernisation of farms, in some areas of the Community, has led to an intensification of production. Its concern that structural policy should not increase production capacity for products already in surplus has found expression in its proposal to confine aid to investment in dairying to farmers undertaking a development programme under Directive 72/159, or a farm improvement plan under other common measures. Its proposals for restrictions to pig investment arose from its concern that dairy farmers might turn to pig production as an alternative enterprise, thus creating conditions for an upsurge in production in pig products that would upset the market.
Let me turn now to the proposed restrictions on aid to investment in dairying. These started 18 months ago as a proposal by the Commission to suspend from 1 January 1980 all grant in respect of investments related to the production of cows' milk, with exemptions only for those farmers not increasing their dairy herd and who had at least 35 per cent., of their utilised agricultural area permanently under grass. The discussion was carried forward by technical experts and it pointed up how discriminatory such a proposal would be between different member states. As a result, the proposal was modified to allow aid to continue to those farms pursuing development plans or receiving some other form of aid under Community schemes. The restrictions will not affect all aid paid to dairy farmers, but only specific items related to dairying such as dairies, dairy parlours and dairy cow buildings. Dairy farmers would still be able to receive aid on many other investments that contribute to general farm improvement such as land drainage.
After examination by technical experts, the subject came up again at the price fixing in the spring of this year, and the Council agreed then in principle that, as a contribution to Community efforts to diminish surpluses, aid to investment in dairying should be limited in the modified way I have described, and that even in the case of farmers with a development plan aid should be restricted to that
968
part of their programme needed to achieve a comparable income for 1½man-work units.
Perhaps I should explain that a farmer with a development plan has a programme of planned investment that over a period of years is intended to raise the income for each of his man-work units to the level enjoyed by others outside farming. In the context of the dairy restrictions this aid would be confined to investments necessary to get to this level of income for the first 1½ man-work nits only.
One has to use the technical phraseology of the Commission proposals, but perhaps I may describe them in more comprehensible terms. Expressed in cow numbers, it was calculated that a farmer would need up to 60 cows at the end of his development plan to have achieved the appropriate income comparable to that of 1½ man-work units. The figure of 60 cows was altogether too low to be acceptable to the United Kingdom, where our dairy herds tend to be much larger. My right hon. Friend pressed hard in the Council for an alternative, and succeeded in getting agreement on an alternative relaxation whereby aid would be given to farmers increasing their herds by up to 15 per cent. In other words, a 15 per cent. increase in an existing herd number would qualify for aid.
The agreement in principle to restrictions was taken as part of the price fixing, and therefore there can be no going back on that principle at this stage. However, I think that all countries agreed that some effort had to be made as a contribution to tackling the problem of milk surpluses. I accept that a measure of rough justice is involved, but we were certainly prepared to accept the arrangement at the time in the light of the modifications that we had achieved to the original proposals and because the 15 per cent. increase in dairy herd numbers recognised the particular problems that our larger farmers would otherwise face.
We therefore hoped that by getting the 15 per cent. increase—although it imposed restrictions on our dairy farmers—across the Community as a whole our dairy farmers would not be put to any relative disadvantage compared with other Community farmers. However, there is some uncertainty about how the provisions of

969
the draft regulations should be interpreted and implemented on a Community basis. The issues here are how the different elements should interact—the restriction to 60 cows or an increase of up to 15 per cent. of a farmers' herd, and the condition that aid should be restricted to that part of an investment necessary to generate a comparable income of 1½ labour units.
These issues have not yet been settled. They will be discussed at the next Council of Ministers on 10 November, when the Council will have to take a view on them. Those items are, however, still open for discussion now, and we shall be dealing with them in Brussels next week.
Given this background, I hope that the House will support my right hon. Friend in seeking, in relation to the restriction proposed on investment, to get the best deal possible for the United Kingdom dairy farmer in the interpretation that is eventually worked out next week when the Commission's proposed regulations are discussed.
Mr. Douglas Jay: Will the Minister be more specific? I understood him to say that the British Government are not satisfied with the proposals as they now stand.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I should like to be able to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question more directly—I am not seeking to evade it—but there is doubt about where the Commission's proposals stand. We must seek clarification on that first. The interpretation of the different standards—a 15 per cent. increase in numbers, and 1½ man-units—has yet to be done. In obtaining those interpretations we want to make sure that, given the larger size of herd in the United Kingdom, our farmers will not be made relatively worse off than dairy farmers in Europe.
Mr. Roger Moate: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for suggesting that he is endeavouring to make these regulations more comprehensible to the House. It is clear from the regulation that the aids will positively encourage a farmer either to increase his herd beyond 60 cows or by 15 per cent. At the same time, are there not a whole host of other schemes designed to encourage that same farmer to go out of dairy production, receiving compensation for the slaughter-
970
ing of his milk cows? Are we encouraging or discouraging the farmer to increase his herd?
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: With respect, my hon. Friend must distinguish between the two different elements. In relation to trying to restrict the overall surplus of milk production in Europe—an objective that has been supported by both sides of the House—it is true that hitherto we appeared to have contradictory schemes. There were two schemes to encourage dairy farmers to go out of production, and an investment scheme, common across the whole of agriculture, from which dairy farmers as well as other farmers were able to benefit. At the last Council of Ministers' meeting it was agreed that of the two schemes to encourage dairy farmers to go out of production one should be suspended and the other discontinued in the spring of next year. It agreed to remove that element. We supported that because we believed that it was not cost-effective. We are left with one scheme, which, as of now, encourages dairy farmers to expand production in that, like all other farmers, they can qualify for grants to carry out improvements.
In the regulation before the House today we are dealing with a restriction on that scheme which will apply to the dairy farmer but not to other farmers. From that, my hon. Friend will understand that there is no inconsistency in the Commission's proposals. It has removed the two schemes encouraging farmers to go out of production because they were not cost-effective in the use of money.
My hon. Friend asked whether it was consistent to give any encouragement to dairy farmers to expand in any circumstances. That is a fair point. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the objective of the Community structure proposals is to encourage those farmers who are below a certain level of income to invest so as to come up to that level, and to bring the size of their herds and the structure of their farms to a level that will enable them to earn a proper income, so that the smaller farms do not continue to use that excuse for higher and higher pressure on prices. To that extent, the measure is a sensible element that has underlain our own farm improvement and development schemes for a great number of years.

971
If, in the Community, we use money to try to bring the smaller farms to a better level of efficiency, it is equally fair that the British dairy farmers should not be at a disadvantage compared with those in the Community. That is all that we are seeking to do. I believe that there is a good future for our dairy industry. The farmers have to modernise, and often modernisation involves a modest expansion of some sort. If we achieve the 15 per cent. increase in cow numbers wilt-ten into the restrictions it will put the British dairy farmer in at least a comparable position with his European counterpart.
I apologise for answering my hon. Friend's intervention at some length, but I think that the House will realise that this point is fundamental to the regulation and the way in which we shall approach the issue at the Council of Minister's meeting next week.
Mr. Moate: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer, and also for allowing me to intervene again. He has made a clear case for the regulation. However, I am not clear about the contradictory element in policy. Is my hon. Friend saying that we are no longer pursuing a policy of encouraging the slaughter of milk cows? Has that policy now ended?
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There are two schemes. One scheme has already finished and the other will finish in the spring of next year. Both schemes are being removed. That has been supported by the British Government because we believe that the money used in support of those schemes did not produce a return comparable to the number of cows taken out of production. It is a separate issue, but I accept that as a policy objective it may have appeared that some contradiction was involved.
Mr. Jay: Are we not at the same time imposing a co-responsibility levy on dairy products, so as to limit production?
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That is precisely what we are doing. As I said a few moments ago, we are restricting the investment to try to contain the surplus of milk production. The co-responsibility levy is another leg of that same policy. There is nothing contradictory in those two policies; they work hand in hand
972
together because both are aimed at the objective of restricting the production of milk in the Community.
I turn to the regulation on restricting investment in pig farming. I am glad to say that the position is not quite as complicated as that for dairy farming, where the regulation is still subject to interpretation and must be clarified. We shall do that next week. There are still one or two items outstanding on the regulation relating to pigs, but they are more straightforward. As the House knows, it is not new for the pig farmer to have restrictions on investment in pig production. Restrictions on investment have been in existence since 1972. Currently, aid is restricted to investment that lies within a minimum and maximum capital sum, the current minimum being £8,140 and the maximum £41,263. So there is already that restriction on investment in pig production. There is a further restriction, in that aid is restricted to those holdings capable of producing 35 per cent. of the feeding stuffs required that can be grown on the holding itself and fed to the pigs. In general, pig producers in the United Kingdom have found that they have been able to live with those restrictions, although I know that some would prefer to do without the 35 per cent. feed limit. That is the basic scheme at present, and it is not matter for negotiation. I thought that I should mention it, because it helps the House to understand the existing restrictions.
When the Commission came forward with new proposals to restrict investment in the pig sector its original proposal was to suspend all aid for pig farming, with exemptions only for farms not increasing their fatstock or breeding sows by more than 10 per cent., or those farms that had more than 65 per cent. of their utilised agricultural area under crops—a further underlining of the feed rule that I mentioned earlier. In addition, it was proposed that the financial limits within which grant aid could be given were to remain unchanged, as were the requirement that a farm should be capable of producing at least 35 per cent, of its own feeding stuffs.
As with the dairy regulations, there has been considerable discussion at a technical level. As a result, the proposals have been modified, and an agreement

973
reached in principle at the price-fixing Council in the spring simply provided that aid should be limited to the volume of investment necessary to reach 550 pig places—not exactly a felicitous phrase—per farm. In other words, it is an actual physical restriction on the number of places that can be provided on a farm.
As inflation has made financial limits unrealistic as a means of control in many parts of the community, the 550 pig places to replace the existing financial minimum and maximum within which aid is to be granted. The proposal replaces the financial standards by a physical standard related to the physical capacity of the holding.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As a member of the former indirectly elected Assembly's Budget Committee, I know that there were considerable misgivings about the realism of many of the financial limits in the agriculture sector. Has not the time has come for a general review of the system of financial limits, which often leads to the most hideous distortions?
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I believe that the system has the effect that the hon. Gentleman has described. I hope that he will be encouraged because in this instance the financial limits are being replaced by a physical limit. That sometimes applies even to our own national schemes in various areas—not only economic but including such matters as housing. We have heard in debates how limits of eligibility for certain aids have been left at a certain level and have been eroded by inflation. Many people would like to see them related to physical matters. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome what is proposed as being a more realistic approach.
We have contributed to the discussion in the Community. We hope that a physical standard can be applied relatively uniformly.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Can the Minister explain the imprecision in the proposals? They appear to talk about 550 pig places. One presumes that those are fattening places. There is no satisfactory or clear reference to the question of the breeding herd.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that informa-
974
tion. He precisely anticipated the point that I was coming on to.
There remain a number of serious issues still to be resolved—issues that are rather more straightforward than the restrictions on dairy investment. We shall discuss those issues next week. One is that to which the hon. Gentleman referred—the definition of what is meant by a "pig place". Another is whether farmers expanding to more than 550 places will at least qualify for aid for that part of investment that is related to the 550. Those are the two main issues of detail that are still outstanding, and they are important issues.
A third element still to be discussed is the derogation authorising a member State to adjust the pig number in specific cases where 550 proves insufficient to ensure a comparable earned income, because we are still at the earned income level of 1½ man-units. In the Council we shall seek clarification of the crucial matters of pig investment that are outstanding. We shall work to ensure that there is no discrimination against the United Kingdom pig producer and the structure of our industry.
Mr. Leslie Spriggs: I have listened with great care to what the Minister said about the proposals, which have not yet been finalised. He said that further meetings would take place before they were. When the hon. Gentleman returns to the European Minister's meetings will he take great care to protect the British dairy farmers and pig producers, and also do all in his power to protect the British housewife against increased prices?
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I can give the hon. Gentleman a firm assurance on both those points. The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) shakes his head with incredulity and looks very worried. No doubt he will say later why he is so worried. I am glad that the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) intervened, because he enables me to end on a happy note my introduction of the discussion of the document.
The restriction on investment aids in dairying is to try to bring about a better structural balance in dairy production in the Community, so that we do not go on producing surpluses that become very costly to dispose of. The restriction on

975
pig investment is to try to ensure that we do not upset what is a fairly delicate balance in the pig market by people who go out of dairying seeking to transfer to the pig sector.
In both sectors we are trying to keep the correct balance within production in the Community and to contain surpluses. My right hon. Friend and I will have that objective very much in mind in our discussions on those regulations.
We have dicussed many regulations in the past, and I have no doubt that we shall discuss many more in the future. We have constantly to be on our guard, because of the very different structure of agriculture in the United Kingdom compared with some other parts of the Community. We must ensure that restrictions do not discriminate against the producer in the United Kingdom.
It is precisely the points that are still open for discussion—indeed, still open for definition—in both the dairying and the pig sector that I have highlighted today. I hope that what I have said shows our concern and our awareness of the problems.
I hope that my right hon. Friend and I will have the support of the House when we go to Brussels next week to make sure that the restrictions are applied fairly across Europe and do not discriminate against the efficient British dairy and pig producer.
4.17 pm
Mr. Gavin Strang: Is there no limit to the trivial gobbledegook in which we are prepared to engross ourselves? When British industry is collapsing; when mass unemployment is at a level unheard of since the 1930s; when there are two economic reports in today's newspapers from authoritative, independent sources that unemployment, although massive, will rise further and more sharply in the year ahead; and when we understand that the Government are deeply divided over whether to implement more policies that they know will increase unemployment further, the people must wonder why we are discussing as the main item of business today measures concerned with limiting EEC aid to milk and pig producers.
976
I am not suggesting that Parliament should not consider these matters. I shall not dispute the Scrutiny Committee's recommendation that the regulations warrant further discussion. But let us keep the matter in perspective. On these aids in the milk sector, EEC expenditure last year in the United Kingdom was less than £25 million, and in the pig sector it was less than £2 million, although it is difficult to extract these figures from the budget. They compare with about £450 million that the Government are putting into British Leyland, and are very different from the well over £2,500 million that the Government will spend this year on unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I do not disagree with what my hon. Friend says, but does he not think that what is even worse is that the EEC expenditure on slaughtering cows in this country is—according to an answer to me by the Minister a few days ago—£.19 million? Is not that just as scandalous?
Mr. Strang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point. The whole position arises because of the chaotic state of the management of the Government's business this Session.
The proposals before us are relatively minor, although I accept that they are important to the producers involved. But the issue that lies behind the proposals is important. That issue is the common agricultural policy. The starting point for any discussion of the CAP must be a recognition that it represents a monstrous misuse of resources and a massive level of expenditure, which does not achieve in any significant way the objectives that its supporters, particularly on the Continent, argue in favour of it.
We cannot help the small producers of Europe by high prices and open-ended intervention. The latest figures for 1980 for the milk sector—the important sector that we are discussing this afternoon—show that the EEC will spend about £3,300 million coping with the surplus. Where does that money go? A large amount is spent on subsidising exports to the Soviet Union and elsewhere at ridiculous knockdown prices, a net transfer of resources from the Community to third countries, subsidising the consumption

977
of milk by livestock, and the cost of storage. That is not a sensible or efficient way of helping small producers, whether in the United Kingdom, France or Italy. [Interruption.] Hon Members ask why we agreed to it. I assure them that the milk regime long predates the Labour Government of which I was a member.
Mr. Mark Hughes: Will my hon. Friend inform the House when the Council of Ministers agreed to subsidise skimmed milk powder for animal feed, and which Minister agreed to that?
Mr. Strang: The subsidisation of skimmed milk for pigs was authorised by the previous Labour Government. But perhaps I am not making myself clear. I am not complaining about that. I am complaining about the nonsense of the surplus. I am not asking about the measures that were taken to cope with it. I am making the point that the starting point for any discussion in relation to the CAP—[Interruption.] I do not understand why Conservative Members do not recognise the nonsense of the CAP, or how they defend a policy of open-ended intervention that tells producers that the State will buy whatever they produce regardless of how much they produce.
It is not my intention to be controversial. I assumed that my points were accepted by most hon. Members. The CAP is not simply a misuse of resources. It may be argued that if the Prime Minister had been successful in rectifying the budget issue we would at least be getting back as much as we were putting in, but although the Prime Minister and the Government have made some progress in that area we are still getting back less, financially, than we put into the Community.
That brings me to the point relating to the two proposals before us. Because of the structure of our agriculture industry, because our industry has larger units in some areas—which are relatively more efficient—and because the Community has large numbers of small producers in particular areas, measures that cut off aid beyond a certain scale of operation inevitably discriminate against the United Kingdom.
While it is true that, thanks partly to the work of ADAS—it was the previous
978
Labour Government's policy to get as much as possible out of schemes such as the investment aid scheme—our share of expenditure in this area is relatively high, considering our relatively smaller agriculture industry. But if we continue down this road that benefit will be lost, and even in that area the balance of advantage will be pushed further against us, because fewer and fewer of our producers will be eligible for EEC-backed assistance, a higher proportion of which will go to producers on the Continent.
We should be concerned about this measure, small as it is. I do not wish to go into any further detail, except to say that it is disappointing that a Minister has to tell the House that the proposal is possibly even more restrictive and discriminatory against the United Kingdom than the first reading of the proposal would suggest. It suggests that a dairy producer with more than 60 cows who makes the investment will receive support provided that he does not expand by more than 15 per cent. The Minister is now saying that there is some confusion about that, and that it is possible that no producer with over 60 cows will receive assistance. That is disturbing, but I am glad that the Minister said that the Government would do their best to make sure that the matter is sorted out satisfactorily.
Mr. David Myles: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is following his national instinct or his Socialist instinct? That would be interesting.
Mr. Strang: I see no conflict between my national and Socialist instincts. We are talking about wasted money. No doubt it will be argued in the Council of Ministers that we must be careful about cutting back expenditure on the CAP because of the high level of unemployment that will be created, but if we want to tackle unemployment I can think of no more inefficient way of doing so than to spend thousands of millions of pounds on putting food into store and giving a guaranteed commitment.
The Opposition do not propose to divide the House on these proposals, although we are unhappy about them. We are unhappy about measures that discriminate against investment generally, although there is clearly a case in principle here, given the surplus looked at

979
in Community terms. But above all we are unhappy to go down a road that means that our share of EEC money towards Government-assisted new investment declines in the future.
4.30 pm
Mr. Peter Mills: I welcome the motion, particularly the last part of it, which I support fully, and which
"supports the Government's intention to safeguard the essential interests of United Kingdom producers."
It will be very difficult for the Government to do this, and the House ought to support the Minister wholeheartedly in the matter.
The speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) was most amazing. I have been in this House for a long time—for probably too long, some people might say—and I have listened to almost every debate concerning food, agriculture and fishing for many years, but I have never heard such a peculiar speech as the one made by the Opposition spokesman. In the Labour Government he was one of the team dealing with these matters. I remind the House of the word "renegotiation". Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten what happened? The Government of whom he was a member played a role in this. They could have done more and they did not do it. It ill behoves him, therefore, to come to this House with the sort of material which he presented in his speech today.
The hon. Member started by saying that this is not an important matter. Not important? What about all the dairy farmers, the dairy workers and the hundreds of people who work in various dairy plants, as in my constituency, where some of them are being laid off because of a shortage of milk? That is at a time when we are just getting under way for a tremendous drive to export our dairy products into the Community, and when the Milk Marketing Board's export figures amount to £100 million or more. Not important? If the hon. Member comes to my constituency and speaks to my dairy workers in Torrington, he will get short shrift from them.
Mr. Strang rose——
Mr. Mills: I shall give way shortly, but the hon. Member must take the medicine. I reckon that what he has said will increase my majority at the next election. Many of the people in my area who voted for the Labour Party will probably vote for me next time.
Mr. Strang: I was not, of course, suggesting that the milk industry was not important. On the contrary, it is enormously important. But the hon. Gentleman should look at the figures and talk to some of his producers. They would tell him that if they could get just 1 per cent. off the rate of bank interest it would be a hundred times more beneficial to the industry in terms of cash than these grants will be.
Mr. Mills: With respect to the hon. Member, he has bypassed or forgotten what I said. He has raised another matter; indeed, I tend to agree with him on it.
I hope that the House will not forget what was said earlier by the Opposition Front Bench, especially when we think of renegotiation. The hon. Gentleman has said that these things are not all that important. They are important to very large sections of the rural community.
I said at the beginning that I support the motion, and particularly the latter part of it. The Minister mentioned—I hope that he will not mind my saying this—that these matters are very complicated. They are very complicated. I noticed the faces of some Opposition Members during the Minister's speech. They were confused, and rightly so. But if these matters are so complicated, there will be loopholes which will enable other people in the Community to get round the regulations. The more complicated the regulations, the more the French and others will try to bypass them and work them for the advantage of their own farmers. The Minister should watch this aspect very carefully. Some time ago there was talk of co-responsibility. On that occasion it was the French Government who paid and not the producers. I hope, therefore, that the regulations will not be too complicated, otherwise the French in particular will drive a horse and cart through the whole lot.
A great deal of nonsense is talked by the Socialist Party and by the media about surpluses. I have said this in the

981
House many times. Of course, we do not want structural surpluses—and perhaps milk comes into this category—but surpluses are not always bad. Sometimes it is good housekeeping to have surpluses. Sometimes it is important to have a surplus in one year in order to deal with the problems of a shortage in the next year.
I bet that the Russian Government would like to have a surplus of grain year in and year out, and a surplus of meat. We have to be very careful—this particularly applies to the Socialist Party and the media—about continually condemning surpluses. We hear talk about butter mountains. It is great stuff to put in the newspapers. We read about powder mountains and milk lakes. I can imagine how the people concerned with these stories would scream if there were no milk on their doorstep or butter on their toast. I can imagine how they would scream if they had skinny babies because there was no milk for them. They would soon be asking what was wrong with British agriculture and British food production.
I am pro-CAP. There are many things wrong with the CAP, but the essential concept is absolutely right. The idea is to enable people to produce food that is necessary, and perhaps to be able to feed other hungry people in the world. We should not be talking all the time about surpluses.
Mr. Mark Hughes: Self-sufficiency is one thing, but if the cost of a 17 to 20 per cent. surplus in dairy products is so heavy that it bankrupts the EEC, does not the hon. Gentleman accept that at that point we have to consider the question rather carefully? Providing butter to the Russians at less than half the price at which it is provided to the hon. Gentleman's own constituents is surely a little difficult to justify.
Mr. Mills: I do not disagree at all with the hon. Gentleman. That is exactly what I am saying. This milk probably comes into the category of structural surpluses.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman did not say that.
Mr. Mills: Yes, I did. If the hon. Member will read Hansard tomorrow morning, he will find that that is exactly
982
what I said. The matter of aid is greatly complicated by having such a tremendous milk surplus. I was simply trying to paint the picture clearly and to show that surpluses are not always bad. Sometimes it is good housekeeping to have a surplus.
On the surface, it looks ridiculous to give aid to producers when we have an overall surplus of milk within the Community. It seems to be a strange policy to add to our surpluses and to lead to even greater problems by stoking up the surpluses and encouraging farmers to produce more. But there is rather a subtle point involved and the Minister has explained it very well indeed. If many of the small and inefficient farmers were brought up to a higher standard of efficiency, the overall end price would not need to be so high. That is the simple truth of the matter.
But it goes much deeper than that, and I want to address my remarks not only to this House but directly to some of our European colleagues. We must point out to them time and again that in the United Kingdom we are not creating the surpluses. We are not upsetting the equilibrium in milk production. The figures released recently show where the trouble lies. In Germany the increase last year was 5 per cent. and in France it was 6 per cent., whereas we shall probably have a minus figure. When the Minister is on the Continent of Europe, he should drive home to the other Ministers the fact that we are not producing the surpluses.
Are the proposals fair to British producers? I do not think that they are. I welcome the Minister's assurance that he will watch the matter very carefully. I hope that he will make the necessary adjustments. In this country as a whole we are producing, I believe, only 70 per cent. of our milk needs. The other countries of the Nine are producing well over 100 per cent. Surely that factor should be taken into account in the negotiations next week. It is fair to say that we are not being treated as fairly as we should be and that we are not producing the surpluses. We are pro-clueing only 70 per cent. of our needs.
I do not want to see any cutback in United Kingdom production. That trend has gone too far already. We have the climate, the grass, the quality stock, the dairy workers and the cowmen. We have an excellent system of distribution and

983
collection under the Milk Marketing Board. Our milk factories are first class. In my constituency there is a large plant at Torrington, one of the largest in the United Kingdom. It was an old Unigate factory. It was taken over by the MMB.
Milk production is falling and men are having to be laid off. That is crazy when we are producing only 70 per cent. of our requirements and our export of dairy products is getting under way so well. I do not want to see more unemployment because of a further cutback in milk production. It will be a disaster if the present trend continues. If falling production in the United Kingdom continues, there will be less milk available for manufacturing, which is essential if we are to maintain our export drive.
The Minister has rightly been asking us to be export minded in a variety of food products. He has been urging us to seize the opportunity in the same way as the French. If we weaken our production and reduce it, we shall not be able to fulfil what we want to do, apart from lowering the profitability of British farms and making it impossible for British dairy farmers to pay the wages, and the increased wages, that are needed for dairy workers and others.
I understand the dilemma. We must accept that we are in the Community, that we must not seek always to exempt United Kingdom producers and that the Minister is one of many Ministers. I accept all that and I realise that there are difficulties. However, the problems that I have mentioned are basic, and I urge my hon. Friend to redouble his efforts to ensure that we are not penalised by the sins of others. That is why I support the motion. We would not have a leg to stand on if we were producing far more than our requirements. We cannot shout too much about grain and potatoes because we are producing more than we require.
I shall suggest some positive measures that we may have to adopt in future. I was amazed when the Opposition spokesman did not advance anything positive to deal with the structural milk surplus and to lead to changes. Are the Opposition barren of ideas? As we look to the future, we should more and more consider national quotas. Some time ago my hon. Friend and I produced
984
some papers on quotas. Much of what appeared in those papers is worthy of consideration.
If we could obtain a reasonably high national quota, we could protect our farmers and reduce surpluses where surpluses are being created. There is nothing strange about the concept. For example, we have sugar beet quotas, and I see no reason why we could not have national dairy quotas. Such a system would have its disadvantages as well as its merits. I feel that it would be of benefit to the United Kingdom. These issues need to be discussed and considered afresh.
Farmers throw up their hands in horror when the co-responsibility levy is mentioned. I can understand that. In the United Kingdom we are, in a sense, paying two co-responsibility levies, one to the Community and the one that we have always paid to the MMB. The money that is paid to the MMB has been used to publicise milk and to try to sell more of it. That is what should be done with the money. I wish that the Community's co-responsibility levy was used far more to sell liquid milk to the housewives on the doorsteps of every house in France, Germany and the rest of the Community in the same way as in this country. The co-responsibility levy should be used in that way.
I have received a letter from Mr. Tugendhat in which he makes it clear that if a super levy had been created the United Kingdom would have benefited.
Mr. Mark Hughes: That is right.
Mr. Mills: Our milk producers are slightly below 99 per cent. while other producers of the Nine have gone up to 105 per cent. and 106 per cent. If a super levy were introduced, it would hurt them and not us.
That is all right on the surface, but there would be problems. It would be said "Why should British producers be below the levy? Why should we be allowed to expand when we produce only 70 per cent. of our requirements?" In the long term a super levy would not help us, though it would be helpful in the short term. The result of our having had no super levy is that the United Kingdom Treasury will have to pay another £50 million into the Community's

985
coffers to pay for surpluses that we have not produced. That is an anomaly that needs to be sorted out quickly and carefully.
Between March 1979 and March 1980 3,500 milk producers left the sector. That is a tragedy. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East shakes his head, but it was a previous Labour Government who caused that to happen.
Mr. Strang: No.
Mr. Mills: I believe that the trend has gone too far. If we are not careful, our agriculture will get out of balance. More and more farmers are going out of stock farming. More and more are going out of dairy farming. More and more are producing cereals. It is getting topsy-turvy. I remind cereal producers—I declare an interest as I am one of them—that if we do not have a market for our grains, for example, to feed to dairy cows or pigs, we shall be in real trouble. I warn the Minister, the House and the Community that agriculture will get out of balance if the number of dairy producers now going out of business continues.
Over the years, and before this Administration came to power, we have been witnessing the collapse of the pig industry. We did not hear very much from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East about the industry. Who caused its collapse? It is as well to remind the House and the country who did.
Mr. Hardy indicated dissent.
Mr. Mills: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. He must hear the facts of life.
Mr. Hardy: Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that when the Labour Government took office in February-March 1974 they saw a completely demoralised and depressed pig industry? The first action they took was to introduce a pig premium scheme. When the cycle changed again and pig producers faced misfortune, that Government sought to introduce a similar scheme. They were prevented from doing so by the Community. That refusal was greeted not with dismay or sadness by Conservative Members but by choruses of amusement and enjoyment.
Mr. Mills: The hon. Gentleman has got it quite wrong. If one considers the production figures for the period of the last Conservative Administration, one will find that they all increased. They have now begun to fall.
Mr. Hardy: Not true.
Mr. Mills: Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten the MCAs? Has he forgotten the damage done because there was no devaluation of the green pound? As there was no devaluation of the green pound, the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) had to bring in a subsidy of 50p per score. The House, the country and pig producers must not forget the role that the Labour Party played in destroying the pig industry. When the Conservative Party came to power, it devalued the green pound. Unfair competition is coming to an end. We face a tricky problem which the Minister will have to watch most carefully. The more complicated the situation is, the more fiddles there can be. Watch it, Minister!
4.50 pm
Mr. Peter Hardy: I am tempted to take up the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) to the effect that we should not adopt a partisan approach. As the hon. Gentleman said, he has been in the House a long time and as the years pass he seems to prepare his speeches less carefully. What he thought to be a nonpartisan speech became, as the minutes passed, excessively partisan. His description of pig production was a travesty. In a previous Conservative Administration, the hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He seriously misled the House when he suggested that the pig industry was doing superbly in February 1974. Pig producers were in a state of demoralisation and despair.
I remember meeting pig producers in my constituency in March 1974. They were gratified when the Labour Minister introduced his scheme. It greatly assisted them, and within a few months the price of pigmeat had improved. I also remember meeting Yorkshire pig producers on the day that the pig price reached £6·42 a score. That gave them great hope. Various economic forces then depressed the position, and when the previous

987
Labour Administration sought to assist they were prevented from so doing by the Community and by the action of some of our partners. Unfortunately, Conservative Members were not as non-partisan as the hon. Member for Devon, West and his hon. Friends would have us be now.
Mr. Peter Mills: What about the MCAs?
Mr. Hardy: I recognise that the question of the MCAs was difficult. The hon. Gentleman will recall that I sometimes participated in debates on agriculture and spoke about the interests of pig producers. I agree that pig production in Britain was badly hit as a result of those actions. A recovery could now take place. When the Europeans talk about discouragement, decline and limitation, I become suspicious. It would be unfair if Britain were to be limited in its recovery as regards pig production. It would also be unfair if the Europeans were to adopt an unhelpful attitude towards dairy production.
Concern has already been expressed about the principle behind the CAP. If the CAP is to contain any wisdom, it will have to demonstrate to Britain and to the rest of Europe that it contains sensible priorities. I am not a farmer, although I have long been interested in agriculture. One of Britain's principal resources is its grasslands. The Community should regard Britain and Ireland as the principal grassland producers. Any development in the CAP that inhibited the recognition and use of that grassland would be contrary to the interests of Britain and, in the long term, would not help the Community.
I hope that the Minister will secure a sensible interpretation of the proposals as regards the expansion of our herds. We must achieve the balance to which the hon. Member for Devon, West referred. That is important, because as the Government pursue their silly policies, as industrial employment disappears and as great swathes of havoc are wreaked on our traditional industries, agriculture will become more important. When oil—which is partly responsible for the destruction of British industry—has gone, agriculture may be the only remaining asset. It behoves the Conservative Administration to be more careful than the
988
previous Conservative Government of 1974, of whom the hon. Member for Devon, West was a member. They should remember the destruction of hope that took place in the dairy industry and the damage that they wreaked in pig production.
One thing bothers me. Successive British Governments have been remarkably careful, cautious, prudent and docile in their interpretation of the regulations. Perhaps the Conservative Government will be a little bit more of the buccaneer than we have so far seen. I doubt it. Given the present plight of our economy, the Government should be more privateering in their approach to Europe.
Mr. Harold Walker: "Privateering" is an unfortunate word.
Mr. Hardy: I would not mind the "sense of enterprise", the "spirit of adventure", and the rest of it, but, as my hon. Friend knows, very little is possible in the industrial sector. Indeed, tractor manufacture in Doncaster is being assailed as a result of the Government's economic policies. If the Government were to show some energy and were to make some imaginative approaches towards the European regulations, my right hon. Friend's constituency and mine might derive some benefit.
The House will shortly consider other EEC documents on agriculture. The documents before us today, and those that the House will consider, give rise to great concern. There are several complicated proposals before us, and later we shall consider others. I spoke to a farmer in my constituency whom I have known for many years. He is an experienced and extremely intelligent man. He has been studying France with great interest. A few weeks ago he visited a French egg-packing station. The farmer noticed that the French egg-packing station was labelling last week's eggs with next week's date. That is serious. Although I do not wish to mention his name, I am happy to give it should it be required, and he is willing that I should give his name to the Minister.
Britain observes every dot and comma. We are always obedient. We are the only member State to behave like that. As a result, people take advantage of us. We can no longer afford to be in that position. I hope that the Minister will ensure not

989
only that the definition of "pig" or "pig place" is rapidly agreed to the benefit of Britain but that our European colleagues are quickly convinced of the need to pursue sensible priorities. If sensible priorities are pursued, acknowledgment of the importance of the grasslands of these islands is vital. If that is not achieved, there will be a further decline in agriculture and our industry will be ruined. That would be disastrous.
The hon. Member for Devon, West referred to agricultural wages and to the need to promote a return. As I travelled to the House I listened to the car radio and discovered that one reason why farm workers will not receive the awards which perhaps they should enjoy is that farm incomes have fallen substantially this year. That suggests two things. First, farmers may have been disappointed by the Government's failures during the past 12 months. Secondly, given that farm workers cannot receive their awards today, why did they not receive a little more last year when farmers had more at their disposal? I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind should he offer any advice to the appropriate wages board.
I hope that the Minister recognises that it is essential that the Government should pursue sensible agricultural policies. We cannot afford to have nonsense in agriculture as well as appalling dereliction and despair in industry.
5 pm
Mr. John Farr: I congratulate the Minister on the way in which he put the case this afternoon. It seems that he has a certain amount of resolution which my hon. Friends and I hope to fortify in our remarks. The Minister has a considerable battle on his hands. The task is not easy and, as has already been pointed out, there are a number of pitfalls ahead.
Before I develop my argument, I wish to call attention to the appalling condition of the translations of the documents that we are supposed to be able to decipher. If this is the best that the EEC can provide, all I can say is that there is in my constituency a printer who will do the job properly and legibly and for about a quarter of the price without all the appalling blotches and hieroglyphics.
In this debate we are dealing with two absolutely critical British farm products
990
—dairy products and pigmeat products. These are the only two areas in which, if British farms are to expand at home, there is any potential. In dairy products we are, according to my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills), 70 per cent. self-sufficient. I thought that it was 65 per cent. In pig-meat we have about one-third deficiency potential.
When the Minister goes to Brussels, it is absolutely essential that in his talks with his counterparts in the EEC he in no way impairs or trammels the possibility for expansion of British farmers in these two vital areas. It does not matter so much in sugar, because we have Third world responsibilities. Neither does it matter so much in beef or potatoes in which we are pretty well self-sufficient. It does not matter so much in cereals either in which overall we are near enough to self-sufficiency. But in pigmeat and dairy products there is still potential for expansion on the farm at home. It is vitally important for the Minister to bear that fact in mind every minute of the day, both in the House of Commons and in Brussels when he is negotiating with our partners. Hon. Members on both sides of the House want to see British farmers close this one-third self-sufficiency gap in dairy and pigmeat products if this is possible.
In relation to the regulations that we are discussing, it is vital to have the interpretation of what the Minister will discuss in Brussels made more clear than it has been. On the dairy regulations, the Minister said that these were still open to interpretation. But it seems to many of us that the proposed Council regulation restricting investment aids for milk production imposes greater restrictions than were intended by the Council in its statement. It seems also that the drafting removes most of the flexibility of the provision for a maximum increase in the herd of 15 per cent. Why has the Minister settled for a figure of 15 per cent.? Should not the potential be there so that we can aim for a higher increase of, say, 20 per cent.? Economic conditions being what they are, a farmer, almost overnight, can be forced out of one commodity and into another. An increase of 15 per cent. is not necessarily the right figure. I should like to see it increased to 20 per cent.

991
I turn to the pigmeat document. It is not absolutely clear on the definition of a "pig place", but this is absolutely critical. Again, these words should be defined as soon as possible. As the document is drafted, it allows for 550 pig places. That appears to be unfair to the United Kingdom because it would certainly affect United Kingdom producers more harshly than their EEC counterparts. It is vitally important to let United Kingdom producers expand so that they may have a chance to close the gap between present home production and self-sufficiency.
The dairy document provides for an increase in the maximum number of cows—more than 60 cows or 15 per cent. The pigmeat document provides for a maximum of 550 places. Perhaps the Minister could incorporate a percentage increase there as well so that the larger pig producers in the United Kingdom will not be prejudiced by the size of the herd.
I should like an assurance from the Minister that, if the figure of 550 is agreed and a producer has 600 pigs, he will not be debarred from a grant in total. I want an assurance that he will get grant aid on the first 550 pigs even though he would not qualify on the balance.
I want to stress the importance of the theme of self-sufficiency. As I said, in a number of products there is no room for expansion. I do not wish to see great expansion in sugar because we have commitments to the Third world countries to allow their sugar in. In pigmeat and dairy products we still have potential for home expansion. We are not self-sufficient in pigmeat or milk products to the tune of 30 per cent. or 35 per cent. When one takes account of the fact that last year we had a deficit of £3,000 million a year in our general balance of trade with the EEC, and compares it with a surplus of £200 million in 1970, one sees how vital it is to fill the gap in these areas, not only to assist British farmers to expand and to give them hope for the future but to help our country generally in its grave economic problems and its balance of trade with the Community. It is staggering that we have dropped from a surplus in 1970 to a deficit of £3,000 million. We
992
can do a little to help by allowing people to produce more of those two commodities at home.
I hope that the Minister will keep my remarks in mind when he is talking to his Community colleagues in the next few days. I support the proposals.
5.10 pm
Mr. Wm. Ross: As I listened to the speeches of some hon. Members I wondered whether they had forgotten the title of the motion:
"Proposed pig and dairy restrictions."
The intention behind the Community documents is to restrict EEC output of pig and dairy products. Some hon. Members appear to believe that the measures can help to increase production. However, a definite effort is being made to cut down total EEC production, including that of the United Kingdom.
The effort should be directed to dealing with the Continental structural surplus, which is none of our affair. It has its roots in the small farms on the Continent, where the farmer cannot make a living in anything other than the intensive production involved in poultry, pig and milk products.
The motion states that the Government's intention is
"to safeguard the essential interests of United Kingdom producers."
However, the surplus in the EEC is not evenly spread, and even within the United Kingdom production is not evenly spread. There are peculiar regional problems, especially in my part of the United Kingdom, as the Minister knows. The proposals will have an adverse effect on producers in those areas.
The United Kingdom has a deficit in the two products. What case is being made in Europe for a reduction in the United Kingdom production? Long ago the battle was lost. It was lost with regard to milk on the day that we accepted the co-responsibility levy. By that we admitted that we must shoulder part of the burden for overproduction on the Continent. As a representative of the British people and as a farmer, I cannot accept that. United Kingdom production is efficient and helps our entire economy. Since we accepted that responsibility, Ministers have one hand tied behind their

993
backs. That is not a reasonable way to proceed over these proposals.
We cannot allow production in this country to restricted. It will not help the producer or the country. By accepting the draft document, we will deny producers just below the limit the necessary economies of scale and specialisation. That will apply especially to the producer with 40 or 50 cows who wants to replace equipment.
When a farmer has to replace equipment he chooses more up-to-date and efficient equipment. I remember hand-milking in the smaller farms. Such farms either vanished or installed milking machines. The next step was to install a milking parlour. Today we have the rotary parlour. The more efficient milking machinery the farmer chooses, the higher the cost. It requires massive investment of many thousands of pounds to move from a straightforward milking parlour to a rotary parlour, not only for the equipment but for the stock to make it viable. The proposals will block the young, thrusting farmer who wants to improve his enterprise and become profitable. That is what concerns me.
Therefore, will the proposals succeed and restrict United Kingdom production? Undoubtedly the climate will be less favourable for the farmer wishing to increase his stock. However, at the end of the day it comes down to money. If the enterprise is profitable and it is worthwhile making the quantum leap and paying the bank for the money, the young, thrusting farmer will go ahead.
The entire proposal is a house of cards. It is nonsense; it cannot succeed. Like everyone else, farmers are ingenious. A farmer who has 50 cows will aim for 60, 70 or 80. If he cannot do that honestly, he will find a way around the regulations. The more complex the regulations, the more loopholes there will be, and there will be more people looking for those loopholes and finding them. A plant that is constructed to deal with 50 or 60 cows can just as easily deal with 70, 80 or 90. If a young farmer wants to make money, he has to work long hours. The extra hours spent in the milking parlour are neither here nor there for a few years. He is prepared for that. Thousands of young farmers are doing it.
994
The Minister said that the proposal concerning pig production was more straightforward. I do not agree. It is much more complex and difficult. Like a cactus, it bristles with problems. In regard to the 550 pig places, what does the term "pig place" mean? By greater efficiency, better quality of stock, buying his pigs a little later or keeping them for a shorter period a farmer may raise his throughput. What standards will be laid down for the size of pens? Can they house 10, 11 or 28 pigs? What is the position with sows, boars or rearing young stock?
The language is inadequate to deal with the complexity of the situation. If the intention is to cut down production, why not set an upper limit for the number of pigs per farm?
What will be the definition of a farm? Will it be a holding restricted to a certain number of pig places, or will there be a definition of a farm business? Will a farmer, his wife and two or three sons all be able to run such a unit? There are so many holes in the proposed system that it is not so much a scheme as a roll of netting wire. I do not believe that it is workable.
The nonsense of the system will become increasingly apparent, and eventually the EEC will have to look for something else. It may turn to other means of restricting United Kingdom production. We already have the problem of the super levy on milk and in Northern Ireland we face the problem caused by the failure to get the Italian levy on grain, which is having a major effect on our pig production.
Is not the most effective way of bringing down milk production to increase the levy on overproduction? If so, why have the Government, the Community and everyone else shied away from that? Why do the Government continue to accept that we, who have a deficit, should pay that levy? Why are the areas of overproduction not squeezed? We do not want to reduce our own production. We need that. We must reduce other people's production. Let us be a little like the French and adequately look after our own interests first.
There are considerable social implications in all this. It is intended that we should create the same income and the same size of farm production per unit.

995
That is the sort of social and economic engineering on farms which I thought the Conservative Party would not welcome. If there is one lesson from history, it is that imposed sameness cannot work.
Farm incomes are vastly different in every country, for many reasons—climate, land tenure systems, the individuality of farmers, their attitude to life and so on. Seeking to get a sameness of farm incomes would be like trying to get a sameness of income among all the industrial workers in this country. It would be impossible. Too many people forget that farming is not one enterprise but a series of industries with different interests, incomes and needs. Trying to treat them as the same, even with specialised production such as milk and pigs, is the road to nowhere. It cannot succeed.
The practical difficulties have been clearly illustrated in our experience of green money and the MCA system in the Common Market. Those were internal tariffs in what was supposed to be a free Common Market and they made a nonsense of the CAP system. The Government's motion does not solve the problems of agriculture in the EEC, any more than did the internal tariffs.
As always, the Minister was smooth, helpful and willing to make the best of a bad case, but he could not make a silk purse out of this old sow's ear. He tried hard, but he missed the bone of contention of the farmers and the country generally. A proper defence of the interests of our farmers requires a swing back to a national farm policy for our own needs rather than an attempt to look after the national needs of our trading opponents—not partners—on the Continent.
5.26 pm
Mr. Paul Marland: I am a practising farmer, and I commend the motion to the House. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) in his well-merited attack on the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), whose memory seems to be so short. When the hon. Member was at the Ministry a mere 18 months ago, he had the opportunity to do something about the problem, but he seems to have forgotten that and prefers to point the finger at the Government
996
for everything that appears to be going wrong.
The United Kingdom farming industry is one of the success stories of this country. It never fails to react to any offer, and I am sure that it will react to the new grants in the way that the Government hope. Its record is second to none, whether on output per man, increased productivity, return on capital or anything else. Our farming industry is second to none.
Nevertheless, the ravages of inflation have had their effect on agriculture in this country as in every other country, and I welcome the idea of structuring the grants to physical limits rather than to financial limits. The suggestion that they should be limited to 550 pig places is slightly unclear. I hope that it refers to 550 sow pig places, because if that were the yardstick there might be considerably more incentive for farmers to expand their herds.
The 15 per cent. increase in dairy herds is also welcome. It has been suggested that the limitations would reduce the output from our farms, but the EEC committee that studied the matter said:
"The Committee note that any proposals to restrict the benefits to smaller enterprises is discriminatory against the United Kingdom where the farms are generally of a larger size than those of other member States."
There is no thought of restricting output in this country.
There is no doubt that surpluses are in the interests of our people. There would be far more screaming and protesting if there were shortages rather than surpluses. We should look at surpluses as being a good harvest and be glad of that rather than continually being upset by them.
Mr. Wm. Ross: How does a surplus of butter sold to Russia benefit the people of this country?
Mr. Marland: If we have a bad season, there will not be grass available to produce butter, cereals or whatever. We are sensible to maintain a surplus, because if we have shortages the situation will be considerably more serious. There is not a housewife in the land who does not keep a bit extra in her larder or a farmer who does not seek to put more hay in his barn than he thinks he will need

997
just in case things go wrong. It is a reasonable insurance policy which we should support.
Another aspect of the team who negotiate on our behalf which I welcome is that it is prepared to grip the more difficult problems of the CAP and do something about them. Labour Members have complained for a long time about the CAP, but when the Labour Government had the opportunity to influence it they did nothing. They seemed to specialise in giving away the opportunities of our farmers to those in Europe.
We must put the interests of United Kingdom farmers on a par with those in Europe. It has been said that we are the only country in the EEC that abides by the letter of the law. In many ways, that is something to 'be proud of, but we must seek to ensure that all the other countries act in the same way. We must put ourselves on an equal footing with our European partners. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind when he next goes to Brussels.
I want, finally, to echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West said in pointing out the imbalance that could creep into British agriculture. If we do not seek to maintain the prosperity of the livestock sector of our industry, there is no doubt that, little by little, it will go down to such a level that it may not be sufficient to support our people. If that happens, where will our cereal farmers find a ready market for their output? We must seek to maintain the balance between the two sections of the industry.
5.30 pm
Mr. Mark Hughes: I apologise to the House in general, and to the Minister in particular, for having had to be absent for part of the debate, the reason being the fact that a certain number of the Minister's constituents are engaged in prison activities in my constituency at present in a most effective way. I wish that the activity of successive Ministers of Agriculture had been so successful in coping with the deep problems of the dairy sector.
When I listened to the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills), I became aware of a dichotomy. He is in favour of the common agricultural policy and of British membership of the Community, and yet he says that we should do nowt
998
about Britain because we do not contribute to the surpluses.
Mr. Peter Mills: We want fair treatment.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman said that we should do nothing about Britain because we do not contribute to the surpluses. Part of the difficulty which we found in the Select Committee when we considered dairy products was that we contributed to the gross Community surplus as much by our falling consumption as by our increase in production. We may pretend otherwise, but if British consumption of dairy products in 1978, 1979 and 1980 had held up to the level of 1972, 1973 and 1974, a lot of the Community surplus of butter, for example, would not have been created.
The price that the Community enforces upon Britain causes consumption to fall. The price that the Community offers to farmers is such that the production of milk which cannot be taken off in liquid form but must be used in the manufacturing sector in butter or cheese increases. Ten years ago, about 80 per cent. of British milk was consumed in liquid form. We are now down to 55 per cent.
Any solution starts from one of two postulants. Either the Community has too many cattle, or it has too many farmers who depend for their income on the milk cheque from the dairy that is consequent upon those dairy cattle.
If it is argued that there are too many cattle, at a desperately and wholly unacceptable level the logic is a slaughter policy, preferably resulting from some virulent form of foot and mouth, because that does not cost too much. That is wholly unacceptable. However, if we could reduce the number of dairy cattle producing milk which is in surplus to the order of about 17 per cent. throughout the Community, that would have a marvellous effect on Treasury balances, Community budgets and the other silly things. But it would not solve anything.
If we look at the reality, we see that, by better breeding and better feeding, the ability of the Community dairy herd to increase the surplus beyond that which can he consumed at the ordinary market price within the Community cannot do other than grow. This affects especially, though not exclusively, the Southern Irish

999
dairy herd. I marvel when I hear suggestions from those who historically are in favour of British membership of the Community that we should go for national quotas. We shall not hold down the Southern Irish to an average yield per lactation of 750 to 800 gallons and quota the Dutch on imported soya and manioc at 1,500 gallons-plus per lactation. That is not the way to reach a decent relationship between potential production in the Community and reality.
We have to realise that the potential production of grass plus imported protein so far exceeds the potential consumption within the Community that the imbalance is permanent, is escalating and is financially and fiscally probably out of control.
There is no point allocating blame as between Commission, Council, this Government, the last Government, or anyone else. We have to realise that, by the mid-1980s, the gross amount of milk produced in the Community will so far exceed the ability of the Community to take it off in the form of cheese, butter, liquid milk or any other product that the Community will be fiscally bust. Politically, its dairy farmers cannot command a respectable vote to continue support at its present level.
That is the crux of the problem. Dairy farmers cannot anticipate political support to be given subsidy from other sectors of the agricultural or non-agricultural economy to keep them in business producing more and more which no one wants and which no one can buy other than with taxpayers' subsidy. The ability of hon. Members such as myself to persuade coal miners and others in Durham that it is right to supply butter to Russia at half the price at which they can buy it is strictly limited. If the market continues to be over-supplied because the price through intervention is too high, we run into that political impasse.
What do we find when we look through the long history of the common agricultural policy? The key is the price fixed on behalf of particularly German but also French feed grain suppliers. It may appear a long loop down an economic chain, but it is easy to raise the price for dairy farmers in the CAP so long as one holds down the feed grain prices.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. I understand that we are discussing an investment programme, not a question of prices.
Mr. Hughes: I accept that entirely, Mr. Deputy Speaker. An investment programme, however, must be geared to profitability. That is the criteria of the investment programmes of the particular enterprise on which one is engaged. To accord with the terms for an investment programme, one must show that within a certain specified time the income per standard man day rises to a particular point. If the input cost of food for cattle goes down, that profitability is reached whatever happens—even if the end price is held constant.
In judging these criteria of investment qualifications and stating that to qualify for this sort of grant one has to achieve a certain income per standard man day, it is essential to recognise that income is affected by the input cost of feed grain. If that input cost goes down, the ability to achieve that standard man day income is materially affected.
While accepting, at the first stage in the elaboration of this argument, that it might appear that I was straying, I trust, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will agree that the development of the argument is wholly allowable.
The key to the whole common agricultural policy has been the determination of the relativity between European-produced feed grains and American maize. Successive Ministries of whatever political party have never got to grips with that situation. If the input cost of grain is reduced, providing an upward movement of the green pound, that is equivalent to lowering the costs of the livestock farmers. This might not attract the cheers of some of the barley barons. They are shipping it off to Poland and Russia. I have not seen many of them going bankrupt in the last few years.
I am worried about this aspect of the proposals. I question the premise that the price relativity of milk to feed wheat is sacrosanct. I disagree with this Government as I disagreed with the Labour Government. We have held that price relativity to the detriment of pastoral and livestock farming in the United Kingdom for the better part of 10 years. That has been wholly wrong. When we start to

1001
question that relativity and to say that it is not that milk is at too high or too low a price but that the input of protein and other feed grains into milk production is wrong, we may start to find a solution.
Turning to the social problems, we find that the common agricultural policy has failed totally to inhibit rural depopulation in this country, in France, or elsewhere. The exception, curiously enough, is Bavaria where part-time farming produces curious anomalies. A man whose prime income comes out of the Bavarian Motor Works does not care what inhibitions are slapped on dairy farming. He is doing it not for profit but for joy.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is stretching the motion rather far. I should be glad if he would come back to it.
Mr. Hughes: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are discussing the restrictions on dairy premiums. It is essential, I would have thought, that her Majesty's Government should not agree to an arrangement under which the same restrictions are imposed on British dairy farmers and their sole source of income as apply against BMW workers who are not affected a tuppenny rap.
I conclude, to your great relief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the rest of the House, by saying that if the Government continue to pursue a policy of price restraint in the dairy sector and continue to support regulations on restricting aid to the dairy sector, it is clear that the other eight members of the Community will have a more profitable dairy sector, will benefit and survive better than the whole of the United Kingdom. I am surprised at the attitude of the Minister of State. The hon. Gentleman knows the figures for Scotland where the fallout from dairy production——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not part of the order before the House. I ask the hon. Gentleman to confine his remarks to the question of investment.
Mr. Hughes: Hardly any dairy enterprise in Scotland can make use of these investment facilities. They are already over the odds. That is why the arrangements under these facilities are disadvantageous to the British dairy industry. The problem is that these arrangements are to the disadvantage of the British
1002
dairy industry precisely because that industry is already so structured that it cannot make use of the arrangements. With the greatest deference to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be told that it is out of order to indicate that this situation hurts the British industry I find a little difficult. I hope that the Minister of State will accept that, in acceding to these regulations in their present form, he will do considerable mischief to the British dairy industry.
5.50 pm
Mr. Ian Lang: In order to avoid detaining the House unduly, I propose to confine my remarks to the dairy industry. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said that the state of the dairy industry is not the same in all the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. I agree with him. As the Minister confirmed in the House last Thursday, production in England and Wales increased in the last year whereas in Scotland it fell. Estimates of how much it fell vary. In different parts of the country it fell between 3 per cent. and 7 per cent.
In my constituency grass grows best. This year there has certainly been plenty of it. However, with the unduly high rainfall the nutritional content of that grass is somewhat open to doubt. The grass is ideal for fattening sheep and cows and for the production of milk but it is of little use for anything else.
Farmers in my constituency have little room for manoeuvre. However, even there, milk output is falling. Close to despair, the farmers are leaving the dairy industry and switching to beef—perhaps out of the frying pan into the fire.
Returns to dairy farmers are down by about 7 per cent. in real terms compared with last year. In order to restore incomes in real terms to the 1977–78 level, about 6p on a pint of milk might be needed. I hasten to add that I am not asking the Minister for that this evening. However, it illustrates the size of the problem.
In answer to a question on the dairy industry last week the Minister said:
"we have done our best to try to maintain incomes."—[Official Report, 30 October 1980; Vol. 991, c. 688.]
I accept that substantial increases in the price of liquid milk have been granted

1003
since the Conservatives came to power. Three price increases have been granted in the last year. However, like Oliver Twist I feel that there is a need to come back and ask for more as a matter of urgency.
In the House last Thursday the Minister said that since May 1979 food prices had gone up by 15·6 per cent. compared with an increase in the retail price index of 25·2 per cent. That is commendable as a reflection of productivity in the farming industry but it also confirms how relatively worse off the industry is, especially when, as I am reliably informed, in the past year farmgate prices have increased by only 4·6 per cent. The dairy industry believes that it has justified the price increase requested in June and that it is needed more urgently than ever. The ½p granted in Scotland out of the 1 ½p September increase was not nearly enough for the industry's needs. Incomes have dropped in real terms year after year. Bank borrowings are increasing year after year, with all the attendant problems of high interest rates.
The chairman of the Scottish milk marketing board, Mr. Robert Lammie, is one of my constituents. He is a wise, sensible and moderate man and yet he was driven publicly to burn the cheque for over £700,000 which represented the July to September quarter of the co-responsibility levy raised in the area for which his marketing board is responsible. He took that action because of the strength of feeling in the industry, that when we are only two thirds self-sufficient sums such as that, drawn off a far from prosperous industry to fund the common agriculture policy, make an excessive demand upon that industry. I do not approve of his action but I understand and sympathise with the strength of feeling behind it. As we contemplate the super levy I ask whether we cannot try to move towards a position where countries are increasingly responsible for disposing of their own surpluses and are increasingly able to react to their own deficiencies.
The Minister recently promoted the slogan "Buy British." That is certainly a good slogan for British agriculture. It helps the farmer by supporting his product and it helps the housewife to whom it commends those products. They are
1004
products of a high quality, in stable supply and available at reasonable prices. How can we urge people to buy British while, at the same time, we are driving down production in an industry which is only two-thirds self-sufficient? "Buy British" might be a good slogan, but "Produce British" is a better one. Unless we encourage that slogan in the dairy industry, soon there will not be much that is British left to buy.
The reduced levy for the first 60,000 kilograms of milk produced in less favoured areas is an almost negligible concession. It is time that we placed the responsibility for co-responsibility levies where it lies. Some hope attaches to the Binder Hamlyn reports on the arrangements for determining the costs of processing and distributing liquid milk in Scotland. I understand that the studies are based upon improving the mechanism for determining the costs, returns and profitability of producers and distributors. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends, when considering their findings, to try hard to find ways of improving returns to producers.
The situation in the Scottish dairy industry is serious. Productivity and efficiency are unrivalled. I urge the Government to take full account of the present position and to react to it urgently, otherwise, according to the considered opinion of many close to the industry, the industry will have difficulty surviving.
5.55 pm
Mr. David Penhaligon: I am not a farmer, but some people say that I sound more like one than many farmers who have spoken today. I rarely speak in agriculture debates, but I listened with great interest to the Minister explaining the European package. I am more used to him explaining fishing issues. I can see now why he likes fishing, because that is simple compared with this topic.
I cannot see how the package can lead to an overall reduction in the production of milk products. That must be achieved in Europe as a whole. I am prepared to defend marginal surpluses, because they are to the general advantage of the longterm sanity of providing food for our people, but no one can argue rationally that a 20 per cent. surplus in milk products can be defended in the long term, year after year.

1005
Just who will reduce his milk production? It has been said that some of the new investment is to increase the efficiency of small farmers in order to reduce the great price push from them on to the whole European market. I can see the logic of that. We understand the situation. The argument is that the price push comes from the small farmers in Europe, and that if we make them more efficient there will be less price push from that direction, but that will also produce a lot more milk. If I misunderstand the logical outcome of the argument, perhaps the Minister will explain. If my understanding is not incorrect, who in Europe will be asked to reduce milk production by about 20 per cent.? Will it be the British, the French or the Germans; the big farmers, the middle-sized farmers or the little farmers? Clearly, somebody will have to reduce his output of milk. I can assure the Minister that we shall argue that it should not be the British farmer, since we are 60 or 70 per cent. self-sufficient.
When the Minister enters negotiations in Europe, on whom does he have his eye? Who does he believe should reduce milk output by the quantity necessary to bring us to a sensible surplus? I imagine that 5 per cent. would be a reasonable aim. If we managed that figure it would be regarded as a triumph—whether that figure is right or not.
The Government can claim to have discouraged investment in Britain with tremendous success in the past 18 months. Rarely have a Government succeeded so well. Perhaps the Minister would care to hand on to his European friends the suicidal way in which that policy can be pursued. The policy is to expose small businessmen to interest rates of approaching 20 per cent. for investment money. That will reduce investment. That effect can clearly be seen in our industrial sector, and the farmers in my constituency know that the same thing is happening in their industry. The fall in British milk production in the past 12 months is probably much more to do with that than with the various changes and machinations of policy that have flowed from the European Community.
I suppose that it would be out of order to raise the case of the farm worker, but
1006
it is a case that must be pleaded. An answer to a parliamentary question last week revealed that the national average wage in Britain is now £124——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has answered his own question.
Mr. Penhaligon: I should have thought that with a short speech I could have been shown a little tolerance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are hardly enough hon. Members here to keep the debate going. However, I have mentioned a certain figure for the average national wage. Farm workers in my constituency constantly talk to me about the investment policies of their farms, with an eye to their securing a greater proportion of the national wealth. When I revealed that statistic to them it produced a response of total and sheer disbelief, a disbelief born of the lack of investment programmes in their industry.
That is a scandal and I am sure that most people wish, more than anything else, that the burden that is imposed upon the farm worker and the rural areas of Britain through lack of a sensible policy could be lifted. The constant excuse that that "cannot be done this year" is just not satisfactory.
I wish the Minister well in the negotiations. I do not see how anyone could oppose the motion. It speaks of the Government's intention
"to safeguard the essential interests of United Kingdom producers".
Perhaps the Minister will tell us what are the non-essential interests. We might then be a little clearer about his aims. There is no doubt that the backbone of the rural economy is agriculture. It always will be. Other industries may come and go, but agriculture is always there, and that applies to my constituency and those of the good sprinkling of rural Members who are here tonight. Even if the mining boom that I expect for my constituency is realised, agriculture will still be the backbone of our economy, as it is of the economies of Devon, the rest of Cornwall, Somerset, the Borders of Scotland and elsewhere. An intelligent, long-term investment programme is needed.

1007
I wish the Minister well, but he is probably going to Europe in pursuit of an unattainable policy. I conclude with a question: who on the other side of the Channel does he think will reduce his milk output by the quantities that we are discussing to bring the Community back to a more sensible European surplus?
6.4 pm
Mr. Colin Shepherd: I agree with the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) that agriculture is the backbone of this country. It certainly is in Herefordshire. I was sorry that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) opened the debate for the Opposition by belittling the occasion. It is an important occasion, and it will be recognised as such within agriculture. The debate has been seen by many hon. Members on both sides of the House as an opportunity to demonstrate the importance that we attach to the subject.
I thought that the hon. Gentleman's remarks were remarkably chameleonesque. It was as though he was trying to merge with the colour of the Tribune group below the gangway. Was the small voice of Blackpool telling him: "You had better get any support for the Common Market out of your head if you want to go places in our party"? I detected a remarkable change in the hon. Gentleman's outlook from when he was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I welcome the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The tactics that he outlined are fully in accord with securing what I should like to see—an equivalence of competition between the United Kingdom milk and pig producers and their Community counterparts. That is most important. It is easy to lose the United Kingdom picture within the totality of the Community. We do that at our peril. The Government are Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They must take into account all aspects of their duties in that respect, bearing in mind the total Community context. Therefore, we cannot fault the Minister's objectives in his approach to the Brussels negotiations.
I echo the fears expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) that increased complication within the Community regulations could lead to
1008
more shenanigans, more going round the side and more misinterpretation. We have to be careful that that does not happen, and I hope for effective policing and scrutiny of the regulations as they are implemented.
The United Kingdom national interest and the objectives of our Government must remain to optimise our position within the Community framework. Our best aid for milk and pigmeat producers at present must be the positive MCAs, based on the strength of sterling vis-a-vis the basket of currencies. The value of sterling internationally would not necessarily fall with a reduction in interest rates. The strength of the oil base is far greater than we often think, and we shall retain positive MCAs for a considerable time. We need to examine our approach to the Community negotiations and our position within the Community with that in mind.
Another important factor is that our Minister is the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and that the agriculture and food components emphasise the need for an even-handed approach between producer and consumer. So often in the past there has been a balance in favour of the consumer, with the producer appearing to be taken for granted or neglected. Otherwise, it is felt that he is getting too much anyway and, we are asked, whoever saw a broke farmer? We should not sacrifice the producer. That is contrary to the longterm interests of British agriculture.
I welcome the second part of the motion, which emphasises the need for the Government to recognise the requirements of the producer in their negotiations. The consumers have not been served well by the neglect of the producers over the past few years. During the period of the last Administration, food prices rose by 120 per cent. Since May 1979, when the Government came to power, food prices, according to the answers to parliamentary questions last Thursday, have risen by 15·6 per cent., against a 25·2 per cent. increase in the RPI. That is a solid improvement in relative terms. That has been achieved against a background of looking after the producer. There have been two devaluations of the green pound to remove the disadvantage under which the producer was working.

1009
We must recognise the way in which farm incomes have been falling. During the last two years of the Labour Administration they fell distinctly, and the trend has continued. I worry about that. It is wrong for the long-term health of British agriculture, and it is bad for the consumer. I see no joy in the British producer being squeezed out of the market, leaving the consumer with a total dependence on imported produce. It is not good enough.
The support for United Kingdom agriculture expressed by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) is important. It means that all is not lost as far as the Labour Party is concerned. There are elements working in that direction. The plea that he made for British agriculture, especially for the producer, will make it possible, eventually, for the agricultural worker to be paid the amount of money that we want to see paid, but while the producer is screwed down he will not be able to recognise properly the services of the agricultural worker. The consumer must recognise that.
Opportunities are open to us because of the 10 per cent. positive MCA position that we now enjoy. Under the Labour Administration the agriculture industry in Britain was crucified by a negative green pound differential—a negative MCA. We saw imports flooding in. The pig meat industry was crucified. It was not good enough for the hon. Member for Rother Valley to deny that that happened under Labour Government. I recognise and recollect that in 1973–74 British pig producers were feeling the pinch, but that is nothing compared with the expressions of fear that I heard from them during 1976–77, when there was a 40 per cent. green pound differential working against them.
It was not convenient to remember that was it? At that time Danish bacon came into Britain with a £240 a tonne advantage, the MCA was split two ways and our producers were undercut every time they tendered for a major hospital or Government contract, so they did not get the contracts. The Association of Bacon and Meat Manufacturers can underline that, because its representatives came to the House and expressed that point of view.
1010
We now have a positive MCA—10 per cent. We have the advantage, and I want to see it used. I want to see the British pigmeat producers and processors taking this opportunity to move both into overseas markets and the markets in Britain which, traditionally, have been taken by importers, and so push back the tide of imports. Import substitution is within our grasp, and that must be beneficial for Britain—not only for the pigmeat producers and processors, but for the overall balance of payments. That is a real contribution that agriculture can make.
There is an export potential for milk products. When I walked around the markets of Brittany in the summer—just across the water from Plymouth—I carried out my own survey. I could not and a single piece of British cheese on the stalls in the markets, in the shops, in the delicatessens or in the up-market supermarkets. It is important that we recognise that we have a financial inducement to export milk products of that sort, If we do not take advantage of that market, our milk industry will not maximise the potential that it now has on a plate.
The motion says that the House
"particularly in the dairy sector, supports the Government's intention to safeguard the essential interests of United Kingdom producers."
That relates not only to the detail of the instruments before us, but to the whole philosophy, and must be taken seriously. Producer incomes have been falling, and we allow that to continue at our peril. Agriculture is contributing to the economy, and we must bolster that whenever possible. We must do so by looking after producers and consumers evenhandedly. That means recognising, sometimes, that it is important that consumers might have: to pay a penny or two more to ensure the continuity of supply.
When we can come to the negotiations for the price review this year, it is important that our Ministers resist any attempts to revalue the green pound, except as part of a package that will benefit British producers and consumers even-handedly. As I indicated, the consumer will not be well served if the producer is squeezed out of business. Ensuring a proper and reasonable return to producers is the best way

1011
to serve both British agriculture and the consumer.
6.15 pm
Mr. David Myles: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate, especially as a farmer—though I hasten to add not as a dairy or pig farmer. I sincerely hope that I shall not stray into other fields.
We cannot debate the motion in isolation, because it is part of the strategy of the Council of Ministers to deal with CAP problems as a whole. Many speak of the necessity for CAP reform. Many point out the weaknesses and anomalies in that policy. Many, especially from the Opposition Benches, but not exclusively—where are they now?—want to wreck the EEC. But few propose constructive actions that will be acceptable to the Community as a whole and to our national interest, our agricultural interest and our consumer interest. All those interests are intertwined, and no one can be pursued to the exclusion of any other.
I realise that the proposals are aimed at assisting the achievement of market equilibrium in those sectors, but I doubt whether they will have much effect in isolation. There is great danger in this piecemeal or bitty approach. The CAP faces two crises—a cash crisis and a production crisis. Much of the debate on CAP reform centres on whether the problem concerns the need to limit production or to find new financial resources. The present danger is that the exhaustion of financial resources will lead to the CAP existing increasingly alongside a black market of national aids. I shall return later to national aids.
A striking fact about CAP expenditure is the high proportion devoted to export refunds—49·3 per cent. Hon Members must ask themselves who benefits from those refunds—the farmers, the exporters or the third country to which the exports are directed. Many of the products exported are in a processed or semi-processed state. A high proportion of Community agricultural expenditure is directed therefore not to agriculture, but to industry, or even to third countries.
I wish to draw attention to the fact that export refunds on butter were fixed at 1,630 European units of account until June 1980. They are now 1,000 Euro-
1012
pean units of account. That is possibly a way in which we can reduce the financial requirements.
Given the constraints on the budget, measures directly encouraging the producers to improve efficiency, so that consumers can benefit from a lower cost of production, should be given priority. I therefore question whether as a result of the proposals we shall hit the right target. Although I doubt the wisdom of all capital investment encouragement, there has perhaps been a little too much of that, especially in the area suggested by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), who spoke of rotary milking parlours. Such machines—great big things—cost a great deal of money. There was Government support for them, but the machines are now being declared obsolete by a large number of producers.
Surely the way in which we must limit the surplus production of milk and milk products is by exposing producers to some extent to the cold wind of market requirements. In other words, responsibility must be imposed—whether or not one calls it coresponsibility—in areas in which surplus production occurs.
I was attracted by the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) of national quotas—though I would add "related to national consumption". My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Lang) spoke of the burning of the milk co-responsibility levy cheque by the chairman of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board. That is the marketing board in the south of Scotland. We have a different one further north, and that obeys the law. The action by the French Government to which that act related was taken in the last quarter of 1977, when Labour hon. Members had some say in these matters. Since then the French producers have paid their co-responsibility levy as they were required to do.
I must speak of pig production. It is of considerable interest to me, as my constituency at one time was responsible for the production of half the pigs in Scotland. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) spoke about the benefit to our pig producers of positive monetary compensatory amounts. Much modernisation has taken place in both the dairy and pig sectors,

1013
but we must ensure that our producers are not disadvantaged compared with our European partners. That point is included in the motion. If sufficient resources are not made available, further national aids will be granted to fill the gap. National aids result in an uncontrolled increase in production.
The size of the present budget, particularly in the dairy sector, can be put down to the effect of national aids. Therefore, it is essential that the Council of Ministers finally has the courage to act to control the competition in national aids, first, by publishing a complete register, and, secondly, by deciding on compatibility with the EEC Treaty.
I share the reservations of my hon. Friend the Minister about the proposals, but I give him the benefit of my confidence in his ability to achieve an agreement that will meet the necessary broad strategy.
6.24 pm
Mr. Selwyn Glimmer: I am pleased to have the chance to take part in the debate, because my constituency has perhaps the largest pig herd in the country. Therefore, the contents of the document that we are discussing are very important to my constituents.
My constituency is one of the last remaining really agricultural constituencies. Its largest town has a population of only 8,000. Therefore, the concerns of agriculture are vital, as a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have said.
The subject of the debate is more than the investment arrangements for the pig and dairy sectors. The motion also asks us to have confidence in the way in which the negotiations will be conducted by Ministers. We should start there, because one of the great sadnesses among the agricultural community concerns the way in which, over a long time, it lost confidence in how the negotiations were conducted. There was a time when the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) appeared to think that it was a kind of virility symbol to come back from Europe having bashed the farmers. It was a very serious matter that a Government who were hopeless at home at defeating inflation would go abroad in order to kick that one section of the community that did not have many votes in the marginal constituencies that the Labour Party was
1014
determined to keep, though, happily, it failed to do so.
This is a valuable opportunity to say that over the past 18 months we have had a Minister who is both the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Food, and that the essential balance between the continuation of supply, the encouragement of the producer and the protection of the consumers' interests has existed.
I am pleased that the motion has been framed as it has, because it is important to say that the agricultural community now feels that it has a ministerial team in which it has confidence. It has a number of things to say to that team, but it is important to start by stating that it has confidence, because at least we are negotiating and discussing within a series of given facts. The farmers and our neighbours in the rest of the Community realise that we are discussing these issues on the same basis as they do—in other words, that we are all members of the Community, that we intend to go on being so, and that we want to find the best answer to the problem facing the whole Community.
That is a totally different atmosphere in which to discuss such matters compared with that which obtained before. There were then members of the Community, on one side, and on the other representatives of the Government, concerned to undermine, undervalue and write down any success that might be achieved within that Community.
Therefore, I take seriously, and not as a polite bow in the direction of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the part of the motion which refers to
"the Government's intention to safeguard the essential interests of United Kingdom producers."
This is not a Conservative Party conference motion in which we thank God for whatever department we are talking about; it is a serious statement about a very important change in the atmosphere of discussion in Europe.
Therefore, I find it sad that Labour hon. Members have shown such a remarkably short memory of the situation up to 18 months ago. We have heard not a word of congratulation about the fact that we now have positive monetary compensatory amounts, a change that helps us compared with that long period in

1015
which our industry was driven underground and agriculture used as the one way in which the previous Government could try to have some hold on the progress of inflation.
Mr. Cohn Shepherd: Does my hon. Friend agree that even now the Labour Party wishes us to throw away the advantage of positive MCAs? Does he recall that at Question Time last Thursday the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) demanded that the positive MCA advantage be thrown away?
Mr. Gummer: Not only do I recollect it: I noticed it at the time because it was the first occasion on which I heard a Labour Member refer to the MCAs in a way that showed that he understood how they worked. That was an advantage, but the suggestion that we should use them against the interests of those who have been sat upon for so long was particularly sad.
The British pig industry is seriously affected by these proposals. We have had a good deal of debate about the industry, without any recognition that these investment proposals are particularly interesting because of the special problems facing our industry in comparison with those of other countries. Self-sufficiency, or partial self-sufficiency—we cannot yet supply all our own needs—is a question not just of production, but of selling what we produce. One of our difficulties is that our industry, which is second to none in quality of production, has not been able to accept, or to impose upon itself, the discipline and marketing arrangements that exist in other countries.
We should therefore consider carefully how encouragement is given, to realise that we have a peculiar difficulty which we must put right ourselves and that putting it right will mean a profitable industry, rather than reliance on outside support. It is only from profits that we shall be able to improve our ability to sell our pigmeat. We should ensure that if the industry is profitable it will be able to expand. Positive MCAs present a great opportunity for the pig industry to expand, and we should encourage it.
In those terms, one problem with the CAP is that we have still been unable to draw a distinction between two very
1016
different ends, and these proposals highlight that difficulty. The CAP tries to do two things at the same time: first, to provide reasonable support for reasonably profitable and economic producers; and, secondly, to provide a "social fund" to help those who will never be very profitable, but who should be enabled to continue to live in rural areas where alternative employment is difficult to find.
In trying to do one of those two things, one often fails to do the other. The balance is difficult to strike. I suspect that we are near the best balance that we can achieve for pigmeat. We shall have almost as good an answer as we can hope for if the Minister can achieve the additional objectives that he has mentioned tonight and the system can offer some safeguards.
Some of the producers in my area are worried about the definition of pig places. That is particularly important in an area such as mine, with a large pig capacity. We are also concerned about one or two other concessions that the Minister outlined and about ensuring that the balance is maintained so as to give some help to the small producer. It is no good pretending that all small producers are on the Continent and should therefore be ignored. Some small producers in this country need help, and this proposal is a move in that direction.
However, there are other problems, which these proposals do not meet. If, as the motion says, we are concerned to
"institute useful measures to reduce the cost of the common agricultural policy, particularly in the dairy sector",
I hope that the Minister will see this as the beginning of a process and not the end.
If we are prepared to go this far in compromise, we should encourage our EEC colleagues to understand that since we are prepared to take part of the burden of reducing the cost of dairy products and pigmeat, they must be prepared to take some of the burden in other areas. One area in which they could help is sugar. I hope that that will be borne in mind in the discussions. We must take seriously some disadvantages in the proposed system, which I hope that the Minister's proposals will overcome.

1017
Many of us believe that unless we keep a close eye on investment help to the dairy industry, many new ideas will be latched upon too readily without being worked out in practice. The rotary parlour was at one time the agricultural equivalent of the language laboratory. At one stage no one was able to do without one, yet experience has shown that large sums were spent unjustifiably on these machines.
This is the essence of the problem of agricultural support for farmers' capital expenditure. It is important to ensure that one does not make viable a project that would not be commercially possible without help. We must ensure that the Community does not spend money on encouraging farmers to do things that they would not choose to do on a basis of pure commercial profit. These proposals may help to achieve the balance that will avoid such mistakes.
There are some ancillary problems attendant upon any change in the operation of the CAP. Farmers in this country should not feel that farmers in other member States can use these arrangements to circumvent the rules. We hear a great deal about other people cheating. We sometimes overdo the argument that we are whiter than white, while others are always on the fiddle. We must get confidence in the operation of this proposal, as of all other proposals.
I was particularly worried that, having demanded strict controls to ensure that other member States did not avoid the rules, Labour Members in our recent debate on fishing opposed a common control in that area, with shouts about "foreigners checking on the British". We must ensure that the Community can check on all its members. We must be checked as well if we are to demand that the Germans and French are controlled.
I hope that the Minister will not budge from his determination to see that others keep the rules and that checks are made on everyone. We must not only see that these proposals work but ensure that my constituents have continued confidence in the Community's ability to provide fairly for the needs of agriculture.
No one in this country should be able to say, "We are law abiding and others are not", or we shall see more of what has happened in Scotland, with people
1018
either breaking, or pretending to break, the law of the Community—which is, after all, made by ourselves and our neighbours together. That is not the attitude that we want to encourage. I was sorry to hear some hon. Members, even Conservative Members, suggesting that we should start bending the law in order to parallel other Community members. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and my hon. Friend the Minister of State must make sure that they do not fall into that trap. They must do their best to ensure that the control mechanisms are clearly there and that we can all support them in saying that these regulations will be laid equally on the backs of all Community partners.
If we are to do so in that way, we must return to the question of individual national aids. It would be no use having Community control, even if it were perfect Community control, of the Community arrangements if that avoided a close note being taken of the individual arrangements of national aids which some countries may seek to use to avoid the effects of these proposals. It is vital that my constituents should know that they they are on all fours in competition with our neighbours in the Community. If we give that fairness, they will then react and win through. If they think that they are being done down unfairly, my constituents will feel that they are not properly represented in these negotiations at Brussels. I ask the Minister to ensure that the agriculture community will have confidence that the European Community will control and regulate these proposals so that they fall fairly upon all member nations.
6.42 pm
Sir Anthony Meyer: I am glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer), with his impressive grasp of agricultural matters and his obviously close eye on the all-important pig industry in his constituency.
I should like to return to two matters about which my hon. Friend spoke: first, the necessity to ensure that controls are effectively policed, and, secondly, the dual role of the common agricultural policy to ensure a steady level of food production in Europe and to look after the interests of poorer, weaker farmers. There is possibly a third role for the common agricultural policy—arresting the drift off the

1019
land. I shall suggest later that it might become an objective of agricultural policy to encourage people, little by little, to go back to the land.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) said that he was surprised that this debate should be held in prime time because it was secondary in importance to other matters. His attitude has been borne out by that of Labour Members, only one of whom has been here throughout the debate, and only three of whom have contributed to our proceedings. The attendance by Labour Members has not been marked, as is usual for debates on agriculture——
Mr. Hardy: Conservative Members claim to represent the agriculture industry and rural England, but their attendance today is not such as to justify the criticism of the attendance of Labour Members by the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer).
Sir A. Meyer: The attendance is about five to one, but let us not get too bogged down in that argument.
I find some difficulty in intervening in this debate, probably because my knowledge of agricultural matters is slighter than it should be, and also because I find it difficult to understand the implications of the document. I listened carefully to the Minister of State, but I was not clear at the end of his exposition about the direction in which the document was going, about the status of the document or about what sort of policy was likely to emerge.
The common agricultural policy is the favourite answer of all those who dislike the European Community, and, indeed, of many who favour it. I remember that when I argued for British membership of the Community I said again and again that the agricultural policy was the price that we had to pay for the other advantages. Things have changed since then. The other advantages have been slower to come than we expected at the time, but the agricultural policy has proved to be more of a two-edged weapon than it seemed during our negotiations for membership. At first it seemed to consist of nothing but drawbacks, but now that Britain is a member of the Community, although the CAP is cumbersome, and although there are many difficulties, in the
1020
long term it offers this country vital safeguards.
We should not forget the importance of the CAP to the European Community as a whole. It is the only common policy that is working 100 per cent., and which has been working so since the beginning. It may be working badly, but it is in full operation—which is more than can be said for a common energy or transport policy. Therefore, it has an enormous symbolic importance to the other countries of the EEC.
If we want to convince our European partners that we are sincere in wishing to make a success of our membership of the Community, we must be careful about the language that we use in criticising the agricultural policy. I noticed that particularly when I attended the recent Bordeau conference between France and Britain, at which the Prime Minister made a superb speech. One French speaker after another insisted that the CAP must remain. It could be changed, amended or brought up to date to suit modern circumstances, but there could be no question of doing away with it. If we are wise, and if we wish to achieve our other objectives in the Community, we would do well to remember the vital, almost emotional, importance of this policy to our European partners.
Much as the short-term workings of the policy and the prices fixed under that policy have operated to our disadvantage, particularly in producing the enormous budgetary contribution that we were obliged to make until the skill and determination of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister secured an effective renegotiation—unlike the sham that the previous Labour Government went through—that should not be allowed to conceal the long-term advantage to this country, which is more dependent than almost any other industrialised country in the world on outside food supplies, of being firmly anchored into a community which is self-sufficient in food. We should never allow the temporary difficulties, objections and stupidities to blind us to the single overriding truth. In a hungry world we are part of a community which can feed itself and which has a duty to help the hungry world with its food problems. Many Labour Members feel that the Community has not done that as well as it should have done, but that is not a

1021
reason for pulling out; it is a reason for doing even better.
If, as seems only too possible, the common agricultural policy collapses under the weight of its budgetary deficit—it is already knocking at the ceiling of the own resources mechanism of the Community—and if agreement cannot be reached through the mechanisms of the Assembly, the Commission and the Council of Ministers on a revised budget that will fit agricultural expenditure into the amount that can be raised and still leave a margin for the other Community activities, I do not believe that that will serve the interests of anyone. It certainly will not serve the interests of the Community, it most certainly will not serve the interests of the farmers, and in the long run it will not serve the interests of the United Kingdom.
That said, if the common agricultural policy is to survive, it will be necessary for national aids to play a somewhat larger part than they have played up to now. There has to be a larger role for national support to agriculture. That is why it becomes so important to ensure that these national aids do not constitute—or do not appear to be constituting—any kind of cheating.
I was a little sad to listen to so sensible, balanced, reasonable and knowledgeable a Member as the hon. Member for Bother Valley (Mr. Hardy) talking as if he were addressing his suspicious general management committee and was anxious to prove himself more jingoistic and more suspicious of all foreigners and their works than any Right-wing Tory. I am sure that in his heart of hearts he recognises that this kind of attitude is not merely part of a general dislike of the European Economic Community. It all too easily spreads over into something that is prevalent in the Labour Party. Under the disguise of wishing Britain out of the EEC, some Labour Members pander to the crudest kind of xenophobia.
For those of us who do not have any great hatred of the Labour Party and remember that in the past it has stood for some things which even we on the Government Benches can admire, it is sad to see it going over so totally to that crude kind of hatred of foreigners and all their work. We hear a great deal of talk about how the French have been
1022
cheating over national aids in helping farmers to pay the co-responsibility levy. The media are extremely guilty in this respect. Particularly where French matters are concerned, they will fasten on to the slightest allegation and blazon it in the headlines as a fact.
It emerged at Question Time on Thursday that since 1977 the French Government have not been paying the co-responsibility levy on behalf of their farmers, and that occurred under the previous Labour Government. Since the Conservative Government have been in power, the French have obeyed the rules.
This all emphasises the importance of what my hon. Friend the Member for Eye was saying about the value of having effective laws that are effectively enforced, and, even more important, the value of giving our people the confidence that these laws are being observed. That necessarily implies some kind of policing. If we expect other people to accept inspection, we in our turn must accept it. That was clearly demonstrated in the discussions that took place over the enforcement of fishery limits and catches.
In these complicated and turbulent waters, with all their cross-currents, it is extraordinarily difficult for those who navigate to keep the ship going in the right direction and to keep it upright. Like all my hon. Friends on the Government Benches—those who are enthusiastic about our membership of the Community as well as those who are, to say the best, halfhearted—may I say that I have great confidence in the team now in the Ministry of Agriculture and the way in which it is conducting an extremely difficult operation and preserving a balance. We have great confidence in what the team is doing and strongly support the proposal tonight.
6.53 pm.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply to the very interesting debate. When we embarked on it this afternoon I scarcely expected either the length in time of the questions or the breadth of the issues raised. The number of contributions and the strength of feeling indicate that, although, on the face of it, this may appear to be a simple matter of investment aids in our dairying and pig industries, it nevertheless raises a great

1023
number of issues which hon. Members on both sides of the House realise are important to their constituents and to the industries concerned. I am therefore, most grateful for the contributions which have been made.
What the House has to bear in mind, and what I have to bear in mind particularly, is that we do not have before us a definitive, precise, proposal from the European Commission. What we have before us—here I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), who quite justifiably complained about the complication—is a proposal which at first sight, in terms of its objectives, was relatively straightforward and easily understood but which, in the course of its gestation, has become more and more complicated in one way or another. Indeed, at the Council meeting next week we shall still be seeking clarification of exactly what is meant by it.
It is not a simple, clear "Yes" or "No" that my right hon. Friend and I will have before us next Monday and Tuesday. It is not absolutely clear what we shall have before us. We shall have to consider what is before us and seek clarification of precisely the kinds of point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West and others. Then, in the light of that clarification, and in the light of the contributions made in the debate, my right hon. Friend can come to conclusions on how we should deal with this matter in the Council of Ministers. I express my thanks, therefore, to all those who have contributed to the debate. It will certainly help us, in coming to our conclusions, to have had the benefit of the opinion of the House.
I respond to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) that we should watch matters carefully. I am accustomed to hearing him say "Watch i "to me in various circumstances. I am alive to this need. That is one of the reasons why we need the clarification—in order to ensure that different countries do not have different interpretations. If that were to happen, it would simply compound the risk of and scope for discrimination against the interests of the British dairy farmer and the British pig producer. I assure my hon. Friend and other hon. Members
1024
that we shall be watching these matters carefully.
In looking at the general background of the two industries, it is important not to get the debate out of perspective. We are talking about aids to investment, but we would be kidding ourselves if we were to feel that the presence or otherwise of an investment aid is the prime consideration of a dairy farmer or pig farmer before he makes an investment. Most dairy farmers and pig farmers that I know are primarily concerned about the profitability of their enterprise or industry.
That is why, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although your predecessor in the Chair was at one point rightly concerned about the width of the debate, in investment matters the general profitability of the industry is relevant. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) made that point particularly strongly. I accept what he said in relation to some parts of the country where profitability, for a number of reasons—I have not time now to go into them—is not as good as in other areas. Such questions affect the decisions of those farmers to a much greater extent than whether investment aid is available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer) also referred to that point. I take note of it and would never regard a simple programme of investment aid as a substitute for what has to be done in relation to prices and to other returns, whatever the economic climate in which the industry is operating and whatever the bank rate may be. That is the background against which an industry has to operate, and what happens in the area of investment aids, although important, is secondary to it.
The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) made a fairly penetrating contribution to the debate. I share to a great extent his analysis of the problems in the dairy industry and the pig industry. As he said, over the last number of years in Europe we have got the relativities wrong between the arable sector and the livestock sector. I should be trespassing if I were to embark on that subject in this debate. I accept that we shall not get that right by playing around with investment aid. More fundamental decisions will have to be made. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) also spoke about imbalance

1025
within agriculture. I assure him and the hon. Member for Durham that we are alive to the issue. It is our broader policy to try to get the balance right. When that is achieved, we shall be much better able to tackle the problems of profitability within the different sectors of the industry.
I share the view of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) that we should not be too modest about what we can achieve in terms of dairying costs. We have heard of the difference that high feed and grain costs mean to the dairy producer. One answer is the greater use of grass and grass fodder. A number of farmers have shown already what can be done in that direction. It is a different form of production. In some instances it is less high cost production and in others a more expensive form of production. It is one of the ways in which we can meet the dilemma. The central purpose of the restriction in investment aid is to try to reduce surpluses in Europe and to reduce the cost of the common agricultural policy.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) appreciates that we are seeking to allow farmers who operate on a small scale and who are below the general level of efficiency to achieve a higher level of efficiency. We want to help those farmers. It is not necessarily wrong in a social and economic sense to try to do so. The hon. Gentleman is right to argue that if that policy is successful smaller farmers will increase their production and will add to the surpluses. The hon. Gentleman asks why the policy is being followed and where the crunch comes. If the policy works, it will mean that at each annual price fixing prices will not be pitched at a level to cover returns to less efficient producers.
It is true that smaller and less efficient producers will be increasing production. However, if we can operate greater price restraint at annual price fixings to cover the broad spectrum of producers, that element of price restraint will apply to all producers. If we can cause all producers, especially the larger ones, to exercise more restraint, that restraint will be greater in proportion to the additional production achieved by smaller producers. The argument is not necessarily contradictory. It is right in some instances to encourage smaller producers to increase
1026
their income. I should like to see that happen in the way that I have described.
Mr. Penhaligon: I am interested in what the Minister is saying, and his argument fits in quite well with my comprehension of the issues. There will not be many small farms that will produce more milk, but many of the larger farms will be able to do so. Is the Minister going to Europe with a clear determination to return with a package that embodies a substantial reduction of milk production in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: No. The hon. Gentleman's argument relates to the second part of the motion. Many more farmers will be exempt from the restriction on investment aid in other countries than in the United Kingdom. We believe that within the narrower band of expansion that may take place there will not be discrimination against the more efficient farmers in Britain. We are accepting a restriction in aid so that those who seek to expand their production with the means of investment aid from the Community will do so within a limit or ceiling.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) fairly asked "Why 15 per cent.?" There is an element of rough justice. If misery is to be caused by restriction in investment aid, our assessment is that we should aim at a balance of misery across the different countries of Europe and the different dairy producers in Europe. The implications of the 15 per cent. restriction will equate roughly with what we believe will be the restriction placed on other European producers. We are seeking equality and an element of non-discrimination to ensure that our producers, whether in the dairy or pig sectors, are no worse off than anyone else.
Mr. Farr: Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to reflect on the possibility of having a similar let-out for pigmeat as for dairy products so that the same percentage increase for both products is permissible?
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall consider what my hon. Friend has said on that topic. In the pig sector there are already upper and lower limits on capital expenditure. We believe that the 550 pig places

1027
provision, if there is clarification of precisely what that means, will roughly equate with the upper limit. The 15 per cent. provision would be to add another element that would be a relaxation in some respects of the present restrictions.
If we accept in principle that there should be restrictions, we are seeking to ensure that they do not hit our producers harder than other European producers. We shall consider my hon. Friend's proposal in that light.
My hon. Friends the Members for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) and Eye spoke forcefully of fairness and policing. My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West argued that, if the scheme is too complicated and uncertain, others will seek a way round it. I hope that I am always frank with the House. As the proposals stand, they are totally unsatisfactory in that respect. I did not try to hide the reasons from the House. There is discrimination and their application is not clear. We shall be entering the negotiations with the object of obtaining clarification. If we get it, we shall do our best to ensure that each country of the Community puts the same interpretation on the proposals so that our producers are on an equal footing with producers in the other countries of the Nine.
If we are to deal effectively with surpluses, are we not playing around with the problem by introducing restrictions on investment aid? Should we not return to more effective methods such as national quotas and more national policies and aids? This is not the time to enter into that argument in great depth. It has been taken up by my hon. Friends the Members for Banff (Mr. Myles) and Galloway (Mr. Lang). Those who follow the debate on agriculture in a wider sense will be
1028
aware that I have spoken on a number of occasions about the need to consider reform of the CAP to deal with surpluses in a wider and more open way than in the past.
One way in which we could approach this issue is through some form of national financing, but I should be wrong to follow that road now. I assure those of my hon. Friends who have raised this subject that the mind of the Government is open not only to suggestions as regards methods of national financing but to any sensible suggestion from the Commission or from the Government of any other country as to how we could more effectively contain such surpluses and thereby the cost of the CAP.
In recent years, debates on agricultural policy, both in the United Kingdom and Europe, have started from the basis of prejudice. That is one of the great problems. If one country favours one system, it says that it must hold to that system. If one party says that one system is right, another says that it is not prepared to consider it. The problems of surpluses in Europe and the reform of the CAP are such that all of us, no matter what our standpoint, must be readier to listen to constructive suggestions, from whatever quarter they may come. It is in that spirit that this Government will approach the problem.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community document 9280/80 concerning proposals for Council Regulations restricting investment aids for milk and pig production and while welcoming the objective of the proposals to institute useful measures to reduce the cost of the common agricultural policy, particularly in the dairy sector, supports the Government's intention to safeguard the essential interests of United Kingdom producers.

NATIONAL DOCK LABOUR BOARD
7.10 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move,
That the draft National Dock Labour Board (Increase of Loans Limit) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 27th October, be approved.
The Dock Work Regulation Act 1976 limits the amount which the National Dock Labour Board is permitted to have outstanding by way of principal on loans to £10 million but makes provision for that amount to be increased by order to an amount not exceeding £30 million. The effect of this draft order is to increase the limit to £30 million. The purpose of this additional loan facility is to enable the NDLB to finance further voluntary severances of registered dock workers. There is no other purpose and no loan has in the past been made for any other purpose.
Registered dock workers were excluded from the scope of the Redundancy Payments Act 1965 at the industry's request. Instead, a national voluntary severance scheme was established in 1969 by agreement within the national joint council for the industry, and it is under its provisions that the number of registered dock workers has declined from 54,000 to under 24,000, with remarkably little industrial disruption.
The national voluntary severance scheme is administered by the NDLB, which has the statutory duty of keeping under review the size of registers of dock workers in each port. The scheme provides for severance payments according to scales calculated by reference to length of continuous service, in addition to a basic payment. The cost of such severance is met by levies upon employers, calculated as a percentage of gross wages in the industry, and paid through local dock labour boards. The maximum that may be awarded on severance under the scheme is now £10,500, which would be applicable only in the case of a man with not less than 20 years service. That was agreed within the industry in September, because the previous maximum of £8,500 was failing to attract volunteers in sufficient numbers to deal adequately with surplus dock labour.
1030
The scales of severance payments are a matter for the industry rather than for the Government. Compulsory severance is possible, but it is the employers' own preference—expressed through the National Association of Port Employers—to achieve reductions in surplus labour by virtue of voluntary rather than compulsory means.
Although the severance scheme is financed by employers, successive Governments have made loans to the NDLB to spread the costs falling on the industry over a reasonable period. Without such assistance port employers would face the need for frequent adjustments in levy, which might cause considerable difficulty in fixing prices. The 1946 Act, under which the present dock labour scheme was made, contained provision for the Minister to make loans to the NDLB towards the cost of operating schemes. Loans totalling £11 million were made by my Department under this provision between 1969, when the national voluntary severance scheme was introduced, and 1975. Authority for such loans is now contained in the Dock Work Regulation Act 1976, and £2 million in all was loaned under this provision in 1977 and 1978. With the exception of some £200,000 repayable by February 1982, all these loans have now been repaid.
Earlier this year, it became clear to the NDLB that the number of severances required in the near future was likely to be considerably higher than in recent years, and that this was likely to lead to cash flow difficulties for the board. In April, my right hon. Friend agreed to a request for a £6 million loan for severance from the Government and authorised the board to borrow a further £2 million by way of bank overdraft. Subsequently, approval was given last month for a further £1.8 million loan to meet the board's current needs, as the scale of the industry's likely severance requirement began to emerge more clearly. That has brought the board's borrowing up to the prevailing limit of £10 million.
The upsurge in the number of surplus registered dock workers is evidently due to a combination of the current recession in world trade and the continuing containerisation of cargoes, which has greatly reduced the amount of conventional cargo-handling in United Kingdom ports.

1031
I understand from the NDLB that it anticipates a total of 3,000 severances being needed in this financial year with substantial further numbers being needed next year. This might mean a considerable sum of money being required by way of Government loan.
The Government believe that they should stand by the industry in its efforts to reduce its labour force. If those efforts are not successful, more registered employers will go to the wall and the future of some of our major ports will be in jeopardy. The port employers have agreed to increase national severance levies by two percentage points by January 1981 and the Government accept that a higher increase in present circumstances would only aggravate the industry's difficulties. The balance of current severance costs will therefore need to be met from loans.
It is very much in the immediate, as well as the long-term, national interest that the existing surplus labour in the ports should be shed on terms that are mutually agreed. It is fair to say that, when the present limit was fixed for outstanding NDLB borrowing, no one foresaw the scale of the problems that the industry subsequently encountered, or the need that has emerged to increase the scale of severance payments. In the light of present estimates, it is prudent to ask parliamentary approval for the £30 million ceiling permitted by the 1976 Act. I accordingly seek the agreement of the House to the motion approving the draft order.
7.17 pm
Mr. Harold Walker: The Minister began his speech by referring to the powers under which this order is made. They are contained in the Dock Work Regulation Act 1976. The Minister was not a member, as I was, of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill. I should like to remind him that his right hon. and hon. Friends not only opposed the provisions under which the House is making this order but voted against any such provision. If my memory serves me right, they voted in favour of curtailing and reducing the borrowing powers embodied in it.
Today's order is welcome evidence of some degree of Government conversion. Fast may that conversion grow and
1032
spread into other fields. Perhaps the Government are being compelled by reality to face up to the facts. Perhaps we have witnessed a triumph of experience over hope. Perhaps it is a "Mayhew turn". I hope that it will lead to bigger U-turns. The doctrine of non-intervention may be diminishing daily, or weekly.
The Minister did not mention Liverpool, but there is little doubt that the timing of the order received some stimulus from recent events in that city. The Government have been pushed along by the recent irresponsible action of mindless militants on Merseyside, who have acted in flagrant breach of a national agreement. During September, it almost caused a national dock strike. I refer not to members of the Transport and General Workers Union or to members of any other union but to the ports employers, or at least some of them. In particular, I refer to the West Coast Stevedoring Company, which is owned by the tax-dodging Vestey family.
I quote from The Guardian of 12 September which said in a leader that day:
"It was the refusal of the hard-strapped Liverpool employers to pick up the pay tabs for 170 dockers to be declared redundant as their employer goes out of business which sparked the current strike threat."
I doubt whether anyone, by any stretch of the imagination—and I am not being indifferent to the very real problems of some employers in the industry—could claim that the Vesteys were "hard-strapped", which I presume means hard-up. Incidentally, despite what the Minister said, there has been no significant decline in the number of licensed employers in the last five years.
I am not given to invoking the Daily Mail in my aid, but on 18 September that paper said:
"The Liverpool employers went looking for 'bower'."
It is really regrettable that it took the threat of a national dock strike to bring those employers to their senses. We not only have this order before the House; we have the reaffirmation and the improvement of the national voluntary severance scheme, together with a clear commitment from the National Association of Port Employers. I shall quote from a letter signed on 18 September by

1033
the secretary of that association. It said:
"The Port Employers accept that the existing practice will continue whereby the temporary unattached register will not be used except for the strict purposes of administering disciplinary procedures within the terms of the National Dock Labour Scheme."
In a separate letter of the same date the National Association of Port Employers, through its secretary—reaffirmed that unemployed dock workers would be reallocated by the appropriate local board to other registered port employers. Indeed, it might be for the benefit of the record if I quoted the letter in toto. It was addressed to Mr. Tom Cronin, who is the secretary of the workpeople's side of the National Joint Council for the Port Transport Industry. It says:
"Dear Mr. Cronin, The decision of the National Port Employers is that before 30 September 1980 registered dock workers currently employed by T & J Harrison and Bulk Cargo Handling Services Limited"——
the employers who were going out of business and whose employees had to be reallocated—
"will be reallocated by the local board to other registered port employers to commence employment on 1 October 1980."
Then comes a significant sentence.
"This agreement and procedure will apply nationally to the ports industry, Yours sincerely, E. Bainbridge."
Not only do we have the order as a consequence but we have reaffirmation of the practices that have been so beneficial in the last few years in improving industrial relations in our docks industry.
Perhaps there are some hon. Members who will say that these pledges were wrung out of reluctant employers only by the threat of strike action. Once again I quote the Daily Mail dated 18 September:
"However potentially damaging to the nation, it is a legitimate brandishing of the strike weapon."
That was the threat of industrial action that might have led to a national dock strike in September. In this case in Liverpool just a few weeks ago it was the employers who were jeopardising good industrial relations which had been painstakingly built up over the last few years.
I quote again from the leader in The Guardian. Hon. Members might think
1034
that I have some prejudice and bias in these matters which they might not feel is shared by The Guardian newspaper. That paper said:
"Which militant and well-organised union has shed well over half of its members in the past five years without a single serious stoppage? Which supposedly aggressive and strike-happy band of brothers has, through those five years, changed its image from one of 'mindless militancy' to almost excessive respossibility? The answer, in both cases, is the Transport and General Workers Union docks section. As the threat of a national dock strike, the first since 1972, looms on the horizon, it is worth remembering that the industrial relations and industrial efficiency in the docks have improved out of all recognition in recent years. Much of that improvement is due to the imagination and foresight of the former TGWU boss Jack Jones and Lord Aldington, then chairman of the Port of London Authority, who eight years ago, brought the last in a series of national dock strikes to an end with an unprecedented new deal for the dockers."
In the same leader The Guardian said:
"It is time to make them (the dockers) an offer that they can't refuse: an offer far, far higher then current rates. That will involve further Government subsidy. In this case it is justified."
The revised national voluntary severance agreement with the increase in the maximum payment still falls a long way below that which The Guardian leader writer calls for. The order provides not for the subsidy to which the leader refers, but a loan which must be repaid with interest. The Minister, if he replies to the points that have been made, can perhaps tell us what rate of interest the National Dock Labour Board will be charged on the loan. He also might tell us whether the board has given any indication of the drawings it intends to make against the new ceiling.
It is worth my emphasising a point that the Minister made—that dock workers are not included in or covered by the provisions of the Redundancy Payments Act. When hon. Members or the public generally look at the maximum scale of compensation payable to dock workers for loss of jobs, they should bear that fact in mind. It is no less important to recognise that few, if any, of the port areas of Britain can offer fresh employment to a redundant docker. Certainly that cannot be done in Liverpool. Severance from dock work invariably means severance from employment. If the House needs to be reminded of this I am sure that the dockers do not.

1035
There is undeniably surplus labour in the docks industry. Hon. Members need only look at the most recent annual report of the National Dock Labour Board. The facts are spelt out there. It would be unrealistic, indeed naive in the extreme, for us to imagine that a man contemplating the prospect of joining the long-term unemployed will do other than put a very high price on the job that he already has.
I have already referred to the great benefits that we have derived from the Jones-Aldington deal. When I say "benefits that we have derived", I mean not only the dock industry, the employers and the workers but the Government and the nation as well, because they have received benefits, too. We all hope that the good industrial relations that have been built up will continue and will be strengthened by provisions such as those to which I have referred and which have been made possible in some degree by the order that we have before us.
We must be prepared to pay for those benefits. That means not only enabling the National Dock Labour Board to borrow the sums that it needs but, where necessary, enabling it to do so on preferential low interest rates for long-term loans. The Government must be prepared to approve the necessary grants needed. They must be prepared to will the resources needed for retraining dock workers. I shall resist the temptation to link that with the criticisms I have made frequently in this House, and will continue to make, about the Government's cutting down of the provision that we make for training when it is crucially important in this area. We all recognise that there is an excess of labour in the docks and that it is in the interests of the ports industry to ease the transfer of that labour out of the docks. We must try to do so, not only by providing financial incentive but by seeking, wherever possible, to retrain dockers for other employment and to make sure that the opportunities for that other employment are available. That also means providing new employment opportunities in the port areas such as Liverpool, where at present job prospects are appallingly grim.
We welcome the order and give it our blessing. However, we should like the Minister to comment on two recent
1036
articles in the Journal of Commerce. My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) may also be seeking information about the same matters. On 22 October that publication carried two deeply disturbing articles. The front page states:
"Shock report may kindle dock strike.
A national dock strike—supported by Continental port workers—is being openly discussed in UK ports.
The strike talk is prompted by rumours of a special Transport Department report, said to be scheduled for release on November 4, which proposes fundamental changes in the way the country's ports are run …
The jobs of some 1,500 Liverpool registered dock workers are likely to be axed and up to three times that number among ancillary staff are believed to be in jeopardy.
The Transport Department's report is thought to contain a hard-hitting plan to abolish local branches of the National Dock Labour board".
The House is entitled to know whether there is a scrap of truth in that report. I believe the report to be nonsense, and I am sure, therefore, that the Minister will welcome the opportunity to say that no such report is pending and that such proposals are not contemplated.
The second article refers specifically to the port of Liverpool again and states:
"The port of Liverpool will go bankrupt … unless it receives an injection of cash from the government.
This is the stark truth contained in a secret report drawn up by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Company and the National Ports Council …
Among the clutch of proposals is a plan to slash the number of registered dockers in the port by 30 per cent.—about 1,500 men—and cut white collar employees by about 16 per cent. over a two-year period."
If those reports are false, the workers in the Liverpool docks and the community there are entitled to have them slapped down as hard and as quickly as possible. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know better than I from first-hand experience that Liverpool has gone through a sustained period of agony. If there is a crumb of truth in those reports, it can only add to that agony.
The Minister may not have the information with him to enable him to comment, but if he can find out as quickly as possible and assure my hon. Friends representing Merseyside constituencies, the dockers and the community in Liverpool. that there is no substance in the

1037
report, I shall be grateful. I repeat that we welcome the order and will give it our blessing.
7.34 pm
Mr. Allan Roberts: I have the privilege to represent an area in which a good proportion of the Liverpool docks is situated. A lot of activity in those docks takes place in Bootle and not Liverpool. The containerisation at Sea-forth, which is a profitable part of the dock activities, is in my constituency, as is the profitable grain terminal. I speak, I hope, with the support of the Transport and General Workers Union employees who work in the docks in my constituency, many of whom also live there.
I, too, welcome the amazing conversion of the Government resulting from the action taken by the workers in the Merseyside docks in refusing to allow the employers to use a back-door method to make 170 men redundant. It is amazing to hear that public money will now be used to assist. On Wednesday 25 June 1980 I asked the Minister of Transport whether he would give financial assistance to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. He replied:
"I do not accept that costs incurred by harbour authorities should fall on the tax-payer."—[Official Report, 25 June 1980; Vol. 987, c. 184.]
He may have avoided the strike threatened in the Summer Recess had he said then what has been said today.
I welcome the order as a small contribution towards helping solve the problems that the dock industry is facing, although it is too little too late. Much more needs to be done. The Minister said that the ability to borrow up to £30 million that is being given through the National Dock Labour Board will be for severance schemes only. I believe that loans should be given for other reasons to assist docks in decline in Merseyside and elsewhere.
In the past financial year the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company made a £7·5 million loss, including a £1·8 million deficit on its trading operations. Over the years it has paid out £20 million in redundancy payments to dock workers. Last year it paid £1·5 million to dockers for whom there was no work, although it also received £1·5 million. It is investing in the docks to try to move from labour-intensive to capital-intensive acti-
1038
vities at half the rate that such investment should be taking place if the company's future and that of the whole of Merseyside is to be secured. It believes that it should be investing between £10 million and £12 million and is investing only between £5 million and £6 million. If more money was made available, the investment programme could be stepped up and the docks, Merseyside and the country would prosper.
We cannot criticise the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company or the workers for not trying to do what they can within the limited finances available. The Liverpool register of dock workers has been reduced from 9,541 in 1972 to 5,186 at the end of March 1980, which is amazing. That has been done without conflict between management and unions. The unions have co-operated fully in shedding the labour that needed to be shed and modernisation has taken place where the capital was available. The reason why there is not more modernisation is that there is not enough capital.
It is interesting to note the management's view of the trade unions in the docks. Mr. James Fitzpatrick, the managing director and chief executive of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, said:
"I can't believe the dockworker is naturally militant. If he is not given security during a period of change he is going to find himself easily taken down the road by somebody who is going to cause a fracas."
It is because security is lacking and because Government support has not been given to Merseyside that trouble has been created and we faced the threat of a dock strike.
We want the order to be taken further. We want the Government to give aid to the Docks and Harbour Company in the way that the Hamburg authorities and the West German Government give assistance to the port of Hamburg. The company has to dredge the estuary at its own expense. Services such as lighting, which are paid for by taxpayers and ratepayers in other countries have to be paid for by the company and that is reflected in its high costs for loading and unloading.
We want the fact that Merseyside has development area status to help the port. The docks and ports services are classed as service industries, and, although Merseyside has development area status.

1039
the 22 per cent. grants for new investment are not available for the port, which is the biggest industry in the area. Because the Government consider it to be a service industry it does not qualify for the grants.
We want more money from the EEC development fund. We have had £1·37 million from the EEC regional fund, but we want more and we want the Government to get back some of the British taxpayers' money so that it can be invested in Merseyside. We want about £20 million—that is the company's estimate—as a one-off grant to relieve the burden of voluntary severance payments, thereby releasing cash for essential investment and capital investment.
The interests of my constituents, those employed in the docks and the whole of Merseyside are related to activities in the port. The prosperity of Merseyside is dependent on the Government acting as they have in introducing the order, but in going much further to ensure that Merseyside has a future. If there is not an injection of State capital into Merseyside on a bigger scale than is proposed. the docks will die and the company will not be able to solve its problems. It is suffering considerably from the recession in world trade, the domestic recession and the changing pattern and nature of trade. If we want Merseyside to prosper and to be saved, the docks must be saved, and for that to happen the Government will have to be converted a little more than they have already been converted.
7.46 pm
Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful for the welcome given to the order by the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) and by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts).
The right hon. Member was entitled to his fun, and I am only sorry that there was such a small audience to share my enjoyment of it. However, I must tell him that there has been no lightning conversion of the Government as a result of the threatened dock strike on Merseyside. The need for an injection of severance financing by way of a loan was evident earlier in the year and the Government agreed to the full loan facilities requested by the industry. In consequence, we ran up against a statutory
1040
ceiling of £10 million, and we have to seek the authority of Parliament under the 1976 Act to go above that. We seek approval of the order simply to continue the Government's existing policies. The Government have to use the existing machinery to do their best to help the industry to shed surplus labour.
The right hon. Member for Doncaster asked what rate of interest would be charged on the loan. The interest payable will be calculated on a daily basis by the Treasury under section 5 of the National Loans Act 1968 at the lowest rate that would apply to a loan from the national loans fund of the same class and maturity, made on the date that the loan, or part of the loan, is taken out. That means that it will be charged at preferential rates. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the precise rate, but there will be an advantage compared with the rate that would be payable if the money were raised on the open market.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what amount was likely to be drawn if the estimate of 3,000 severances this year were fulfilled. That sum would be about £12 million. He said rightly that in an area of high unemployment a worker is motivated to put a high price on surrendering his job. That is a problem that the industry has come up against, and that led it to agree in September to increasing the maximum severance payment to £10,500.
I must dispute the charge of the hon. Member for Bootle of an amazing conversion. He suggested that taxpayers' money was being poured out of a cornucopia. As I indicated earlier, it is a loan and not a grant, and the whole amount that has been lent to the NDLB under this and preceding legislation has been repaid, with the exception of £200,000, which will be repayable shortly. The money is coming back to the taxpayer with interest, but we believe it right to help the board and, through it, the industry to finance the shedding of surplus labour without imposing unnecessary strains on port employers.
The right hon. Member for Doncaster asked me to comment on an article in the Journal of Commerce on 22 October, which suggested that there was a report that recommended the abolition of local dock labour boards. I am happy to give an assurance that the article represents

1041
a mine of inaccurate information. There is to my knowledge no truth in it, and no such report.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether a report had been made by the docks and harbour company about future prospects of the port of Liverpool. I understand that a report has today been furnished to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport by the company. I have not seen it, and I am not in a position to tell the House of its contents. There is a report that addresses itself to that matter, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman no more than that. However, I think that he is likely to be more greatly concerned about the first report, which I categorically deny.
Mr. Allan Roberts: My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) asked the Prime Minister on 31 July this year if she would meet a delegation of Merseyside Members and others to discuss the future of the docks and harbour company. The Prime Minister said that the company was carrying out a study, with the assistance of the National Ports Council, into the finances of the port, with the aim of drawing up a new profitability plan. She suggested that a meeting could successfully take place after that report had been prepared. Now that a report from the company is in the hands of the Minister of Transport, will the Under-Secretary undertake to facilitate a meeting?
Mr. Mayhew: I do not think that any facilitating by me of a meeting between the interests which the hon. Gentleman represents and the Prime Minister would be necessary. The Prime Minister gave an accurate answer at that time, as one might expect.
1042
The hon. Member asked whether the Government should make grants for a number of other objectives, all of them desirable, as anyone who has visited Merseyside recently, as I have done, would know. However, these are matters which are far outside the scope of this order. The Government are concerned here to extend a loan facility. They are not in the business of making grants, as has been made clear.
To conclude my remarks, I need only reiterate what I said at the outset. A substantial reduction in the number of registered dock workers has been made with the minimum of industrial disruption over the past 10 or more years. I acknowledge willingly what the right hon. Member for Doncaster said about the co-operation of the trade unions in bringing that about. It is always sad when a traditional industry is obliged by world forces and technological forces to contract, with a corresponding loss of jobs. I believe that it is right that everything should be done to bring about that contraction of jobs with as little hardship and with as much agreement as possible.
It is because the Government believe that in this context the machinery provided by the 1976 Act gives them a means of assisting the industry itself to bring about this contraction in a smooth way that it is right to make use of the maximum of £30 million by way of loan facilities which the 1976 Act affords.
It is for that reason that we bring forward this order, and I am pleased that it has the support of the opposition.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft National Dock Labour Board (Increase of Loans Limit) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 27th October, be approved.

CONSUMER CREDIT
7.53 pm
Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Consumer Credit (Exempt Advertisements) (Amendment) Order 1980 (S.I., 1980, No. 1359), dated 8 September 1980, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15 September, be annulled.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr Richard Crawshaw): I take it that it was the intention of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) to propose discussing at the same time the other two motions on this subject—matter—
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Consumer Credit (Advertisements) (Amendment) Regulations 1980 (S.I., 1980, No. 1360), dated 8 September 1980, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15 September, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Consumer Credit (Quotations) (Amendment) Regulations 1980 (S.I., 1980, No. 1361), dated 8 September 1980, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15 September, be annulled.
Mr. Fraser: If that will be convenient, yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Opposition do not propose to press the motions to Divisions, but they provide a convenient opportunity to consider the progress of a very important part of the Consumer Credit Act and its implementation, and I have a few comments to make and one or two questions to ask about the regulations.
The first matter relates to the speed at which it has been possible to implement the Consumer Credit Act. It is one for which I bear rather more responsibility than anyone else. However, I think that we are entitled to think aloud on these matters.
The Royal Assent was given to the Consumer Credit Act on 31 July 1974. Six and a bit years on, on 6 October 1980, the regulations, together with some others, including the total charge for credit regulations, came into force, and still only a portion of the total Consumer Credit Act has come into effect. We are entitled to ask ourselves—and not merely to question the competence of Governments, because both Governments have worked on the legislation—whether we have got the legislative process wrong if it has taken six years to get to the
1044
making of these regulations and there is still a great deal more to follow.
The Consumer Credit Act was widely advertised as being "Truth in lending". Those are the words of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Labour Government, who introduced the Consumer Credit Bill for the second time, used the same advertisement for their legislation. Yet it was only on 6 October of this year that we began to get "Truth in lending" in advertisements and quotations, and we have not yet got it in the agreements themselves. We are entitled to ask ourselves by way of self-examination why it has taken so long to implement the Act and why the pace of progress is so slow.
The regulations fit together, but I should like to see them coming along for rebates for early settlement, for example. One of the most extortionate parts of money lending practice is where someone pays off a loan early and is not able to get suitable rebate, where the period for notice of redemption is far too long, or where calculations of rebate are done in a way which suits the lender rather than being utterly fair to both parties. My question, therefore, is to ask whether the Government have any reflections about the time which it is taking to bring these matters into force.
Secondly, I wonder whether the Government have any reflections on the complexity of these regulations. We see a reference to the total charge for credit regulations, one of which contains a fraction which is insoluble except with the help of a computer which has an iterating device. When I tried it out on a computer, I made 12 or 13 attempts to get the right answer. That illustrates the degree of complexity which the regulations have reached.
There is the difficulty that if a simple principle is incorporated in regulations it gives rise to absurdities such as the one of including the premiums for endowment policies in the total charge for credit and in some circumstances getting a negative rate of interest. That was possible. If a regulation incorporates a simple principle, it leads to absurdity. However, if an attempt is made to avoid the absurdities of a simple principle being applied and exceptions are made, the result is a regulation of absurd complication. It is difficult to choose between

1045
them under our present legislative system.
When we deal with advertisements other than advertisements for credit, both Administrations have taken the view that the best way of dealing with the control of advertising is by means of a code of conduct. However, it would be impossible to translate into legal language the rules about advertising medical products or the rules about misleading advertisements which are applied by the Advertising Standard Authority and place upon the advertiser the obligation to respect the spirit of the rules as well as the letter of the rules. In Europe, where the Government are still discussing a draft directive on advertising, both Administrations have said that that method of a legal code dealing with the control of advertisements is not possible. Yet, when we come to rules about advertising for credit, we have placed on ourselves extremely complicated regulations which are not easy to understand.
I spent several hours reading the definitions of "simple", "intermediate" and "full" advertisements. Within a few hours, I had forgotten them again. I am in the same difficulty as anyone else. I am not in any way criticising, because I bear as much responsibility for these matters as anyone, but is any thought being given to the simplification of these regulations and perhaps to a different approach, even if it involves changes in primary legislation?
I asked whether the Government had any thoughts about simplifying the Consumer Credit Act because the next set of regulations to which we shall probably come are those relating to the entry and content of agreements. The great danger is that we shall get into an area where people are more concerned about the form and ritual of an agreement than with providing full information for the consumer. The exercise will be more concerned about whether documents were exchanged in the right order rather than drawing the attention of the consumer to the contents of the documents.
The Minister will know that there has been a good deal of criticism about the quotation and advertisement regulations in that they apply to finance houses and clearing banks but do not apply to building societies, insurance companies and local authorities in relation to loans
1046
for house purchase. The banks and finance houses believe that this is an unfair discrimination against them. The Consumers Association, to who I have spoken, think that it would be right if the same rules applied to building societies as well as to finance houses in respect of advertisements and quotations. My view is that it is better to have the same rules for advertisements.
When it comes to quotations, there are already many statutory requirements for building societies to give information to consumers about the loans that they are to take. Consumers getting a loan from a building society, insurance company or local authority are likely to have separate legal advice. I can understand that there is less need for quotation regulations applying to building societies and insurance Companies. On advertisements however, the same code of conduct should apply to societies and to finance houses.
That is not to say that I have seen many advertisements from building societies offering to lend people money to purchase houses. They generally advertise to take deposits. Good luck to them. The difficulty may be more hypothetical than real. There is some substance in what the Finance Houses Association says in relation to advertisments:
"The effect of these exemptions is that any advertisement of mortgage facilities by a finance house or a bank must, if it quotes a rate of interest, quote that rate as calculated according to the formulae prescribed in the Regulations—the true rate of charge. But an advertisement of mortgage facilites by a building society or an insurance company need not do so. Even though the mortgage may be identical, even though the rate may be identical, such advertisements may quote an apparently lower rate."
If that turned out to be the case, the association has a point of substance.
Another question I wish to put relates to the recent Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on credit cards. Almost immediately after publication of that report, garages, in particular, but perhaps also other institutions, have begun to make a surcharge for the use of a credit card. If one takes the literal interpretation of the total charge for credit regulations which, in turn, affect the quotation and advertisement regulations, I believe it is right to say that the 15p charged on the purchase of petrol at a garage alters the total charge for credit

1047
and invalidates the quotation given by the credit card company when it issues its statement and gives the total charge for credit. It is possible that 15p is within the margins of error and makes no difference, but it illustrates the difficulty of the existence of complex regulations in a situation in which credit card companies have no control. The companies cannot know what charge is being made by the garage proprietor.
Another question that arises is whether advertisements, at a filling station, of an extra 15p surcharge for use of a credit card is a simple credit advertisement. I do not think that it is. Is it an intermediate credit advertisement? Is it a full credit advertisement? Would the information have to be provided if there was a 15p surcharge on each sale of petrol? I am not suggesting that people should have to provide unnecessary information in those circumstances. It is, however, a question that has been put to me. I do not know the answer. I put the question now to the Minister.
I offer my congratulations to the Director General of Fair Trading, who has produced some exellent literature as a guide to the regulations that we are debating and associated regulations. It is a splendid job. Looking through the publication "Advertisements and Quotations Regulations", I wonder whether it would be possible to produce, in a different legislative framework, the Director General's guidance as the regulations themselves. I am sure that such a move would appeal to many people who have to deal with the regulations from day to day. I wonder whether it would be possible to publish the guidance as a code of conduct, saying that those who advertise for credit must follow the spirit as well as the letter of the publication. There could be a de minimis rule and any mere technical breach of regulations that did not mislead would be overlooked. I feel that this would be a better approach, bearing in mind that six years have elapsed while we have progressed only about halfway through implementation of the 1974 Act.
8.7 pm
Mr. Robin Squire: I speak as a consultant for Lombard North Central. I have worked for 12 years in the credit finance sphere. The hon. Mem-
1048
ber for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) made most of the points that I wished to put for. ward, but I should be grateful for the patience of the House in order to reiterate a few of them.
The original White Paper that preceded the Act—it was entitled "Reform of the Law on Consumer Credit"—specifically highlighted the possibility that there would be an argument for absolving such undertakings as building societies from the same requirements, and it met the position head-on by saying that they would need to conform with the same rules as those that would be required for finance houses.
There is considerable disappointment in the credit industry that these rules on advertisements have not been applied to building societies. The news that the exemption is to be extended to insurance companies and friendly societies does nothing to remove their concern. We have to ask whether the Government have any role in what would appear, at least on the surface, to be some form of discrimination. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that no such discrimination is intended, but the fact that there is a built-in discrimination in relation to advertisements leads one to think that in this respect there are first and second-class citizens, and first and second-class lenders. Whatever their reputation, I assure my hon. Friend that the FHA and the banks are in the forefront and contain some household names whose financial probity cannot be doubted. They feel that they are being made to suffer when compared with building societies.
The hon. Member for Norwood already referred to the question of the total charge for credit, and that is a valid point. I support his comments. Surely, however, the moving spirit behind the Consumer Credit Act was the need to simplify matters for the would-be borrower, presumably because it was felt that he would wish to know the true rate of interest on whatever loan he was undertaking. Many hon. Members may doubt whether that is his concern, or whether the amount of payment is more important.
Whatever the answer, we seem to be facing the possibility that two loans made for an identical purpose, one from a

1049
building society or a friendly society, and the other from a bank or a finance house. will quote different interest rates—although the underlying rate will be the same—and that can only increase confusion and goes nowhere near providing so-called truth in lending.
These issues are important. I urge my hon. Friend to say whether the Government still have the matter under review and whether, should the confusion that I and one or two other hon. Members envisage come about, they will review these provisions and seek to eliminate these important anomalies.
8.10 pm
Mr. Michael Neubert: Because of the horrendous complexities of the Consumer Credit Act I do not intend to do more than make a simple point. I do not seek to widen the debate. I wish to refer to the apparent disparity of treatment between finance houses and banks on one hand and insurance societies, friendly societies and building societies on the other.
Originally it was thought that all would be treated equally in terms of mortgages and advertisements. First the building societies were exempted and now, under the order and regulations, insurance and friendly societies are to be made exempt. My attention has been drawn to the anomaly by one of the aggrieved parties—the Finance Houses Association. With the banks they are left at a disadvantage when making superficial comparisons between offers of mortgage facilities. The whole principle of fair competition rests on fair comparisons. Too often the consumer makes rather facile comparisons between what is available in the market and might come to an entirely wrong decision.
It is unfortunate that now the Government have felt it necessary to step in and require people offering credit to do so in highly exacting terms—in the context of mathematical formulas that command the skill of a senior wrangler. It is unfortunate that they should knowingly and apparently with deliberation introduce an incompatability of comparison. There might be a good reason for it but I cannot see it.
I hope that my hon. Friend can provide the answer. If there is to be "truth in
1050
lending" and if some bodies are to be exposed to rigorous requirements in advertising their credit facilities, it is unfair that there should be an inequality of entitlement when a mortgage is involved. After all, for most people a mortgage is the most important transaction in their lives.
8.12 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I have listened with great interest to the contributions in this short debate. On an appropriate occasion I should like to discuss the near-philosophical point made by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) about how these complex requirements can be applied in society in a way which does not involve the full legalistic implications which necessarily follow such legislation.
We can all agree about the complexity of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I sometimes wonder whether less comprehensive legislation would have been wiser. Perhaps it would not have got beyond square one. Perhaps the only realistic course was to adopt the Crowther committee recommendation to have a single enactment covering consumer credit and hire generally. However, I wonder whether we could develop an alternative system involving codes of practice.
Whatever options there might have been we cannot change history. We have the Act and considerable progress has been made in implementing it. I cannot give the hon. Member for Norwood precise details about the further implementation of the Act but I shall bear in mind what he has said about the outstanding requirements. Like the Act, the orders and regulations necessary to implement it are complex. It does not follow that the requirements with which traders must comply are in themselves necessarily complex. It is often a problem of picking out the provisions.
The hon. Member for Norwood offered his congratulations to the Director General of Fair Trading. I thank him and join him in congratulating the director and his office on the production of such excellent and helpful documents which will be of considerable assistance to people in understanding the requirements

1051
of the Act. They will help traders to pick out the provisions which apply to their specific businesses.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs recognises that the regulations are complex. She has made it clear that she will monitor the regulations and keep them under review. If there are real problems my right hon. Friend is always willing to examine them. I shall bear in mind what the hon. Member for Norwood said about the possibility of simplification.
The House will now expect me to deal with the instruments to which the prayers relate. Then I wish to refer briefly to the "truth in lending" package generally. I cannot agree that it would be right to annul statutory instruments No's 1359, 1360 and 1361. The Consumer Credit (Exempt Advertisements) (Amendment) Order—No. 1359—merely clarifies the exemptions in the original exempt advertisements order. There cannot be real controversy about the original order or the largely technical amendments in the amendment order.
The Consumer Credit (Advertisements) (Amendment) Regulations and the Consumer Credit (Quotations) (Amendment) Regulations have more meat, as became clear in the debate. The regulations broaden certain exemptions from the requirements of the advertisements and quotations regulations. The principal regulations do not apply in so far as an advertisement or a quotation relates to an agreement secured by a land mortgage and made by a building society or local authority. I noted that the hon. Member for Norwood raised that subject. I appreciate the interest expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and Romford (Mr. Neubert).
It was thought right to make this exemption in respect of building societies and local authorities because compliance with the normal requirements would have presented special problems for them. In some respects the problems are no different from those faced by other creditors, such as those mentioned by my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Norwood. However, it was considered that it was necessary to take special aspects into account. It appeared that all local
1052
authority and building society offers could, willy-nilly, have been quotations having to comply with the quotations regulations. Yet they are not "quotations" in the rather special sense envisaged in section 52 of the Act, the purpose of which is to give consumers who are shopping around between credit facilities the right to obtain a written statement of the terms on which the trader is prepared to do business. The local authority and building society offers are not made, as the hon. Gentleman fairly said, in response to "shopping-around" inquiries. It proved impracticable to separate the latter from the former. My right hon. Friend took the view that, in the prevailing circumstances, the additional burden on local authorities and building societies was unjustified.
When the regulations had been published, it was drawn to the Department's attention that an anomaly had been created in that insurance companies' topping-up loans were often made in parallel with building society loans, and that the application of different rules to insurance company loans was anomalous. Very careful consideration was given to the extent to which exemption should be widened. It would have been possible to exempt from the requirements of the advertisements and quotations regulations all house purchase loans. This would have meant yet another dividing line and yet another complication. It was also apparent that changes had taken place in the house purchase loan market but it was not clear whether these were permanent or merely in consequence of the then shortage of building society loans.
I appreciate that what I shall say will not be in accordance with the wishes of my hon. Friends the Members for Horn-church and for Romford or in line with the views that they have expressed this evening. However, my right hon. Friend decided that the right course was to use the dividing line already existing in section 16 of the Act and the order under it to make the same exemption from the advertisements and quotations regulations as is made in relation to agreements. The principle underlying this distinction, which I ask hon. Members to consider, is that the exemptions may not apply to creditors who carry out normal consumer credit business, that is, are not specialists

1053
in house purchase loans. She recognised, however, that this was not an ideal solution—indeed, there was no ideal solution She therefore asked the Director General of Fair Trading to keep the exemptions under review and report in due course. I hope that my hon. Friends will feel that that gives them a satisfactory assurance in respect of the review.
I know and regret that some organisations see in the exemption an unjust discrimination between credit grantors of different types. We have some sympathy with their complaint, but my right hon. Friend thinks that to depart from the section 16 dividing line—at any rate without experience of how the exemptions work and without the Director General's report—would be a mistake.
I turn now to more general matters. The package of orders and regulations which came into operation on 6 October are an important step in implementing the "truth in lending" provisions of the Act in relation to the ways in which traders granting credit or supplying goods on hire seek business. In the past advertisements have often given an inadequate indication of the terms on which the trader is willing to do business. Sometimes little or no hard information was given, reliance being placed on such phrases as "HP terms available". Information was often given in terms making comparison between competing offers impracticable. This was particularly true of rates of charge which might be the flat rate—which is roughly half the true rate—or which might omit to take into account charges other than interest, which can make a great difference to the cost of the credit.
It was in order that consumers should be better informed that Parliament, in section 44 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, imposed a requirement on the Secretary of State to make regulations as to the form and content of advertisements. That section goes on to say that the regulations must contain provisions with a view to ensuring that an advertisement conveys a fair and reasonably comprehensive indication of the nature of the credit or hire facilities offered and of their true cost to persons using them. This was a tall order and it is not surprising that the regulations which have emerged from over five years' work are complex. It was necessary to spell out
1054
in detail the requirements as to information to be disclosed to enable the consumer to make an informed choice. It was also necessary to make special provision to cover particular circumstances, for example showrooms, and media, particulary television. Much as everyone would have liked to have simple rules applying to all advertisements, that was not on. The division of advertisements into three categories—simple, intermediate and full—was likewise a recognition of the practicalities.
The hon. Member for Norwood raised three questions, the first with regard to building society advertisements. I have explained the situation about quotations and the special position of the building societies, and I can say only that I have noted the hon. Gentleman's point. His second question was of a practical nature, and it related the 15p charge made by petrol stations for accepting payment by means of credit cards.
The charge does not come within the total charge for credit because it is not within the scope of the term "transaction" as defined in regulation 1(2) of the total charge for credit regulations. The purchase of petrol, I am advised, is not a linked transaction within the meaning of section 19(1)(a). That means that the purchase is not made in compliance with the terms of the credit card agreement. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will feel satisfied that there is no difficulty in that respect.
The hon. Gentleman's third point was not a question but was his very kind reference to the Director General of Fair Trading, for which I have already thanked him.
It was in order that consumers should be better informed that Parliament developed all these regulations in the wake of section 44. I wish to emphasise, however, that the regulations were drawn up only after very extensive consulation with trade and consumer bodies and that many changes were made to our earlier proposals. My right hon. Friend took great pains to try to avoid on the one hand imposing excessively onerous requirements on traders, and on the other leaving consumers with little or no more information than they have received in the past.
It was mentioned, and I understand that it is true, that the Office of Fair

1055
Trading and trading standards departments are receiving numerous inquiries. I am not surprised that queries are arising at this stage. They are inevitable with so important an innovation. Moreover, the inquiries themselves show that traders are taking the new requirements seriously. I have referred already to the helpfulness of the booklets that are available. There is also a recently released leaflet for consumers called "There's more to credit than just HP". I hope that those publications will ease the task of traders in implementing the regulations and help to ensure that consumers are properly informed.
In conclusion, I want to make it clear that my right hon. Friend sees truth in lending playing a significant role in achieving greater or fairer competition in the credit and hire area. In one sense it is already a highly competitive area. The variety of institutions and types of credit is very wide indeed, but unless people are able to make an informed appraisal of the different facilities, that variety alone will not ensure competition. It may merely bewilder the consumer, who may not be in a position to compare one facility with another. That is why comparable information is particularly important in the credit and hire area. Without such information, competition will not really work. One must recognise the regulations potential importance in stimulating competition. I think that traders whose terms are competitive should not look on them merely as a tiresome new regulations but should welcome the fact that their competitors will no longer be able to indulge with impunity in misleading or uninformative advertising.
My earlier remarks should not be taken to mean that we have set our face against any change in the regulations at any time. My right hon. Friend is sure, however, that the essential course is to give them a fair run to see how they work. I assure the House, my hon. Friends, and the hon. Member for Norwood—especially with regard to the point about finance houses—that my right hon. Friend and the Director General of Fair Trading, upon whom the Act imposes a statutory duty in that respect, will keep their working under review.
Mr. John Fraser: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CHARITIES (LORD HASTINGS HOSPITAL TRUST)
Resolved,
That the draft Charities (Lord Hastings Hospital Trust) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 22 July, be approved.—[Mr. Newton.]

PRISON OFFICERS' HOUSES (CLASE, SWANSEA)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this house do now adjourn—[Mr. Newton.]
8.32 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: I am glad to have this opportunity to open a short debate on a matter which, in my view, illustrates very well one aspect of the Government's attitude to housing in South Wales, namely, the response of the Welsh Office to the proposed sale of prison officers' houses at Clase in my constituency.
I suggest that the problem is best seen in the context of the overall housing crisis in South Wales. Perhaps we in Wales have become accustomed to low quality housing for too long and have given too little priority to housing as against our perhaps understandable prime concern with the problems of unemployment. Yet more than 15 per cent. of houses in Wales are substandard, compared with 9 per cent. in England. On most indices of unfitness, including those properties built before 1919, Wales comes bottom of the league table for Britain.
Certainly the general housing position has deteriorated under this Government. I commend to the Minister the recent report on this subject by the South Wales chief housing officers group, published in October last year and entitled "A report on the housing financial allocation to housing authorities for 1980–81". This has naught for the comfort of Welsh Office Ministers. The housing officers stress that the housing service in Wales is taking
"a far greater proportion of the public expenditure cuts than any other service".

1057
Indeed, over the period 1980 to 1984 there will be a reduction of 40 per cent. in real terms in housing allocation.
No matter to what sector of our housing we turn—whether it be to public sector housing, private sector housing or the third arm, the housing associations—we see a constantly gloomy picture. The public sector is affected by the cutbacks. In the private sector starts have plummeted over the past year, in part because of the high mortgage interest rates, the general economic situation and the high unemployment in South Wales.
Hardly the most Socialist or radical group in South Wales, the South Wales region of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, writes to me:
"The influence of the Government's economic policy is having catastrophic consequences for those firms relying on house-building as their main activity. As was stated, this is particularly true for those firms who have for many years made a major contribution to the house building in the public sector. The forecast in both the Swansea City and Lliw Valley borough councils' HSIPs for the period up to 1984 will inevitably mean some firms will cease to trade."
The letter then gives the housing completions in Swansea in the private sector. In 1978–79 they were 398; in 1979–80 they were only just over half that figure, at 208. The comparative figures for the public sector are equally alarming. In 1978–79 there were 205 completions; in 1979–80 there were 156. A little more than 80 are forecast for 1980–81. With that shortfall in both the public building programme and the private building programme, it is hardly surprising that the waiting lists in all of South Wales increased to the present amount—well in excess of 29,000. Homelessness is also on the increase.
As the supply of public sector housing diminishes, because of the public expenditure reductions and the projected sales of council houses as part of the Government's policy, so the demand increases. That is partly for social reasons—the lower household size, which comes from an ageing population, break-ups of families and so on—but also because of the Government's policies, particularly in respect of the worsening unemployment figures in South Wales. All of that leads to defaults on mortgages, with those who default looking to the public sector for housing. This means that fewer can move from the public to the private
1058
sector and hence release homes for those on the waiting list. It must be remembered that our percentage of council houses in the total housing stock in Wales is less than 441st in England. For example, in my local authority in Swansea the percentage of council houses in the total housing stock is less than 30.
That is the context. We turn now to the specific problem and its importance for the Swansea housing situation. This is an excellent case study of the Government's ideology ratting on the housing needs of a local community.
The prison department owns 28 houses in Swansea, four of them with four bedrooms and the remainder with three. At the moment 23 are vacant, because prison officers in these days dislike living in compounds and prefer to live in their own accommodation, where they also enjoy rent allowances. So these houses are empty and surplus to the prison department's requirements.
The houses were built in the 1960s and are suitable for family housing. Al-thought they lack central heating, they are roomy, well-maintained and have garages. They are similar to the Swansea council's pre-war parlour-type houses which are among the most popular part of the housing stock of my local. authority.
The Home Office wishes to sell and the Swansea council wishes to buy, but Welsh Office approval is needed. The council wants to buy because these are attractive properties for its needs and because money is available in this financial year due to a projected underspend. That underspend does not arise from incompetent forecasting on behalf of the council. In fact, a scheme to build' about 100 houses on the Graig brickworks site in the same area was 17 per cent. over the housing cost yardstick and had to be abandoned. Those houses would have cost more than £20,000 per unit, compared with the asking price of £10,000 to £12,000 for the prison officers' houses.
Apart from the costs of the Graig brickworks scheme, the financial commitment that would have been necessary for 1981–82 was too large in respect of the uncertainties of the housing allocation that the Welsh Office would make, bearing in mind the fact that this year's allocation by the Welsh Office was not notified

1059
to local authorities until February. This tardiness has created substantial programming difficulties for housing authorities. However good reasons, the Swansea council has money available.
The council also has a large and growing waiting list of 2,435 families. One knows the arguments about how artificial waiting lists can be, but it is the view of my housing authority, and also my own personal impression from regular contact with constituents, that this is a real waiting list. It is underlined by the fact that homelessness in the city is a large and growing problem. Swansea is one of the black spots in Wales in this respect. Last year there were over 1,000 inquiries at the homelessness unit.
At £10,000 to £12,000, the prison department properties are good value for the city. The latest figure—in September this year—on a tender basis for two-bedroomed houses is £20,834, compared with £10,000 to £12,000 for these three-and four-bedroomed properties.
It is not surprising, therefore, in the light of that price differential and the large and growing needs of the housing authority, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and I, and the whole city council, including the Conservative councillors, unanimously sought consent from the Welsh Office for the purchase of these houses.
There are a number of additional cogent reasons for that purchase. I have already mentioned the completions in the public sector in Swansea being reduced year by year so that the projected figure for this year is about 88. I have mentioned the state of the private housing market in the city. In effect, it is dead, as a recent deputation from the National Federation of Building Trades Employers underlined to me and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West. On an impressionistic basis, I know of a cheapish house in a popular part of the city that has been on the market for over two months. During that time there have been only two visits and no offers. There are ample building society funds available for prospective purchasers, but few, if any, takers.
Those houses are likely to be unattractive to the private buyer. They are in
1060
terraces, and they are unmistakably institutional, having been built for a public authority. To that extent they are less attractive to an individual in the private sector. Another factor of which the Minister should be aware is that the Home Office is responsible for the roads and lighting on the estate. There would be considerable administrative problems if the houses were sold as single units. The charges for roads, lighting, and so on, would have to be apportioned between individual purchasers.
That is the background to the problem. The city council needs Welsh Office consent, and it has approached the Welsh Office. The response of the Welsh Office has been wholy negative, unreasonable and wooden. As far as I am aware—I stand to be contradicted by the Minister—there has been no inspection by the Welsh Office, no suggestion by the Welsh Office that if the houses did not sell on the open market its position would be reconsidered, and no suggestion by the Welsh Office that it would consider an alternative buyer such as a housing association, although, as no doubt the Minister knows, there is at least one housing association in the area that is interested in the houses. Although it would be a second best because of the nomination rights of the local authority, it would at least have the beneficial effect of reducing the ever-extended housing waiting list.
I say that there is little expectation of a positive response on the housing association front, and I am fortified in that view by an article in today's issue of the Western Mail, which states:
"The housing associations in Wales are launching a campaign this week to protest against any further cuts in Government aid which some believe could lead to the disappearance of a third of them."
The report goes on to say:
"The problem is particularly acute in Cardiff and Swansea, where the waiting lists for accommodation are longest and the resources most thinly spread … Mr. Gareth Hughes, Welsh director of the National Federation of Housing Associations, said, ' If the cuts are made there will be no new houses built in Wales at all, and as many as a third of the housing associations will have to close. The situation is potentially dangerous'."
So great is the danger that the Gwalia housing association, which was planning a special celebration on 5 November to mark its five hundredth house in the city

1061
of Swansea, will now use that event as a protest against further cuts in aid to the housing association.
If the Welsh Office has reacted in such a negative way to the plea of the Swansea city council, one perhaps has no high hopes that it will respond any more positively to an approach to it for consent from a housing association.
What was the nature of the reply of the Minister, dated 21 October, to the points that I put to him? He said that if the Welsh Office were to give consent it would be contrary to the policy of discouraging local authorities from buying existing property. That is clearly the doctrine. He also said:
"I believe that to allow the City Council to proceed in this case would not only be contrary to that policy but would be a complete negation of our views on private home ownership. The right course should now be to dispose of the houses on the open market if they are indeed surplus to existing requirements."
The phrase
"if they are indeed surplus to existing requirements"
must suggest that the Welsh Office has not even bothered to contact the Home Office to see whether these houses are surplus to requirements. It has answered wholly from an ideological standpoint, without seeking in any way to check the facts on which it based that reply. Had it bothered to contact the Home Office it would have found, without any difficulty, that these houses are indeed surplus to Home Office requirements.
The Minister went on, in his letter of 21 October, to say:
"The purchase of existing dwellings places a quite heavy financial burden upon local authorities, and as it is the Government's policy to reduce public expenditure wherever possible it would not be seen right to be allowing a local authority to add to their existing commitments."
If one uses the public expenditure argument, surely the Minister will look at the figures that I have given of the tender prices that the city council is now receiving for smaller properties—double the amount for which these houses are available on the market—and see what excellent value they are, rather than have new building in the public sector for the city council to take over. This is not in any way to municipalise because, after all, this is not a transfer from the private
1062
sector to the public sector, but a cash transfer from one part of the public sector, namely, the prison department, to another part of it, namely, a local authority. Indeed, on any figures, looking at house against house, or value against value, this would be a reduction in public expenditure.
The message is clear from the Government and the Welsh Office. They prefer to leave these properties empty and to be vandalised than to let them go to my local authority.
I am told that the local vandals have not yet noticed the 23 properties that remain empty. However, there are signs that they are beginning to notice. Already the shed windows in the back gardens of these properties have been smashed. Six of the windows have already been smashed. These first signs will further attract vandals and make the houses even more difficult to sell on the open private market. This will be a process of cumulative decline and the estate will rapidly become a wasteland as the last prison officers leave, as the nights darken and as the remaining tenants are unable to exercise some supervision over the estate. What an uncaring response! What a triumph of a doctrinaire Government!
I refer the Under-Secretary of State to the final flourish of the South Wales chief housing officers' group in the report to which I have referred. Having outlined the growing housing crisis in South Wales, it states:
"We therefore urge the Government to reconsider its attitude towards housing and towards a philosophy which cannot and will not work in the current economic situation. Unless this reconsideration takes place we believe that the housing problems of South Wales will reach a point when they may be insoluble."
That is not the report of a group of radicals that the Government may think they can lightly disregard. It is a report from those in the front line—the directors of all the South Wales housing authorities—who see at first hand the effect of the Government's policies and who react in that way against the effects of those policies.
Had the Welsh Office, on a reasonable consideration of this case, given its consent, 23 families from the ever-growing waiting list in Swansea would have been immediately and decently rehoused. To them and to all those on the waiting list

1063
in Swansea, to my colleagues from Swansea, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Davies) who support me tonight, and to all those in Swansea in inadequate accommodation, the Welsh Office is saying in terms "Doctrine rules. Continue in your disadvantage. Our aim is to roll back the public sector"—this is set out so shamefully and so eloquently in the letter that I received from the Minister—"and to bring a new Tory freedom". This is a sad case and a sad feature of Conservative housing policy. What a perfect commentary on a wholly ideological response to a deeply human housing problem in Swansea.
8.58 pm
Mr. Alan Williams: As the Under-Secretary of State will appreciate, though these houses happen to be in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), the housing list is managed on a Swansea city council basis and any decision that is taken on these houses will affect my constituency as well as that of my hon. Friend. I support my hon. Friend's argument.
At the time of the election there were many who were led to believe that the Conservative Party, if it became the Conservative Government, would support the family, the home and the aspiration to have a home. What has become of that? It is clear from repeated declarations and actions by the Administration that they regard as worthy of consideration only those who are willing to buy their homes.
The Under-Secretary knows that redundancies in Wales are multiplying and that closures and redundancy notices occur day in and day out. Many people are reluctant to make the long-term commitment to purchase a property. For most of those in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the only type of home for which they can hope is a new, rented one.
In common with other hon. Members, my hon. Friend and I hold regular Saturday morning surgeries. Normally not a Saturday goes by without my hon. Friend or I holding a surgery in the
1064
constituency. My hon. Friend also finds that at least 50 per cent. of the constituents who come on Saturday mornings come about housing problems, despite the fact that housing is a matter for local government. More than 2,500 people are waiting for housing in Swansea. I do not seek to make a political point, but the Under-Secretary knows the importance of current Government policy and its effect on house building in the public sector.
Those 2,500 people have little or no hope of being housed in the foreseeable future while the Government pursue such policies. Some of those on the housing list will never be accommodated in a council house. As youngsters grow up and aspire to have homes of their own they will join the housing list. They have no prospect of being housed. We have a small opportunity to do something to help. I could understand the Welsh Office arguing that such houses should be sold if there were a scarcity of houses for sale in Swansea. If someone were to walk or drive through the city, or visit an estate agent's office or read the South Wales Evening Post, our local evening newspaper, on any evening of the week, he would discover that, far from a scarcity of housing for sale in Swansea, there was a glut.
If the Under-Secretary persists with this policy, he will rob the couple of dozen of those in Swansea who are trying to sell their homes—perhaps because they have had to move as a result of the Prime Minister's advice to go elsewhere to find the jobs that are denied them in Swansea—of a chance to sell them. Until now he has insisted, unnecessarily, on transferring public houses to the private sector. If the hon. Gentleman wants to support the house owners of Swansea, he should avoid putting an extra supply of houses on the market when there is no need. If he wishes to help those whose housing need is most acute, he should add houses to the local authority's housing stock, because the local authority is already under severe pressure.
The Under-Secretary is well aware that Swansea has many old steel houses which were built just after the war. In my hon. Friend's constituency there is a project to refurbish those properties. Only a fortnight ago, the housing director told

1065
me that the steel houses in my constituency—in Waunarlwydd and West Cross—may not be refurbished, although they are in need of it. Funds may not be available from the Government. Houses that could be saved may slither into rusty decline. They will have to be abandoned. At the same time, houses are to be put on the market—although there are people in the housing queue—and they will remain empty for some time, because the housing market in Swansea is flat. That is the tragedy.
In addition, we even find that organisations such as housing associations which are not noted for political activity have tried to emphasise the desperate need in this respect. There is one housing association in Swansea which I would gladly see closed down. We have had exchanges with the Department about its activities. It is one of the least responsible organisations that I have ever come across. However, another the GWALIA Association—has been in touch with the Prime Minister and the Welsh Office trying to stress the desperate need that it sees for new rented housing in Swansea. Like the local authorities, it finds that it will be deprived of funds.
Let us not deceive ourselves that the Government will get the best possible bargain in selling these houses if they go ahead with this policy. There was the recent decision to sell the prison governor's house in Gower Road, Swansea. It was not sold on the open market; it was sold by private charter. A constituent of mine, who insists that he could and would have paid more money for it, was denied that opportunity because the Government told the agent that they wanted whoever would settle first at the set price. There is no pretence that the Government will necessarily get the best prices for the sale of these houses.
In any case, it is ludicrous that the local authority should be in a position in which it would have to pay more to build two dozen houses to help people in the queue than to buy the houses that were available. If the Under-Secretary is concerned about public expenditure, he should welcome the initiative by the local authority because it is not adding to public expenditure. The money would come out of the funds already allocated to that authority. Not only is it not adding to public expenditure; it is getting
1066
better cost benefit—it would have more houses by buying these than by building new ones. The Minister should welcome this initiative which would add to the efficiency of the housing department in Swansea.
If the Minister does not intend to be helpful tonight, I hope that before he makes a final decision he will ask the Swansea city council for an analysis of its housing list. How many are on that list? How many disabled and priority cases are there? We see these cases week in and week out—people with severe medical conditions who need these moves and cannot be accommodated because the whole housing system is in a log jam. There are no new houses coming on to the market to start mobility in the rental systems within the local authority. I hope that the Minister will at least do this if he will not give us a positive response tonight.
If the Government refuse this perfectly reasonable request from the Swansea city council, they will be seen as having sold out the aspirations of the people in Swansea, who want nothing more than a roof over their heads, in pursuit of rigid and, in this case, stupid and costly Tory dogma.
9.8 pm
Mr. Ifor Davies: I welcome the opportunity to intervene very briefly in this short debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) on raising this important issue. He has outlined the case fully. I declare an interest in that part of the administration of the city of Swansea comes within my constituency.
On this question of housing there is no greater problem confronting any of us than the appeals that we receive week in and week out from people who are looking for a roof over their heads. The record of this council is as good as any in its efforts to house people. However, in 1979–80 the figure for homeless people was over 1,000. The council deserves the Government's support in trying to house the homeless.
I have been informed on good authority that the Minister's Department has offered the houses free of charge to the West Glamorgan health authority. If that is so, it should be challenged in the House. It would be a direct contradiction

1067
of the letter that my hon. Friend for Swansea, East has. If the Minister cannot reassure us about that tonight, will he investigate the matter and clarify the situation? I urge him to reconsider the matter and give the Swansea council an opportunity to meet the tremendous demands made on it to house people.
9.10 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): It may be helpful if I set out some of the recent history of the central issue raised tonight by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), and followed up by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Davies).
Let me first assure the hon. Member for Gower that I have no knowledge of a proposed offer to the West Glamorgan area health authority, but I shall make inquiries. However, I point out that it is not for the Welsh Office to make such an offer. The houses are owned by the Home Office.
Mr. Ifor Davies: I have it on good authority that the rumour is true. If it is, there must be something wrong if the Home Office has not informed the Welsh Office.
Mr. Roberts: I understood the hon. Gentleman originally to say that the Welsh Office had offered the houses to the area health authority. I assure him that that is not so. I have assured him that I shall look into the matter, although, as far as I am aware, the position is as I have outlined.
Mr. Alan Williams: I realise that the Minister has been caught on the hop, but, if the circumstances described by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Davies) are correct, it is important for us to know in the very near future. Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to notify the three of us within the next 48 hours, as it will only take a telephone call to check the facts?
Mr. Roberts: I give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance.
Swansea city council wrote to the Welsh Office on 29 September for approval to acquire the houses at Clase. I shall be returning to the contents of the letter in
1068
a moment. The Welsh Office replied to the council with commendable speed on 2 October. A week or so later, the hon. Member for Swansea, East raised the issue with me and with my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office. My reply, which was sent on 21 October, fully explained my reasons for turning down the council's application.
In my letter to the hon. Gentleman I reminded him that the Government's policy is to discourage local authorities from buying existing houses. To allow Swansea city council to proceed in this case would not only be contrary to our general policy, it would be a complete negation of our views on home ownership. I told the hon. Gentleman—and I tell him again now—that the right course is for the houses to be sold in the normal way by the prison department on the open market.
The hon. Member has raised the matter again, and although he has not brought any new facts to my attention, I am glad of the opportunity to explain the Government's position to him.
It is our policy in housing to encourage owner-occupation. The Government have consistently stressed their desire to extend home ownership as widely as possible. We know that that is popular in Wales. Consequently, we have devised a seven-point plan to bring that about. The first is the sale of council houses to sitting tenants. The second is, the sale of local authority owned land to private builders, with planning permission, for starter home schemes or, in partnership with builders, to provide other forms of low-cost housing. Thirdly, local authorities can make better use of the available resources by building for sale where they are unable to develop partnership arrangements. They can improve older property in their ownership for sale under the Government's new scheme. They can even sell unimproved homes for improvement by the purchaser.
That could be especially attractive for occupiers of older council houses built between the wars since they would be free to choose their own time and terms for the improvement works and the local authority would be freed from the often considerable expense of improvement. I am as aware as any hon. Member of

1069
the problems that we meet as constituency Members. Often they are concerned with repairs and improvements to existing homes. The Government are doing their utmost to help. I am pleased to say that in Wales the level of owner-occupation is already high, and we would, of course, wish it to be even higher.
We feel that the balance between the private and the public sectors has been going the wrong way over the years, both in housing and in other fields. We have acted to reverse that movement. We believe that, in general, there are too many houses in the public sector. I accept that this masks some remaining needs, such as accommodation for the elderly, but certainly the stock of general needs housing—three- and fourbedroomed accommodation—is too great. According to the figures supplied by Welsh local authorities in their housing investment programme submissions this year, there are about 286,000 dwellings owned by local authorities in Wales. That is about 26 per cent. of the total housing stock—just over a quarter. There are, I understand, almost 65,000 dwellings in Swansea, of which nearly 20,000 are council owned. That represents about 30 per cent. of the total—a high figure in my view. It seems to me that Swansea city council's priority ought, therefore, to be looking to correct the imbalance by selling some of that stock. It would require the sales of almost 3,000 of its houses to bring it into line with Wales taken as a whole.
Mr. Alan Williams: With respect to the Under-Secretary and having listened to what he has said, I must say that I cannot feel a lot of respect for him. I have never heard such unadulterated twaddle and rubbish in my life. The hon. Gentleman and I have been personal friends for some years, but I ask him, before he goes any further, with this arrant nonsense, to check what real life is like behind the phoney statistics that he is peddling.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and I have had to see us in recent weeks a succession of young families who have been told that the only hope for them, from the council's point of view, is for the families to split up, the children to be taken into care and the parents to find accommodation for themselves. If the Under-Secre-
1070
tary feels that that is evidence of a surplus of council housing in Swansea, I do not know how he forms his judgments. I do not understand the peculiar warped and twisted sense of values that he is peddling.
Mr. Roberts: We are all accustomed to the right hon. Gentleman's extremist and excessive remarks. His comments on what I have said are typical. If the facts are as he suggests, the position is surely no tribute to the high proportion of public sector housing and its management in Swansea.
One of the most significant elements in our Housing Act is the right that we have given to council tenants to buy the houses in which they have been living, often for many years. We have relaxed controls in the private rented sector with the introduction of shorthold tenancies which, of course, the Labour Opposition have threatened. Through our improvement for sale scheme, we shall be trying to promote the rehabilitation and sale of older houses by local authorities. What we have done in the Housing Act is to shift the emphasis away from the extension of public sector housing although, of course, we all accept that there will always be a need for new dwellings in special categories, and we do not deny that public sector housing will always have a significant part to play. Certainly I accept that local authorities have an important part to play in housing, not only in the public sector but in the private sector, too. I venture to suggest that their role should become even greater.
The Government's general policy is quite clear, and it is equally clear that it applies in this case. I do not expect the hon. Member for Swansea, East to agree fully with our views on municipalisation. This is an issue of principle on which the battle lines have long since been firmly drawn. But I would expect him to agree that what the council proposes is a clear and straightforward case of municipalisation, and therefore I would expect him to recognise that my decision is inevitable. The houses in question are certainly in the public sector now, and they are to be put on sale on the open market. What the council wants is to add the houses to its existing stock. If that is not municipalisation, I do not know what is.

1071
Of course, we accept that there can sometimes be occasions when local authorities may buy existing houses. The Department wrote to authorities earlier this year to remind them of the long list of categories of acquisition still permitted under the terms of the Housing Act 1957.
There are also areas where we are content to allow local authorities to add to their housing stock, apart from statutory obligations which arise, for example, in areas covered by confirmed compulsory order. We allow acquisition of property blighted by public knowledge of slum clearance or other local authority proposals, and we have agreed to acquisition by agreement from elderly owner-occupiers who are unable to maintain their homes and who are being rehoused by the local authority. We are also prepared to allow reacquisition of dwellings previously sold under pre-emption arrangements. But, as I made clear earlier today in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), where old pre-emption arrangements have lapsed, I do not agree that reacquisition is right. Clearly for an authority to do so would mean that the authority was acting to bolster up the local housing market and safeguard the price base.
Some of the arguments advanced by the hon. Member and his right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West struck me as very curious. If we adopted them, they would result in intervention in the local housing market and in rising house prices.
In one area, which I have already mentioned briefly, we even encourage acquisitions. The Housing Act 1980 introduces the improvement for sale scheme. Under this scheme, authorities can acquire dwellings, usually vacant and run-down, improve them, and then resell them. In this way, acquisition by authorities can encourage our policy of home-ownership as well as rehabilitating some of the older housing stock. Authorities which take advantage of this scheme can have the benefit of an Exchequer grant towards the costs. The scheme has been devised because we are very much aware of the problems which exist in these areas of older housing w here, all too seldom, do local
1072
authorities undertake positive action to secure the renovation and improvement of such houses.
I accept that Swansea is tackling its housing action areas in an energetic way and achieving results, but there is still much to be done. Local authorities have the freedom to buy in these circumstances without formal approval where the objective is to resell once the house is restored to a good standard.
But Swansea city council's reasons, at least the reasons the council advanced to us for wishing to purchase the houses at Clase, fell into none of these categories. I hope that the hon. Member for Swansea, East will not mind if I refer to the letter from the council which sought approval for its acquisition of these houses. The hon. Gentleman said that there were a number of cogent reasons for the council seeking approval for the purchase and various reasons have been advanced this evening. But the council gave the Welsh Office only one reason. It said that it had been unable to proceed with a house building project this year. The chief executive wrote——
Mr. Anderson rose——
Mr. Roberts: I must finish this paragraph.
The chief executive wrote:
"As a consequence, there is an underspend on our programme which my council wishes to utilise in respect of these dwellings at Clase. In the circumstances, it was felt that this was the most expedient way of using the consequent underspend, particularly at this point in time in relation to the financial year".
That is what the Welsh Office was told by Swansea council. Now this, if I may say so, reveals a sorry state of affairs.
What we have been told is that the council are not able to spend its capital allocation on one project, so it thinks that it can quickly use up the money by buying these houses at Clase. It is not for me to comment on its financial planning, or the arrangements within its housing programme, but I would say that it need not spend its allocation just for the sake of it.
Mr. Anderson rose——
Mr. Roberts: I need not emphasise the importance of cash limits. They must not be exceeded. The recent action of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of

1073
State for the Environment on capital allocations in England speaks for itself. So far, we have been able to avoid parallel action in Wales but the most careful planning and financial management by authorities is necessary.
Capital allocations to councils are not targets they have to reach. They are absolute limits which must not be exceeded. I would rather see Swansea city council underspend its allocation than have it use it to finance property transactions to the public sector. This is simply not a worthwhile use of public money.
But of course there are other worthwhile uses to which Swansea could put the money. It has active housing action areas as I have mentioned already, where much needs to be done. The council has now more scope to encourage improvements in the private sector with grant aid—and the Housing Act 1980 enables it to assist with grants for essential structural repair. Of course, at the lower end of the housing market—an area where I know Swansea is active—there is scope for further mortgage assistance either for house purchase, where building societies are not active, or in support of essential improvements.
Perhaps I could take this opportunity of stressing that there is no shame in underspending an allocation. We know that problems develop and our best laid schemes fail to materialise or are delayed. This is why we maintain a careful monitoring system on housing expenditure, and why we are prepared, if the opportunity offers, to re-allocate one authority's unspent provision to another.
Hon. Members suggest that the houses at Clase could not be sold in the private sector. They suggested that it is a poor time for the Home Office to be selling. I find that extraordinary. If the houses are offered at too high a price market conditions will certainly ensure that they are eventually sold at a lower price, to the benefit of the individual purchasers. I cannot think that the hon. Members really want the city council to use public money to intervene in the market to keep up the price of houses. That was the conclusion of the argument by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West. I am certain that I speak for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary when I say that he would not want Swansea city
1074
council to use public money in paying a price for the houses which would be higher than the price determined by the open market. The Home Office wants to sell the houses and I understand that it does not see any great difficulty in selling them in the normal way to individuals on the open market.
Mr. Alan Williams: In that case, why does not the Under-Secretary of State agree that the local authority can buy them at whatever the lower price is supposed to be? Why should they be sold to the local authority at a higher price than on the open market? Let the local authority have them at that price and that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman's worries.
Mr. Roberts: If the houses are placed on the open market any individual can buy them. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to deprive these citizens of Swansea of the opportunity to purchase these homes.
I expect building society mortgages to be available for such purchases by private individuals but it would be more in keeping with this Government's policy to make the council's unspent allocation available for mortgage lending here, if it proved necessary, rather than use the money to purchase for its own stock. Why does the council not follow that procedure?
I have carefully considered what has been said, but I see no reason to reconsider my previous decision. It would be a complete negation of our policy on private home ownership if I allowed Swansea city council to proceed as it wishes. The Government's aim is to reduce the scope of the public sector and this could not be achieved if we allowed local authorities to use public money to buy houses which otherwise would be bought by private individuals. The purchase of these houses by Swansea city council would do nothing at all to increase the housing stock of the area. It would reduce the council's ability to spend its allocation on other, more worthwhile purposes. It would involve also the expenditure of scarce resources which, spent another way, might result in more worthwhile housing assets at the end of the day.
Indeed, I add—in case hon. Members have not thought of it—that even if the

1075
council were to buy these houses and to rent them to tenants the tenants would, in due course, have the right to buy them under our Housing Act. And I am sure that they would exercise this right.
Mr. Alan Williams: Let them.
Mr. Roberts: The right hon. Gentleman may say "Let them". In that case, why go through all the procedure of Swansea buying the houses, of putting tenants into them and then of those tenants buying the houses when the houses could be placed on sale immediately? By agreeing with me on that score, the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have conceded my point.
We do not wish to interfere unnecessarily in the affairs of local authorities, but what Swansea city council now proposes is in direct conflict with our policies and it cannot be allowed. I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, but I have to say that my earlier decision cannot be changed.
Mr. Anderson: Could one sum up the Minister's position by saying that the Welsh Office is prepared for these houses to remain indefinitely for sale and be vandalised rather than let them be transferred to the Swansea city council and help reduce the growing army of despairing young people who cannot afford housing otherwise?
Mr. Roberts: That is a totally unfair summing up of the Welsh Office position. These houses will be put on the open market just like any other houses. There is no reason to suppose that anything will happen to these houses that might not happen to any other houses that are put up for sale. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in his forecast. He can trust the Home Office to look after its own property and to ensure that these houses are put on the open market. He can be sure that the citizens of Swansea who wish to buy them will have the chance to do so, as will anyone else, on the open market.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Ten o'clock.

SOCIAL SERVICES
  General Practitioners (Retirement)
  General Practitioners (Retirement)
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Asthma (Steroid Treatment)
  Asthma (Steroid Treatment)
  Departmental Statistics
  Departmental Statistics
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
  Christmas Bonus
  Christmas Bonus
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Young Persons
  Young Persons
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
  Industrial Disputes (Benefits)
  Industrial Disputes (Benefits)
  Married Women's Invalidity Pension
  Married Women's Invalidity Pension
  St. Benedict's Hospital, Tooting
  St. Benedict's Hospital, Tooting
  Short-term Benefits
  Short-term Benefits
  Form HMR 1 (1. P) (Member's Correspondence)
  Form HMR 1 (1. P) (Member's Correspondence)
  Maternity Grant
  Maternity Grant
CIVIL SERVICE
  Official Envelopes (Re-use)
  Official Envelopes (Re-use)
  Computers
  Computers
TRADE
  Exchange Rate
  Exchange Rate
  Imports
  Imports
  Steel
  Steel
  Heathrow
  Heathrow
  Tampons
  Tampons
  Bankruptcy and Liquidation (Ayrshire)
  Bankruptcy and Liquidation (Ayrshire)
  Duty-free Shops
  Duty-free Shops
  British Airways
  British Airways
  PRISONERS OF WAR (PAY)
  PRISONERS OF WAR (PAY)
  CANADA (BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT)
  CANADA (BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT)
  "THE TIMES"
  "THE TIMES"
  INFORMATION, TECHNOLOGY AND DATA PRIVACY
  INFORMATION, TECHNOLOGY AND DATA PRIVACY
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Select Committees
  Select Committees
  DEPARTMENTAL STATISTICS
  DEPARTMENTAL STATISTICS
  ENGINEERING PROFESSION
  ENGINEERING PROFESSION
  WORKS OF ART (Export)
  WORKS OF ART (Export)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  International University Exchange Fund
  International University Exchange Fund
  Aid
  Aid
  Bolivia
  Bolivia
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Departmental Statistics
  Departmental Statistics
  Penal Establishments
  Penal Establishments
  Horserace Totalisator Board
  Horserace Totalisator Board
  Police Manpower
  Police Manpower
  Criminal Statistics
  Criminal Statistics
  Sporting Activities (Police Protection)
  Sporting Activities (Police Protection)
  Police (Ethnic Membership)
  Police (Ethnic Membership)
  BBC (Financing)
  BBC (Financing)
  Hampshire (Electoral Arrangements)
  Hampshire (Electoral Arrangements)
  Welsh Television Channel
  Welsh Television Channel
  Prisoners (Complaints)
  Prisoners (Complaints)
  Wormwood Scrubs
  Wormwood Scrubs
  BBC (Commercial Advertising)
  BBC (Commercial Advertising)
  Police (Firearms)
  Police (Firearms)
  Immigrants (Records)
  Immigrants (Records)
  Public Assemblies (Control)
  Public Assemblies (Control)
  Diplomatic Immunity
  Diplomatic Immunity
EMPLOYMENT
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  Short-time Working
  Short-time Working
  Closures and Job Losses
  Closures and Job Losses
  European Social Fund (Handicapped Persons)
  European Social Fund (Handicapped Persons)
  Training
  Training
  Unemployed Teachers
  Unemployed Teachers
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Disablement Resettlement Officers
  Disablement Resettlement Officers
  West Midlands
  West Midlands
  Employment Statistics
  Employment Statistics
ENERGY
  Oil from Coal
  Oil from Coal
  Gas Prices (Industrial Consumers)
  Gas Prices (Industrial Consumers)
  Concessionary Coal
  Concessionary Coal
  Energy Costs
  Energy Costs
  Coal Imports
  Coal Imports
  National Award Scheme
  National Award Scheme
  Offshore Requirements
  Offshore Requirements
  Aviation Spirit
  Aviation Spirit
  Offshore Exploration(Seventh Round)
  Offshore Exploration(Seventh Round)
WALES
  National Mobility Scheme
  National Mobility Scheme
  Council House (Saron, Caernarfon)
  Council House (Saron, Caernarfon)
  Pencraig College, Llangefni
  Pencraig College, Llangefni
  Housing Authorities (Expenditure)
  Housing Authorities (Expenditure)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Weapons (Exports and Imports)
  Weapons (Exports and Imports)
  Arms Expenditure and Development Assistance
  Arms Expenditure and Development Assistance
  South Africa (Diplomats)
  South Africa (Diplomats)
  Diplomatic Immunity
  Diplomatic Immunity
  El Salvador (Refugees)
  El Salvador (Refugees)
  European Convention on Human Rights
  European Convention on Human Rights
  British Embassy, Managua
  British Embassy, Managua
INDUSTRY
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  SUBVERSIVE ORGANISATIONS
  SUBVERSIVE ORGANISATIONS
  GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICE
  GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICE
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Departmental Statistics
  Departmental Statistics
  Fertilisers
  Fertilisers
SCOTLAND
  Newborn Babies (Life Expectancy)
  Newborn Babies (Life Expectancy)
  National Health Service (Drugs)
  National Health Service (Drugs)
  Food Premises (Registration)
  Food Premises (Registration)
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Infant Mortality (Dundee)
  Infant Mortality (Dundee)
  "Education for the Industrial Society"
  "Education for the Industrial Society"
  School Meals Service
  School Meals Service
  Hospital Expenditure
  Hospital Expenditure
  Further Education
  Further Education
  School Leavers (Qualifications)
  School Leavers (Qualifications)
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Mullwharchar inquiry
  Mullwharchar inquiry
  Education Statistics (Dundee)
  Education Statistics (Dundee)
  Consultative Committee on the Curriculum
  Consultative Committee on the Curriculum
  Council House Sales (Advertising Costs)
  Council House Sales (Advertising Costs)
  Loft Insulation
  Loft Insulation
  South of Scotland Electricity Board
  South of Scotland Electricity Board
  Electricity Boards (Research and Development)
  Electricity Boards (Research and Development)
  Teacher Supply
  Teacher Supply
  Legal Services (Royal Commission)
  Legal Services (Royal Commission)
  Factory Closures (Ayrshire)
  Factory Closures (Ayrshire)
  Roads (Aberdeenshire)
  Roads (Aberdeenshire)
  Stonefield Vehicles, Cumnock
  Stonefield Vehicles, Cumnock
  Unemployment (Girvan, Ayr and Cumnock)
  Unemployment (Girvan, Ayr and Cumnock)
  Colleges of Education
  Colleges of Education
  Beef
  Beef
  Redundancies (Ayrshire)
  Redundancies (Ayrshire)
  Murder
  Murder
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Prison Uniform
  Prison Uniform
  Upper Galwally (Police Station)
  Upper Galwally (Police Station)
  Housing Study Group
  Housing Study Group
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Student Loans
  Student Loans
  Teachers' Pension Fund
  Teachers' Pension Fund
  Pupil Costs
  Pupil Costs
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Unemployed Teachers
  Unemployed Teachers
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Corporation Tax
  Corporation Tax
  Capital Gains Tax (Member's Correspondence)
  Capital Gains Tax (Member's Correspondence)
  Coinage
  Coinage
  Unit Labour Costs
  Unit Labour Costs
  Foreign Investment
  Foreign Investment
  Exchange Rate
  Exchange Rate
  Exchange Rates
  Exchange Rates
  Sterling M3
  Sterling M3
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Departure Tax
  Departure Tax
  Imports
  Imports
  International Monetary Fund (Labour Costs)
  International Monetary Fund (Labour Costs)
  Liverpool Airport
  Liverpool Airport
  Personal Export Scheme
  Personal Export Scheme
  Pensioners (Christmas Bonus)
  Pensioners (Christmas Bonus)
  Inflation
  Inflation
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  Nationalised Industries (Expenditure)
  Nationalised Industries (Expenditure)
  European Community (Cash Flows)
  European Community (Cash Flows)
  Retail Price Index
  Retail Price Index
  European Community Budget (United Kingdom Contribution)
  European Community Budget (United Kingdom Contribution)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  National Insurance Contributions (Hotel and Catering)
  National Insurance Contributions (Hotel and Catering)
  "Inequalities in Health" (Report)
  "Inequalities in Health" (Report)
  Infant Mortality
  Infant Mortality
  Non-contributory Invalidity Pension
  Non-contributory Invalidity Pension
  Hospital Doctors
  Hospital Doctors
  "Income During Initial Sickness: a New Strategy"
  "Income During Initial Sickness: a New Strategy"
  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mentally Handicapped People
  Breast Cancer
  Breast Cancer
  Dalkon Shield
  Dalkon Shield
  National Health Service (Reorganisation)
  National Health Service (Reorganisation)
  "Social Security Statistics"
  "Social Security Statistics"
  Interim Secure Units
  Interim Secure Units
  Paul Brown
  Paul Brown
  East Sussex County Council (Statutory Duties)
  East Sussex County Council (Statutory Duties)
  Disablement Benefit
  Disablement Benefit
DEFENCE
  Defence Contracts (Moratorium)
  Defence Contracts (Moratorium)
  Departmental Statistics
  Departmental Statistics
  Departmental Manpower
  Departmental Manpower
  Ex-prisoners of War (Pay)
  Ex-prisoners of War (Pay)
  Stonefield Vehicles
  Stonefield Vehicles
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Operation Square Leg
  Operation Square Leg
  Mule Transport
  Mule Transport
  Equipment Programme
  Equipment Programme
  RFA "Tarbatness"
  RFA "Tarbatness"
ENVIRONMENT
  Domestic Housing (Insulation)
  Domestic Housing (Insulation)
  Heating Standards
  Heating Standards
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Purchasing Policy
  Purchasing Policy
  International Year of Disabled People
  International Year of Disabled People
  Belvoir Coalfield (Planning Appeal Inquiry)
  Belvoir Coalfield (Planning Appeal Inquiry)
  Housing Associations
  Housing Associations
  Homeless Households
  Homeless Households
  House Building
  House Building
  Ordnance Survey
  Ordnance Survey
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Manchester Airport
  Manchester Airport
  Flooding (South Fylde)
  Flooding (South Fylde)
  Departmental Manpower
  Departmental Manpower
TRANSPORT
  Motorway Service Stations
  Motorway Service Stations
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Charnwood Borough Council (Planning Applications)
  Charnwood Borough Council (Planning Applications)
  Child Restraints
  Child Restraints
  Driving Licences
  Driving Licences

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

THE ORDNANCE SURVEY: FUTURE STRUCTURE
Lord UNDERHILL: 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 any proposals are under consideration for the transfer of the Ordnance Survey to the private sector.
The Earl of AVON: My Lords, the Ordnance Survey Review Committee, which was set up under the previous Government, was specifically required to report on the basis that the Ordnance Survey would remain a Government department. Thus, the Committee's report, valuable though it is in other respects, lacks any review of other structural possibilities. My right honourable friend is considering the future of the Survey against the full range of possible structures inside and outside the Civil Service, with a view particularly to a more enterprising role and independent status. Some preliminary studies are in hand to this end and if my right honourable friend decides to make a more detailed examination there will, of course, be wide consultations on any resulting proposals for a change of structure.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. Is it appreciated that the Serpell Committee, which reported on the Ordnance Survey, contained in its recommendations no reference to any proposal for hiving off? Do the Government accept the view of that committee that the national archives built up by the Ordnance Survey over a long period of years and at considerable cost is an essential and vital part of (in their words) "a national heritage which must be preserved"? Further, will not
742
any hiving off of any part of the Ordnance Survey to the private sector mean that what will be hived off will be the most lucrative sections of Ordnance Survey and that this could leave the rest of its essential work in some danger?
The Earl of AVON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is going too fast. At the moment, there is no firm proposal whatsoever for privatisation. As I said earlier, the Government are aware that this report was purely on terms which do not include privatisation. Therefore, there will be lots of consultation before going any further. The Government are well aware of the importance and value of the Ordnance Survey.
Lord PEART: My Lords, will the noble Earl give an assurance that this fine organisation, which has achieved so much and which is a strong example to the rest of the community in many ways, will not be interfered with in any way and will not be destroyed?
The Earl of AVON: My Lords, the Government fully endorse what the noble Lord has said about the Ordnance Survey. They have no wish whatever to harm it. However, I cannot give an assurance about whether or not it may later be considered for transfer to the private sector.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the essence of conservatism is that you do not change anything unless it is absolutely necessary to do so, and that there seems to be no evidence about the necessity for a change in the status of the Ordnance Survey?
The Earl of AVON: My Lords, I think that my noble friend is speaking of conservatism with a small "c" and not a capital "c".
Lord PLANT: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that there is considerable staff discontent and apprehension in relation to the inquiry which is now afoot inside the department, that the future of the national grid system and issues like that are in doubt and that it may be that there will be some privatisation? Could the Minister say why otherwise these inquiries are taking place inside the department?
The Earl of AVON: My Lords, I do not think that there need be any fears in relation to the grid system either staying where it is or being moved to the private sector. So far as staff implications are concerned, should there be any progress on this, there will be full consultation with the trade union representatives on any proposals affecting their interests.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, is the noble Earl able to give an assurance that, if there are to be any proposals for change, these will be brought before Parliament before implementation?
The Earl of AVON: My Lords, while I cannot give any absolute assurance to the noble Lord, yes, it is our intention that should there be changes contemplated every opportunity will be given to debate the matter particularly in your Lordships' House.

BRITISH AIRWAYS HELICOPTER SERVICE APPLICATION
2.46 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: 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 why the British Airports Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority have not given permission for British Airways to operate a helicopter service between Milton Keynes and Heathrow.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I understand that British Airways Helicopters Limited have asked the Civil Aviation Authority not to proceed with the application for the time being, and that the operation of the proposed helicopter service is the subject of discussions between the applicant, the National Air Traffic Services and the British Airports Authority.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for what seemed to me to be an unsatisfactory Answer, may I ask whether he can give any reason why helicopter movements should be confused with fixed-wing aircraft
744
movements into Heathrow? Furthermore, is he aware that the policy that British Airways now want to adopt in running this service would be beneficial to British industry, because I believe that British Airways would like to operate this service next year starting with wholly British-built Westland C.30s?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am interested to hear that, but the difficulty which is apprehended relates to the route of the helicopter between Milton Keynes and a suitable site on the airport. The problem so far seems to be that this route conflicts with the approach path to the main runways.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that helicopters are very noisy and we do not want more of them if we can possibly help it?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am aware that that is a widely held view.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us whether the British Airports Authority have given permission to anyone to operate into Heathrow small, fixed-wing aircraft in the small hours of the morning? Can lie say what kind of inquiry into that recent incident is being initiated?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that that is a matter that we take very seriously. An inquiry is being held by the BAA and others, but I am not yet in a position to make any announcement.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask one further supplementary question? Is my noble friend aware that there is a farm north of Heathrow called Sipson Farm, which could be a British heliport, and I believe is owned by the British Airports Authority? Is any progress being made with them in allowing it to be used as a heliport?
Lord TREFGARNE: The construction of a new heliport, for example, on some site to the north of Heathrow, would of course have to be subject to the usual planning procedures.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, in view of the emphasis on semantics and the small

745
"c", will the Minister tell us whether it was purely a coincidence that half of the ownership of the small fixed-wing aircraft is vested in a gentleman called Tory?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I think not.

SHOPLIFTING
2.44 p.m.
Lord WHADDON: 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 what discretion may be exercised by prosecuting authorities when they consider taking action on charges of shoplifting.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead): My Lords, in England and Wales the decision whether to prosecute in respect of an alleged criminal offence is a matter for the chief officer of police concerned, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. He may decide to take no further action if he considers that appropriate or, particularly where the suspect is elderly and admits the offence, to dispose of the case by way of a formal caution rather than prosecution.
Lord WHADDON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that while the majority of shoplifters deserve the full weight of the law, there have been a disturbing number of cases of convictions for trivial offences involving ageing or disturbed people where tragic and sometimes fatal results seem to be associated with conviction? Is he aware of the public concern regarding a recent very prominent case of this nature? Does he not consider that the ends of justice might be better served by the exercise of a little more mercy in appropriate cases?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, first of all, I should remind your Lordships that the right of private prosecution and the exercise of police discretion in bringing prosecutions fall within the terms of
746
reference of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure which is expected to be reporting soon. It is right to say, in answer to the noble Lord, that a very substantial number of people are cautioned for this particular offence. Indeed, if one takes the years 1975 to 1978—which are the latest for which I have statistics—about a third of the persons dealt with for offences of shoplifting were cautioned by the police as an alternative to court proceedings.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, is the noble Lord able to say why on doubtful, borderline cases a medical report is not always called for?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, that is a matter for the court concerned.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, is not the trouble in many cases that mentally disturbed shoplifters may plead not guilty, and that if they plead not guilty it is obviously impossible to caution them, and it is very difficult to help them to get over troubles with an offence which they do not admit? Is not the real problem in this case what to do about the mentally troubled offenders who plead not guilty, and whom one is thus almost forced to put on trial merely to give them the chance to prove their innocence, which is what they want done?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, the noble Lord puts the problem very accurately.
Lord SOPER: My Lords, without any intention of condoning shoplifting, are the Government aware of the very strong feeling among those engaged in social work, and not only in the Churches, that this particular evil presents a unique and unprecedented temptation to those who otherwise are able to deal with, if not eradicate, their content of original sin? Is it not desirable that those who are in the first instance responsible for apprehending so-called shoplifters should be instructed—or at any rate someone should tell them more accurately than seems hitherto to have been done—what is a genuine, sympathetic and, at the same time, right procedure that they should take? Is it not the experience of many who have to deal with those who have been shoplifting and have been punished

747
for so doing that they have a very strong grievance and, in some cases, a justifiable one?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I do not think that the suggestion that the noble Lord is specifically making is as easy practically as would sound from the felicitous way in which the noble Lord puts it. Having said that, I would not want the noble Lord to think that my right honourable friend's department were being wholly inactive in this matter. The Home Office Standing Committee on Crime Prevention in 1973 published a report which was called Shoplifting and Thefts by Shop Staff which made various recommendations to deter shoplifting. That Standing Committee is now reviewing the 1973 report to see whether there is scope for any further initiative.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, is the Minister able to tell me whether the figures that he quoted just now about cautions included juveniles? In my very long experience as a magistrate serving in the West End, where my court dealt with West End shoplifting, cautioning was exceptional except in the case of juveniles. Is the noble Lord able to say whether those figures included juveniles, or were they for adults only?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I think the statistics I quoted included juveniles. If I am wrong, I will write to the noble Baroness. What I know for a fact is that, as for other types of offence, the proportion cautioned is higher for juveniles.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, is it not right that a caution can be administered only where a person has unequivocally admitted guilt? Secondly, would the Government consider reminding prosecuting authorities, both public authorities and those who prosecute privately, that there is a discretion and that they ought to exercise their discretion with the greatest possible care, particularly where elderly defendants are concerned?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first question is, yes. The answer to his second question must be that surely we ought to wait—and I hope now it will not be very long—
748
for the report from the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure.
The Earl of GOSFORD: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Age Concern have recently noted 16 cases of suicide among elderly people of both sexes directly concerned with shoplifting offences? Is he further aware that many such cases occur, when this kind of attention-seeking is involved, at times of bereavement?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I was not aware of the specific statistics to which the noble Earl has referred. I am grateful to him for telling us about it and I think there is a lot in what the noble Earl has said.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us when we can hope to expect the report of the Royal Commission? There are many issues of public importance like this one we are discussing about which the views of the Royal Commission are eagerly awaited. If anything can be done to encourage further progress in the commission it will be greatly appreciated.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I understand that the eagerness with which the legal profession and, indeed, others concerned are awaiting the report is rivalled only by the eagerness of the chairman and members of the commission to get the report out.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, has the noble Lord the Minister observed the very heavy fines inflicted on some foreign shoplifters? Is the revenue from this sent to the Treasury? Who gets it?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor says it is not him! I think I am right in saying that it is in fact the department where I work.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, does not most of it go to pay the costs of running the magistrates' courts, and are they not largely self-financing?
Lord BELSTEAD: Absolutely, my Lords; and of course the level of the fines imposed is a matter for the courts.

SWAPO AND UN RESOLUTIONS
2.53 p.m.
Lord BARNBY: 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 in what manner they have recorded dissent from the United Nations resolution that the Marxist inspired and supported SWAPO is the sole voice representative of black Africans in South West Africa.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have often stated that they do not accept the description of SWAPO in resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly as the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people. Successive British Governments have either abstained on, or voted against, resolutions containing such assertions.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it would have made any difference if my Question had referred to "authority" instead of "representative" since he used it in his reply? Secondly, would it not seem from that that the Government did not adequately dissociate themselves from the position of the United Nations resolutions? May I also ask him whether it is to be understood that the full diplomatic recognition of Angola by the United States is dependent on the total removal of all Cuban troops? And can he give any indication as to when we might expect the contemplated elections in South West Africa to take place?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I think the second supplementary falls a bit outside the scope of the Question on the Order Paper. As to my noble friend's first supplementary, I am sorry that my original Answer did not make clear that our view is that SWAPO cannot claim to be the sole representative of the Namibian people because in due course that will be for the people of Namibia themselves to decide. As for when they will get that opportunity, we hope it will be soon, but of course that remains to be determined with the conclusion of the present negotiations.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, can the Minister say in more detail in what way the dissociation from the United Nations resolution actually occurred? Also, can he give replies to my second and third supplementaries?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I did reply to the final supplementary; the noble Lord asked me when we could expect elections to take place and I told him that would have to depend upon the result of the present negotiations. I also said in my main reply that we have always either abstained on or voted against resolutions which suggest that SWAPO is the sole legitimate representative of the Namibian people.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, can the noble Lord indicate whether there is any hope of the South West Africans coming to negotiation in the fairly early future? Is the noble Lord aware that all parts of the House are deeply worried about the fact that this issue is dragging itself on with no resolution at the end of it?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, a United Nations mission was recently in Pretoria and we hope that the Secretary-General's report arising out of that mission will be put before the Security Council fairly soon.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, I know the noble Minister is not responsible for the reports following the visit of the United Nations team there, but the reports appeared to be extremely negative. Will he tell us whether he agrees that the renewed invasion of Angola by South African troops is handicapping the efforts of the five Western powers in this matter? Is it not consistent with the obstruction that the South African Government has been putting up to the suggestions made by the Western group and the United Nations over the last few years?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the various military activities taking place to which the noble Lord refers are of course a difficulty, but so too is the violence coming from other quarters, and in particular SWAPO, which form the subject of the Question on the Order Paper. As for the general charge of South African

751
delay, I think it would be better if we awaited the Secretary-General's report to the Security Council, to see how they got on at their recent meeting.
Lord PLANT: My Lords, if SWAPO is not regarded as the sole representative voice of the black South Africans, can the Minister say which group or groups do the Government regard as the representative interests of black South Africans?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, is the noble Lord talking about black South Africans? If so, I think that is another question.
Lord PLANT: South-West Africans.
Lord TREFGARNE: The question of who is the sole legitimate voice of the Namibian people will have to be determined at an election.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that not only the reports in the press but also information which one has received in other ways indicate that the recent discussions at Pretoria broke down and that there will inevitably be further delay in reaching a solution of this urgent problem? Will Her Majesty's Government do everything possible to intensify efforts to obtain a solution of this problem?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we agree that there is an urgent need for a solution to this problem, but we think that the best way forward is through the implementation of the United Nations plan, and that is now happening. The next stage will be to study the Secretary-General's report to the Security Council, which we expect to be received shortly.

BUSINESS
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships to know that dinner will be available at the usual time this evening.
It is expected that the Report stage of the Broadcasting Bill will be adjourned at approximately seven o'clock for a short period—perhaps 35 to 40 minutes.

BROADCASTING BILL
3 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Preliminary]:
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 40, at end insert—
("(f) for the purposes of this Act, a person engages in an anti-competitive practice if, in the course of business, that person pursues a course of conduct which, of itself or when taken together with a course of conduct pursued by persons associated with him, has or is intended to have or is likely to have the effect of restricting, distorting or preventing competition in connection with the production, supply or acquisition of goods in the United Kingdom or any part of it or the supply or securing of services in the United Kingdom or any part of it.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. I and, with your Lordships' consent, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 23, 24, 25 and 29. These amendments deal with a not unimportant point in this Bill; that is, the question of the funding of the fourth programme and the manner in which those funds are raised. The object of this series of amendments is to secure that the Bill will provide some sanction for any abuse of the monopoly powers and dominant position of the ITV programme companies in the sale of air time to advertisers and advertising agents on the fourth programme.
These sales are commercial transactions. They have nothing to do with programme content, for the ITV programme contractors who are to make the sales have nothing to do with the programme content on the fourth channel. That is a matter for the IBA. Only the right to provide advertisements, not programmes, for inclusion in the fourth channel broadcasts is conferred by Clause 5(2) on the ITV programme contractors. The Bill requires that this right must be written into the contract which the authority is to make with each ITV programme contractor.
During the debate at Committee stage on the amendments which I put down, sought, among other things, to get such a sanction made explicit in the Bill. May I make it absolutely clear that the amendments on the Marshalled List have nothing

753
to do with my first amendment at Committee stage, which was about introducing a degree of competition in the sale of advertising time on the fourth channel. Regretfully, I withdrew that amendment and did not move any of the others. The amendments which I am now moving concentrate entirely on ensuring that there is fair trading as between the sellers and the buyers of advertising time on the fourth channel; that is, the ITV programme contractors on the one hand, and the advertisers and advertising agencies on the other. My contention is that it is not possible to ensure that, unless there is some explicit sanction to be applied if the sellers' monopoly is abused.
The buyers—that is, the customers of the ITV programme companies—strongly believe that there are now abuses which can scarcely be defended, as I explained in Committee. Indeed, such practices have been referred to in the House of Commons. One can hardly be surprised if they exist, as all monopolies are liable to be abused; that is why we have monopolies legislation. But it is not clear that it will apply to the ITV programme contractors' regional monopolies.
Sir Paul Bryan, a director of one of the larger TV companies and, at one time, a Front Bench spokesman on broadcasting in another place said, in the House of Commons debate on the Bill, that the advertisers' legitimate grievance was that not enough notice was taken of their position as customers of a monopoly supplier. More notice needs to be taken of that position in this Bill. Parliament has created these monopolies and it is surely for Parliament to ensure that appropriate safeguards exist.
My noble friend the Minister and f were in agreement at the Committee stage that there are two valuable arrangements, one voluntary and one contained in the Bill. These will enable advertisers and advertising agencies to state their own case when abuses of monopoly by the TV contractors are alleged. They do, however, fall short of being safeguards. They are, at best, facilities. First, a liaison committee, on which the buyers and the sellers of advertising time are represented, has been set up under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, who is shortly to become chairman of the authority, where
754
the terms of trade between them, as well as other matters, can be discussed.
Secondly, Clause 7(2)(d) provides for the authority to include in their annual general report a general account of any complaints received by the authority about the conduct of the television programme contractors, in connection with the sale of advertising time on ITV and the fourth channel respectively, and the action taken by the authority in relation to those complaints.
There are two snags about that provision. First, Section 31(3) of the main Act of 1973 requires the authority to prepare their general report as soon as maybe after the end of each financial year, and then to transmit it to the Secretary of State who will consider it and lay copies before each House of Parliament. That means that Members of this House and the other place will, with luck, have the report in their hands anything between six months and 18 months after a complaint has been made to the authority.
Secondly, it is not clear what the authority can do, in the event of failure to resolve a complaint satisfactorily to both seller and buyer. My noble friend Lord Belstead seemed to suggest that if the authority could not persuade the sellers to desist from a practice which the authority felt was an abuse of their monopoly, then the authority would or could refer it to the Director General of Fair Trading, or else the aggrieved party would do so. What would happen then? The Director General could then have it investigated. Indeed, he could investigate it on his own initiative or in response to a complaint.
Let us suppose that he finds that there has been, or still is, an abuse of monopoly or an uncompetitive practice taking place. Depending on the circumstances, it seems that he could either recommend that the Secretary of State should make an order under the Fair Trading Act, or else, after a short investigation and a report proposing undertakings to be entered into by the party found to be pursuing the practice in question, followed by an interval not exceeding eight weeks for discussion of the undertakings, he could refer the case to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission under the Competition Act.
Alternatively, the Secretary of State could refer it to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The commission would then investigate and report to the Secretary of State making recommendations, if they thought fit, as to remedial action to be taken by the Ministers. The Secretary of State would publish the report and, in turn, request the Director General of Fair Trading to obtain undertakings and might, subsequently, make an order prohibiting the television contractor from continuing the practice in question or any similar conduct.
However, it appears that the Home Secretary does not himself have power to make a monopoly reference. As the selling and buying of advertising space involves purely commercial transactions, that is rightly regarded as a matter for the Secretary of State for Trade. He, it appears, can make such a reference himself or in conjunction with another listed Minister. But the Home Secretary is not one of the Ministers listed in the Act. In the long run, the authority would, no doubt, take the conduct of the TV programme contractor into account when deciding whether to renew the contract and, no doubt, also, the programme contractor would have this possibility in mind. It bather looks as if the Government's intention is to leave it to the Director General of Fair Trading and to exclude the Competition Act procedures. It is not clear what action can be taken if the undertakings, for which the Director General asks, are not given or, if given, are not adhered to.
In these circumstances, I feel obliged to seek these assurances from my noble friend. First, will he give an assurance that these Competition Act procedures could be used in such a case and that there is nothing in existing legislation that prevents their being used? Second, will he further give an assurance that the relevant Secretaries of State have no intention of making an order excluding this particular kind of abuse from the purview of the Competition Act? I ask that because it seems that they could make such an exclusion under Section 2(3) of the Act. Third, will he give a further assurance that he is satisfied that the Fair Trading Act can cope with any unfair practices by television contractors in the sale of advertising time, that they
756
will be used if and when such practices occur and that, if and when used, they will produce or lead to the practical result of rectifying such practices? Are the necessary powers really there in the Fair Trading Act? Will the Government make orders, as and when necessary? If my noble friend cannot give me an assurance that an order can be made one way or the other, then I submit that the Bill most certainly needs amendment along the lines I am proposing.
The first amendment would provide a definition of anti-competitive practices for the purposes of this Bill. It is the same as the definition in Section 2 of the Competition Act, though the procedures to establish the existence of an anticompetitive practice would not necessarily be the same as under that Act. The second amendment, which is No. 23 on the Marshalled List, imposes on the IBA a duty equivalent to that which they already have under Section 12(3)(b) of the 1973 Act. In that case, the duty is to ensure that there is adequate competition in the supply of programmes. So it cannot be argued that this Bill, combined with the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973, has nothing to do with commercial competition. In this case, as opposed to that case, the duty imposed is in respect of the provision of advertisements for inclusion in programmes broadcast in an area by the authority on the fourth channel or, for that matter, in more than one ITV programme area, or in all such areas. The duty laid upon the authority is to ensure that no television programme contractor engages in an anti-competitive practice.
The third, fourth and fifth amendments, Nos. 24, 25 and 29, relate to the requirement in Section 13—and I quote:
"The contracts between the Authority and the various programme contractors shall contain all such provisions as the Authority think necessary or expedient to be inserted for complying and securing compliance with the provisions of this Act and any restrictions or requirements imposed thereunder in relation to the programmes provided by the programme contractors".
It may be thought that as a matter of course the authority would include a provision to ban anti-competitive practices and to secure methods of enforcement of the ban. However, to remove any doubt, the fifth amendment, Amendment No. 29, spells out the particular requirement relating to fourth channel advertisements;

757
namely, that television programme contractors shall not engage in any anticompetitive practice.
The third amendment, No. 24, requires the inclusion in the contract of a provision reserving to the authority an absolute right to determine the contract without compensation if an order has been made under Section 10 of the Competition Act in respect of anti-competitive practices in the course of selling advertising time on the fourth channel. My noble friend may consider that this provision goes rather too far, and that the termination should relate not to the authority's obligation to transmit programmes but to the obligation to accept advertisements for inclusion on the fourth channel. If it does seem severe, may I respectfully say to my noble friend that the severity is due to the way in which the Bill combines the fourth channel activities of the television contractors with their ITV-1 activities in the contract. On the other hand, it would be a very grave matter indeed if a television contractor had flouted the authority and refused to give or to keep undertakings given to the Director General of Fair Trading and so made it necessary for the Secretary of State to make the order.
However, the fourth amendment, which is Amendment No. 25, offers an alternative which is not dependent on the making of an order under the Competition Act. It would provide a speedier sanction by enabling the authority, after consulting the Director General of Fair Trading, to determine the contract if the authority had concluded that a television contractor had engaged in anti-competitive practices in the course of selling advertising time on the fourth channel.
This is a fall-back amendment in case my noble friend is unable to give the assurances which I have sought. This amendment differs from the previous one in the justification for terminating the contract. In the previous one, it would be the decision of the Secretary of State, expressed in an order. In this one it would be the decision of the authority. It would implicitly allow the decision to be enforced against the authority if the rule was not kept.
My noble friend may not like all the provisions of these amendments, but I suggest that they at least ensure that,
758
where unfair practices arise out of a monopoly which the Government themselves are creating, there is a real and practical means of dealing with the matter. Their main use, however, would be as a deterrent. Given the severe penalty to which the television contractors would be subject if they flouted this rule, it is unlikely that they would do so deliberately.
May I add one other thought? Not only is it wrong in principle to give television or any other companies a monopoly without some means of restraining abuse, but also the Government would not be fulfilling their duty under the Treaty of Rome, and in particular Article 86 of the Treaty of Rome, which prohibits the abuse of a dominant position by undertakings such as the ITV programme contractors. Indeed, this has already been enforced by the European Court in at least one case. It is a principle of EEC law that monopoly positions should not be abused and that the member states should provide in their legislation means to ensure that they are not abused.
I apologise for having spoken at length. I felt it necessary to do so because there is strong reason to doubt whether this Bill does contain any such provision. At least I am dealing with all five amendments at the same time in the one speech. My submission is that the simplest and best way to deter and correct the anti- competitive and unfair practices as regards the sale of advertising time under this Bill is to make such practices a breach of contract, containing recision of the contract if it is breached.
I conclude by repeating what I have already said. Parliament has created the area monopolies and is creating a new one in this Bill. It is for Parliament to ensure that appropriate sanctions exist. Unless my noble friend can demonstrate that there does exist in the Bill a sanction against abuse and monopoly in the sale of advertising time, in particular on the fourth channel, then I submit that one needs to be created. I beg to move.
3.19 p.m.
Earl DE LA WARR: My Lords, my noble friend seems to be absolutely determined to stick to his presumption that the 13 contractors between them have an absolute monopoly. It is a presumption

759
which in my opinion is extremely difficult to sustain. They are fighting the other media very hard indeed and at this time they are having a some-what slim time of it. My noble friend goes on to presume that, as night follows day, this monopoly will apparently result in the misuse of their "powers" against the fourth channel. But my noble friend has not explained—if I may say so, he has not even attempted to explain—how they would do this. Furthermore, he has not attempted to explain why they would do it. So I submit that he has in no way proved the case upon which his further arguments rest.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend wishes to be fair. He will recall that I explained this at the Committee stage.
Earl DE LA WARR: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reminder. I do recall that in answer to a question by me he did run off some of the practices, but I have to say—and I wish to be fair to him—that they were a number of technical terms run off very quickly and they did not strike me as amounting to an explanation that was in any way satisfactory.
Of course I do not know what under-takings my noble friend Lord Belstead is going to be able to give in this matter, but it seems to me in general terms that my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn is seeking to surround this new undertaking with a web of statutory protection, which is really quite extraordinary coming from somebody of his persuasion, and that he is taking no account of the way that the market works because this—is it not?—is a straight marketplace operation. We all know that the buying and selling of advertising time is a rough, tough sort of business but, believe me, the buyers are very professional men indeed. They are analysts and statisticians who work out and compare the rates, look at it in terms of "per thousand opportunities to view", which is their standard method of measurement and they will very soon be able to spot things with which they do not agree. The sanction of the market in this matter is capable of being, and is, very great indeed.
760
Furthermore, my noble friend is suggesting that the authority are given powers far and away greater than they have ever had before. He is suggesting that they be given extra powers to determine a contract at any time. In his Amendment No. 25 I would say that he casts them in the role of both judge and jury—and pretty summary ones at that. The authority were not set up to deal with these commercial matters. They were set up, as I said before, in order to advise on and to monitor programmes. That is what they are there for and at that they are extremely good. I very much hope that the Government will have nothing to do with any suggestions which seek to give them a completely different role. For those reasons, I hope that my noble friend will not see fit to press any of his amendments.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I am waiting anxiously to know what the Minister is going to say. I find myself in the unprecedented position of almost agreeing with the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr. I think it is most unlikely that we can support these amendments. I shall not say more than that we have the new advisory committee under my noble friend Lord Thomson, and this surely must go most of the way to deal with the kind of problem that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has raised.
Secondly, over the years, surely the IBA has intervened often enough about terms and conditions of advertising to show that they have both the power and the understanding to do so, and I must confess that I feel these amendments are virtually saying that the IBA are not to be trusted and must be required to terminate contracts under given circumstances. In my opinion, the authority already have quite enough power to terminate contracts if the performance of the contractors is judged to be unsatisfactory, as they nearly did the other day with a certain company that shall be nameless, and I do not think they would welcome the situation proposed in these amendments.
With that warning of my probable view I should like to end by saying, as believers in a mixed economy, that we on this side of the House do occasionally enjoy arguments from Members at one end of it between themselves.
3.25 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I recognise from the speech which my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has made on this amendment that this is an area of genuine concern on the part of advertisers and advertising agencies; and their two organisations, the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers and the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, in past months have clearly and forcefully been making their case. My noble friend has very clearly and thoroughly made the case again on these amendments today. Without saying that I accept the truth of the allegations that have been made, I should like to assure my noble friend that it is the Government's view that if bad practices of the kind to which my noble friend referred exist, they should be dealt with. Where we differ, however, is in our view of the means which should be used to tackle them.
In his speech my noble friend very fairly made the point that two safeguards have already been provided. The first is the setting up of the Television Advertising Liaison Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, bringing together the contractors and the advertisers with the noble Lord in the chair; and also the requirement which is to be found in Clause 7 of this Bill, that Parliament should know what is going on in the advertising field under this Bill by a statutory duty being laid on the IBA to include reports on complaints about advertising and what action the authority have taken. But in essence my noble friend says that this is by no means enough and he wishes to be assured that the law is there to see that practices of which he would disapprove and, as indeed I made clear, the Government would disapprove, could be dealt with. I think and hope that in what I say now I can give my noble friend those assurances.
May I first look generally at my noble friend's amendments. He is moving Amendment No. 1 but he is speaking to five amendments in all, and they are all directed at the outlawing of anti-competitive practices as defined in Amendment No. 1. That definition is in the same terms as that which is to be found in Section 2(1) of the Competition Act 1980. I have consulted the Department of Trade
762
and I am assured that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and the Director General of Fair Trading are satisfied that the provisions of the Competition Act are adequate to deal with allegations of anti-competitive practices, and that these requirements which my noble friend seeks to introduce are therefore not necessary.
I should like now to look specifically at the amendments to which my noble friend is speaking. If I take the individual requirements, I am advised that the first and the fourth of my noble friend's amendments, concerning the duty on the IBA to prevent anti-competitive practices and the duty on contractors to abstain from anti-competitive practices, are really impractical to write in this way into a statute because the definition of an anticompetitive practice is not sufficiently concrete for the IBA and the contractors to be able to say that a particular practice is or is not anti-competitive. This can only be established by an investigation of the effects of the practice in the relevant market. But this objection of lack of practicality in these two amendments does not apply quite so strongly to the provision which would allow the authority to terminate a contract after consultation with the Director General of Fair Trading.
However, this provision would, in effect, short-circuit the procedure which is laid down in the Competition Act for dealing with anti-competitive practices. As many of your Lordships will know very much better than I do, this procedure involves designedly a number of stages, including the publication of a notice of intention to inquire into a specified practice. Nor is it solely a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading to decide. As I understand it, he is not the final arbiter in these matters. In essence, his is only a preliminary inquiry which will determine whether a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is appropriate. I should also like to point out that the Competition Act does not contain any presumption that an anti-competitive practice is necessarily against the public interest. A practice may be anti-competitive, but an order will not be made prohibiting it unless it is found to be against the public interest; and I am advised that the Government would have serious reservations about the establishment in this Bill of a procedure

763
which avoided any assessment of the public interest.
Having spoken briefly about those amendments, I come last—because the arguments here are somewhat different—to the second of the requirements which is proposed by my noble friend; namely, to empower the IBA to terminate a contract where an ITV contractor has contravened an order under Section 10 of the Competition Act. This, I admit, is not open to the objections to which I have been referring previously. On the other hand, I think the provision is unnecessary as a means of enforcing an order under the Competition Act, for which the procedure would be by way of injunction and, if necessary, proceedings for contempt of court. I think it could reasonably be argued that to impose on an independent television contractor the penalty of loss of the whole contract, as well as that inherent in the order and any action to enforce it, could amount to double jeopardy.
My noble friend has asked for some specific assurances about the effectiveness of the Competition Act and kindred legislation to deal with alleged anti-competitive practices which could be envisaged under the Bill as drafted; and if I may I will end by trying to deal with those. I should like to say to my noble friend that I understand that the Government have already made an order under Section 2(3) of the Competition Act, which does not exempt television advertising services from investigation. The Government have no present intention of making any such exemption. Secondly, I understand that the view is taken that the Director General of Fair Trading could make a monopoly reference in relation to the supply of advertising services by the ITV contractors since it is only the supply of television programmes which is mentioned in Schedule 7 to the Fair Trading Act. Under Section 51(2) of the Fair Trading Act the Secretary of State for Trade and also the Home Secretary could make a monopoly reference of their own in this area.
Thirdly, on the assurances for which my noble friend asked me, we are satisfied that the order-making powers under the Competition Act are adequate. The main sanction is the power to prohibit a
764
practice, and the powers in Part I of Schedule 8 to the Fair Trading Act are supplementary to this. I apologise to your Lordships for the length of the reply, and I hope that I may have satisfied my noble friend that the Competition Act and related legislation are an adequate vehicle and also an appropriate vehicle to deal with anti-competitive practices in the sale of television advertising, as in other commercial activity. I accept that the IBA cannot be wholly unconcerned in such matters but—and I think this was very much in the mind of my noble friend Lord De La Warr—surely the prime interest of the authority is, and must continue to be, the ability of the contractors to provide a programme service which, as to standards and content, complies with the general obligations laid upon the IBA by the 1973 Act and by this Bill.
I felt I really had to return to the fact that this a Broadcasting Bill. But having said that, I can assure my noble friend that, so far as their powers allow, the IBA will concern themselves with the practices of the contractors and the sale of advertising and that the Home Secretary will expect the authority to do so. If I may return to a point which we have now both made, I think the setting up of the Television Advertising Liaison Committee is an earnest of our good intentions in that matter.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. This has been a very useful exercise because it has brought out clearly, I believe for the first time, exactly what is involved, how far the Secretary of State is going to be active in this and what he expects of the authority. Certainly my misgivings are alleviated. He has said clearly that the main sanction is for the Secretary of State to prohibit a practice and that this can be done through the Monopolies and Mergers Commission at the instance of the Director General of Fair Trading. There seems to be an adequate means of enforcement. Certainly what is in doubt is whether it is a speedy means of enforcement. These procedures may take a very long time indeed and in the end we may fall back upon the non-renewal of the contract, so long do the procedures take sometimes.
I understand the reasons my noble friend gave for not accepting the fourth

765
amendment. It seems to me that he has made it clear that, if necessary, an order can be made under the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and that there is no intention whatsoever of excluding the sale of advertising time from the Competition Act. In these circumstances I do not think that I need to deal with the intervention of my noble friend Lord De La Warr. Of course, he has so much more experience of these matters, having been a director of a television company, but I do not think that he is in a position to judge by himself whether the practice is fair. It needs both sides to come together, or a third party to come along, and decide. From what my noble friend has said, there is a means of dealing with any possible abuse that may arise in future, and, indeed, with some of the abuses that are alleged to be arising at the present time. So in those circumstances I am sure it would be your Lordships' wish that, while thanking my noble friend, I should withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Nature of the Fourth Channel, and its relation to ITV]:
3.40 p.m.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY Lord HATCH of LUSBY moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 12, at end insert ("with due regard for their international content ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. In doing so, my noble friends and I who have put our names to this amendment want to make it perfectly clear that we consider this to be a non-party amendment, one which should appeal, and we believe will appeal, to all sides of the House. We are encouraged in that belief by the very lively, intelligent and thoughtful debate which took place during the Committee stage of this Bill. May I also say to the noble Lord the Minister who will reply that there is complete confidence among those of us who have been promoting this amendment that the kind of programmes that we have been discussing during the debates on this Bill would have the full support of the Government and that we believe that the Government
766
would like to see these programmes put to the people of this country.
The difference between us comes in this way. First of all, let me point out that when I withdrew the amendment that was tabled in the names of my noble friends and myself at Committee stage I did so with an appeal to the Minister and to other noble Lords to make suggestions as to how the wording could be varied so that it would be acceptable to the general view of this House. I am sorry to say that I have not had those suggestions, but during the interim period I have done what I could, as have other noble Lords and Members of the other place, to find a set of words which could be accepted by the Government but which would indicate at the same time the very great strength of opinion that was expressed during the Committee stage as to the necessity for introducing the international element into the programmes of the fourth channel.
As I see it, there are two objections that members of the Government have made to the proposals which we have put forward so far. The first is that if there is acceptance of one aspect of programme-making then there will be a whole spate of succeeding claims, and that once the Pandora's box is opened nobody knows how many butterflies will fly out of it. That objection can very quickly be cast aside this afternoon, because there are no other claims that have been put down in amendment form and urged in this House. What is more, this is the last stage, or virtually the last stage, of the Bill itself, so that the argument that if our amendment is accepted it will then open the door to many other claims has lost its force.
The second objection, I think, is much stronger; it is one which I appreciate and one which I know is felt on all sides of the House. It is that there should not be in statutory form, in the form of this Bill, any kind of direction of the content of programmes in the new fourth channel. That is an argument with which I am in full agreement, and I do not take issue with the Government on it, except in this respect. If your Lordships will be good enough to turn to the amendment which is down in the names of my noble friends and myself, you will see that the amendment would add to the definition which

767
is already included in the Bill by the Government draftsmen. If the amendment were accepted, then Clause 3(1)(b) would conclude in this way:
"…to ensure that a suitable proportion of the programmes are of an educational nature ",
and then there would be added:
"with due regard for their international content".
So what lies between the Government and ourselves, as I understand it, is simply a question of the definition of "educational". As I understand it, the Government are assuming that if it includes the phrase "programmes of an educational nature" that inevitably will presuppose that some of those programmes will have an international content.
I apologise for repeating the figure that I gave during the Committee stage, that during the survey of 1978–79 the educational programmes of the existing three channels in this country contained just 1·5 per cent. of content which could be described as of an international nature or a form of world development education. We are hoping, and I believe the Government are hoping, that this new channel will bring new initiatives, will innovate, will give a lead to the other three channels, and that that miserable figure of 1·5 per cent. today will be substantially increased on the other channels as well as on the fourth channel itself.
That is why we suggest that we have an opportunity of giving a lead to strengthen what the Government have already done. As I said, I agree that it is not our job, and should not be considered to be our job, to interfere in the content of the programmes, with this exception, that the Government have already included one provision for the content of the fourth channel programmes, which is the provision of programmes of an educational nature.
May I just say to the Minister, in order to save time this afternoon, that he misunderstood a good deal of what we were saying in his reply at the Committee stage. We are not talking here about news and current affairs. We are talking about education—educational programmes. All the existing three channels have made excellent educational programmes of an international nature, but very few
768
of them, and not very frequently, are put on at a time when there is a substantial watching public. I should like to know from the Minister what is the Government's interpretation of the phrase they have included in the Bill, "programmes of an educational nature". He said in his speech on Committee that charity begins at home, Again, we are not talking about charity, we are talking here about education for the real world in which our children and grandchildren are going to live and in which we are living today. That has nothing to do with charity. We are talking about the realities of the world and our position in the world itself.
I conclude on the following note. I make the following appeal, with all the sincerity that I can muster, to each side of the House. On the other side of the House, I know that there are a considerable number of noble Lords with close connections with the various Churches of this country, and I make this appeal particularly to them. Your Lordships will remember the speech which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle made in Committee in which he pointed out the virtually unanimous support which the Churches of this country, of all denominations, had shown in their reaction to the amendment which we had put down. However, I think that it goes wider than that.
I remember that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, in his speech suggested that we should be perhaps more concerned about morality, or at least as concerned about morality as we are about international affairs. I humbly suggest to the noble Viscount that if he talks to the Churches here or anywhere else in the world he will find that their deepest concern as regards morality today is for the morality of the world, not just the morality of the parish—the morality of the world in which deep divisions between people are taking place. Moreover, the Churches consider it to be an essential part of their moral teaching to promote the educational work of bringing knowledge and understanding of other peoples and other societies.
But, if we think back over the past 20 years, would we not agree that there has been a change in the atmosphere of public opinion in this country? I believe

769
that the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, thinking back to the days when he was Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, would agree with me as regards this matter. If I am wrong, I would invite him to contradict me. But I believe that he would agree that 20 years ago there was a great deal more consciousness in this country of our ties with peoples thousands of miles away; with the relationship between different societies; with our responsibility to assist other peoples; with our responsibility to bring overseas students to this country; with our responsibility to strengthen international organisatons, like the Commonwealth and the United Nations. That, I believe, has been declining during the past 20 years. It is not very surprising; this is the period of the end of our imperial era when there have not been as many British people living and working overseas as there were 20 years ago. But however understandable it may be, it is surely both dangerous and morally indefensible, because surely today the need for international understanding is just as great as, if not much greater than, it was 20 years ago?
I conclude with the words of the Brandt Commission report, which puts the whole situation of international education in much better language than I can command. In the chapter of the Brandt Report which deals with international development issues there is the following paragraph:
"The Commission considers it essential that the educational aspects of improved North/South relations be given much more attention in the future. It is imperative that ordinary citizens understand the implications for themselves of global inter-dependence. It is no accident that those countries in the North which score high in official development assistance also provide an outward-looking education to their people and particularly to the younger generation".
With the great power that television has today, and the even greater power that it will have tomorrow in our educational system I believe that we have an opportunity and responsibility for bringing knowledge and understanding of other peoples and other societies to the minds of our own people in this country and this new channel gives us the opportunity to provide for the next generation that citizenship of the village of the world on which the survival of the human race may very well depend. I beg to move.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: My Lords, I must deny myself the pleasure of following the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, in his speculation, which I think is nice but novel, that there were butterflies in Pandora's box. I have never heard about that one before. But, during the Committee stage, I followed with great care the arguments of the noble Lord in support of his amendment at that time. I must tell him that at that time I would have voted against his amendment. I did not think that he made the case that the additional words to the Bill were necessary to encourage the Independent Broadcasting Authority to give coverage to international affairs on the new channel.
Let me say at once that I do not believe that we can detach the educational channel from all the rest of the channels. Education proceeds on all the channels of the BBC or the independent authority all the time. I follow the programmes on international affairs assiduously and I believe that the balance between home affairs and international affairs is about right and their content, with very few exceptions, adequate, objective and educational. Therefore, I am inclined still to believe, even after the persuasive oratory of the noble Lord, that these extra words, this exhortation, is superfluous.
If, for example, we look at the Brandt Report on development, in which the noble Lord and many other noble Lords are interested, we see a great deal of explanation on the various channels which fulfil the criteria which I have mentioned. They have been objective, educational and helpful. If we were to add the words which the noble Lord asks to be added to the Bill, I am afraid that we should be in danger of asking the authority to advocate certain causes. I do not believe that that is the function of the corporation.
The noble Lord and a number of his friends and many others are interested in the North/South problem and the noble Lord has spoken of that several times and with considerable feeling and passion. If that cause is to be advanced it should not be, in my opinion, advanced and advocated by a broadcasting authority; it should be advocated by the Government of the day or any other people who are interested in it. Therefore, I do not think that this job should be put on the broadcasting authority.

771
I have some regret in this matter that I cannot, even now, support the noble Lord. I am fully with him that we should use all our skills and advocacy to show other people abroad that we are interested in them and that their affairs interest us; but not in this way. Therefore, if the noble Lord presses this amendment to a Division—and I have not the least idea what my noble friend will say—I shall, with great regret, have to be in the opposite Lobby.
4.1 p.m.
Lord KILMARNOCK: My Lords, it is a formidable task to follow the noble Lord, Lord Home, in opposition. I must confess at the outset that I am relieved that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, dropped the wording, "development education" from the amendment to which I also have put my name. This seems to me, and always has seemed to me, to be an extremely abstract and anodine phrase for a very important issue, but it is of course what we are talking about. It is a label for issues of vast importance, and this amendment seeks a wider platform for these issues. It is on those grounds that I support it.
Before we dismiss this as a bit of rather airy-fairy window dressing, let us look for a minute at the average person's reaction to and knowledge about issues such as aid, procurement—which is attached and allied to aid—and trade, which is related to aid or stems from aid. These are all issues of great importance, and at the moment they are largely in the hands of a few experts who know how they work. How many people know, for example, of the United Nations' recommendation that 0·7 per cent. of GNP should be devoted by every advanced country to its aid programme? How many people know what our percentage is, or what that of our neighbours in Europe or Scandinavia is? What are the rights and wrongs of this United Nations' recommendation? Is it something that we should take seriously? Do we consider that it is exaggerated, or what?
The new world economic order also arises often enough in debate and in the press. It is normally attached to the non-aligned nations and it is seen as a claim by them for a redistribution of
772
world resources; in some ways it becomes a rather easy Aunt Sally. But what really lies behind it? What motivates it? What can be said in its favour against the status quo?
I was interested that even in your Lordships' House—I say "even", but I should say particularly in your Lordships' House—only the other day, on 16th October, a Starred Question, also asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, gave rise to something like a mini debate. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, answering for the Government, said that it was not necessarily the case that increased aid to third world countries would improve the industrial situation here at home. That was his case. Perhaps he is right, maybe he is wrong, but those are the sort of issues which must be much more frequently, openly and publicly aired than is the case at the moment. On that Starred Question we had a wide exchange of views, ranging between the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, to which Members of your Lordships' House were privileged to listen and to participate in if they wanted to.
But those are the sort of arguments that, on the whole, do not reach the general public. As the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, said, something like 1·5 per cent. of all educational broadcasting time has been devoted to these issues. Maybe it is not possible or desirable to try to achieve a fixed percentage of time on these matters, but the wording that the noble Lord wishes to include in the Bill seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate nudge in the right direction.
Some people—perhaps a number of people—have heard of Mr. Heath's crusade on behalf of the Brandt Report. I confess that I am not a 100 per cent. supporter of everthing the Brandt Report says. To begin with, I find it very difficult to think in North-South terms, having all my life thought in East-West terms. But Mr. Heath's advocacy for seeking a way of recycling petro-dollars back into the Western industrial world is obviously of great importance, as also is his advocacy of a changing role for the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which he sees as becoming the honest brokers for a recycling of money from the OPEC countries back into the Western economies.

773
All these issues are vital to our survival and are at present subsumed under the rather drab title, "development education", on which the Government are not particularly keen anyway. I pointed out during the Committee stage that the official Development Education Fund set up in 1976 has been wound up and so there is no official support for broadening our knowledge of these matters, which, personally, I found rather strange with a Government whose Foreign Secretary is so active and, I think, one can say, so imaginative in the international arena.
How can our young people grow up reasonably well-equipped for the very rapidly changing future if they know nothing about these things?—and the vast majority of them know nothing about them. It is on those grounds—and I shall not detain your Lordships any longer—that I consider that this amendment, however modest in its terminology, would contribute to redress the balance of ignorance and apathy which tends to shroud our thinking on these matters. Therefore, I, personally, think that it is worthy of support and I hope that if the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, decides to press it to a Division, there are other noble Lords on all sides of the House who would join us.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, this House occasionally breaks through the traditional lines on which it is drawn, and it often compliments itself on doing that. It would seem to me that the modesty of this amendment would have provided an occasion when it might have done so. It is always difficult to take up an argument when the protagonists against it are, in fact, so distinguished and when their record is one which is so much to be admired. Nevertheless, I think that it is important that we should not only examine the last 20 years, that we should not simply take into account the arguments that have been so well put about the failing influence of the old Imperial structures, but that at this point in our discussions we should also take into account the fact that institutions which informed, educated and even entertained within Great Britain itself have gone into decline.
For better or for worse, each one of us was influenced in our education by structures which were vastly important,
774
not least being, of course, family life. We are aware that at the present time those institutions—indeed, this one—are subject to change, and that the educating influences in British society have ceased to have a world outlook. It is bound to be important to state, even though we admire certain aspects of programmes that go out, that we cannot accept that the international content of our programmes—on the British Broadcasting Corporation, the Independent Authority network, or indeed on the local radio shows—are just about right.
I know the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, that they are just about right, has been received on this side of the House with some acclaim. I think that is being complacent in the extreme. I believe that there are extraordinarily good programmes of educational content in the medium, but it is not right to assume that the same sorts of influence are being brought to bear on the minds of British children now as in our childhood, whatever the age of the individual making the point.
When we consider this danger which the noble Lord, Lord Home, put clearly before us, that we might fall into the trap of advocacy of causes, we must remember that there is indeed already a great deal of cause advocacy in all the programmes on all the media. In fact this goes on despite the care of the various advisory committees set up within the various Acts in order to avoid too much overt advocacy of causes.
As one who served for at least seven years on various advisory committees of the Independent Broadcasting Authority and previously of the Independent Television Authority, I know the care that was always taken within the advisory bodies to ensure that, on the one hand, we did not transgress into the control of the producers and the makers of programmes and, on the other hand, to see that those programmes were themselves monitored very carefully by the people who had the statutory duty to see that they were carefully presented. Nevertheless, from time to time we had before us serious complaints, some emanating from this House and some from another place, that there was transgression, that there was open

775
advocacy, and that there were difficulties that followed through from that.
This modest little phrase asks only for "with due regard for their international content". It is a phrase that if we were for a moment to forget some of the associations that we have all taken in our lives we could agree on in a moment. It is only because at this moment it seems to experienced people in this House that there is something more behind it than in fact there is that we are not able to accept it. It seemed to me that this amendment was a real attempt to remove from the mind of the House the feeling that there was something more in it than it actually proposed.
I have, I think, committed myself to the idea that as British institutions show themselves to be not as efficient as they once were in communicating with people within Britain, and as the British structure itself breaks increasingly into independent nations seeking to express themselves, so it is increasingly important that international influences be expressed. It is simply in that sense, and for no other reason, that I commit myself wholly to the amendment and will vote for it.
4.13 p.m.
Lord SOPER: My Lords, briefly I would seek to rebut the contention so persuasively made by the noble Lord, Lord Home, that this amendment is superfluous. May I recall from Clause 3 of the Bill that which first attracted my attention and support. Programmes
"calculated to appeal to tastes and interests not generally catered for … a suitable proportion of the programmes are of an educational nature … to give the Fourth Channel a distinctive character of its own".
Had it not been for the fact that those who drafted this Bill and were responsible for it were aware of the need of something more than what is already being provided, surely Clause 3 could not have been included. It is included precisely because there is a need for a wider concept of the whole matter of education, which seems to me a fairly empty word unless it is radically associated in the widest sense with the whole world in which we live, which of course includes the moral as well as the intellectual aspects of our existence.
776
It is for that reason that I believe that were we to translate "with due regard for their international content" as the simple words "with regard to their widest content", we should in fact be expressing the germ and truth of this amendment. But only in so far as education now concerns itself both morally and intellectually with the widest concepts can it really be effective and practical in the kind of world in which we are increasingly finding ourselves. It is that which commends this amendment to me.
May I add just one other word. It appears from some of the daily press in the last few years that there has been an appreciation of this educational need. Quoting, as I would, one or two daily newspapers like the Guardian, which has given much more attention to the educational realities of the widest world in which we live, there is a conspicuous example across the Channel of Le Figaro which in recent years has, in my judgment, produced a magnificent educational programme almost daily in which these widest concerns are duly and properly ventilated.
I can see no sensible reason why this should not be added, not as a directive but as the natural consequence of endeavouring to provide in this channel a wider and a more concise programme of education than hitherto has been provided. For the life of me I cannot understand on what grounds a Government would wish to repudiate what, after all, is the natural consequence, as I see it, of an educational programme which has to be included, but would I think be hamstrung if it were limited, and I am sure would be encouraged by the addition of these words to be as comprehensive as is required.
Lord VERNON: My Lords, I should like to intervene briefly from these Benches in support of this amendment. I do so with great diffidence in the light of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Home. Had I been present in the Chamber at Committee stage I would have spoken in support of the amendment which was then put forward. I did, however, read the debate subsequently and the reply of my noble friend Lord Belstead, and I am bound to say that I was not persuaded by his arguments.

777
We must surely be one of the most insular races in the whole world. Whether this is because we have not been invaded since 1066 or because we have not yet got over the shock of losing a great empire I do not know, but the fact remains that television and the press devote a totally inadequate time to global issues and to events of importance in other countries. When it comes to international coverage even our quality press compares unfavourably with that of some other countries, and in the case of the popular press, which is read by the majority of people in this country, the rest of the world might hardly exist.
The effect is disastrous and the ignorance, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has said, is profound. Many people in the country, encouraged by certain politicians, pretend that we can retreat behind tariff barriers and go it alone, but for a great trading nation such as ours, which depends so heavily on imports, that never has been an option for us and it never will be. We live in one world now, and the sooner we recognise it the better for all concerned. That is why in my view education, and especially education through television, is the key. The amendment is not as specific as I should like. On the other hand, the very fact that it is so generalised may mean that it is more acceptable to the Government, who I hope will accept it.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I endorse the support of the amendment and at the outset wish to express my acute disappointment at the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel. I thought when he began that he was going to say that, while he could not support the amendment moved in Committee, he could support this one. Indeed, I thought he was going to forsake the economics of matchsticks and come on the side of the angels. If we were not discussing a clause dealing with the nature of the fourth channel, we might not be so keen on this amendment, but that is what we are discussing and some of us want to see that the nature of the fourth channel satisfies some quite cardinal requirements. They are already set out to some extent in the provisions of the clause but, as the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, said, we are now members of one world and this aspect of the fourth channel is of supreme importance.
778
The amendment is so innocuous in words that one might feel it is scarcely worth putting in the Bill, but it is an indication, a pointer—if it is no more than a gesture it is worthwhile inserting it—to indicate not only to the people at home but to those overseas that we are not quite so inward-looking as we appear to be now. I mentioned that point when I spoke on this subject on the last occasion; we are getting very insular and inward-looking, and that is a very undesirable trend in this country. We cannot solve our problems on our own. We are part of the wider fate of the world which, in economic and human terms, gives rise to grave anxiety.
The noble Lord, Lord Home, said that if these words were inserted it might look as if the authority had to advocate a cause. No; it would have to find room for a cause, the cause of international understanding. The direction would simply lay on the authority the duty to see that the balance and content of the fourth channel satisfied the hopes and aspirations of those creating it, which is Parliament. There are other causes for which they must make room; the cause of good taste, of higher education, of humour and of gravity. All those things come into the balance, and it may be argued that already the balance in the programmes of all the different channels is about right. I do not think there is anything seriously wrong there; there is a balance between vulgarity and good taste, just as there is a balance between secular and religious opinion. There are balances all the way along the line of human interest.
We have here an indication, however, of something which goes very deep into the obligations of mankind, not only in this country but elsewhere. I therefore hope the House will give very serious attention to this suggestion. We are seeking only to extend the words already in Schedule 3(1)(b) which require the authority to ensure that a suitable proportion of the programmes is of an educational nature. We seek to extend that merely by an indication that "educational nature" extends to international affairs. I think that is a proposition to which the whole House could subscribe. The only difference of opinion is whether we should say so. There are no political differences on the matter we have in mind. It is merely a question whether we should

779
indicate to the authority that this is what they should do, and I believe that on this matter it would be worthwhile and fully justified.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: I hesitate to intervene in this debate, my Lords, for while I find myself in great sympathy with the purpose of the amendment, I wonder whether it would be wise to write the proposed words into the Bill. My mind goes back to the preparation of the Education Act 1944 and the concern of the Churches which caused us to put into that Act a special emphasis on religious education and instruction. I am bound to day that in my opinion the standards in that area of education have not improved as a result of that provision. Indeed, I think on the contrary; they are not nearly as effective as they were 35 or 40 years ago.
Lord PARRY: Would the noble Lord also accept that that is true of the Churches themselves, my Lords?
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: That may well be true, my Lords, but it does not alter the fact as to the effect of that provision being made in the Education Act, and I fear that could happen in relation to international affairs if these words were included in this measure. We are all agreed that education must be concerned with the affairs of the world, and we always have been so agreed, but to insert these words would not necessarily secure as effective a development of education for international understanding as to leave them out and allow education to be what education should be. We have had special provision bodies set up to improve educational standards relating to the United Nations, to this and to that, but none of them have been successful. On balance, I feel it would be better not to insert the proposed words, although I am in support of the intention of the amendment.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: My Lords, I cannot accept the comparison which the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, draws with the reference to religious education in the 1944 Act. After all, the essence of that mention of religious education was to oblige schools to have religious education. It was
780
mandatory. Nothing could be further from the thought here. The amendment is simply a reminder. I agree that, if one started laying down mandatory instructions and led on possibly to the horror of a sort of agreed syllabus of international content, one would be heading for disaster, but we are not proposing anything of the kind.
I could not accept either the contention of the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, that an amendment of this kind would mean that the authority would be drawn into advocating causes or, to put it plainly, that it would become propagandist. It is true of course that when dealing with any subject on which anyone could conceivably have two opinions one might become propagandist, but that would be an objection not only to this amendment but to the reference to programmes of an educational nature at all in the Bill; they might become propagandist and might be used to advocate this, that or the other cause.
But there is not the slightest reason, given the good faith and expertise of the people who do this kind of work, to suppose that that is likely to follow. The amendment simply reminds the authority, when it is dealing with programmes of an educational nature—it is required to do that by the measure as it stands—of the international dimension in education. The question that we are arguing is whether it is necessary to give the authority that reminder. It has been very persuasively argued by some noble Lords that it is not really necessary to do so. I want to say a few words on the reasons why I think it would be desirable to remind the authority, when it is preparing programmes of an educational nature, that there is an international dimension.
The first reason is that that international dimension has grown so much in the last generation. To take the point at its most terrible: the nature of modern weapons has made the problem of getting the nations of the world to live at peace with one another a much more burning problem for mankind than it has ever been before, and the intellectual and emotional effort that is necessary to achieve peaceful co-existence is all the more mandatory for mankind. In a more cheerful field, in some respects

781
nations have learnt to co-operate more with one another; but in the kind of world in which they live that co-operation involves elaborate machinery, such as the European Economic Community, and the various other groups of nations cooperating over the world.
Therefore there is here a new dimension, something that it would be desirable for people to know more of. The discovery of the new world immensely enlarged the international dimension in men's consciousness. It led Bacon to write the New Atlantis, pointing out the effect that this was going to have on the way that men thought about almost everything. We have had a rather similar development in the last generation, and therefore I think that there is a case for reminding this authority, which is starting off on its way, of the importance of the international dimension in education.
I would make one other point. Education is not merely an intellectual process; it is a process of the imagination as well. That, I think above all, is what one wants—that among people at large there should be a more imaginative grasp of how the people of other nations feel, and how they are likely to think, particularly if they are of different colours and live in very different surroundings. I say this because statesmen in control of foreign affairs—I was going to say "trying to control foreign affairs "—cannot advocate wise policies with much hope of success if, in the population as a whole, there lacks an understanding of what is needed and a sympathetic grasp of how people in other countries and other continents are likely to feel. It is that imaginative element in education that is important, and it is for that imaginative element that television is exceptionally valuable.
Anyone who has been engaged in educational work will know how much more important in education is the eye, rather than the ear or any other medium. This is particularly true when one wants to persuade people to think of something that they have never before really thought of or imagined; and this is the problem in dealing with international issues. When there is a new authority wielding this powerful instrument of the visual image, in a world in which the international dimension is so greatly increased, it is worthwhile giving this moderate, un-
782
controversial, unpropagandist reminder that this is the kind of world in which the authority lives and this is the strength of the influence that it could wield.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I add three sentences to the debate. Of course one agrees with the proposed words; they are completely innocuous. But may I say that they will not achieve their purpose. I was on the board of Yorkshire Television for over four years and we had one programme after another relevant to what we are now discussing. I recall one programme in particular, "The Gold Run." which showed how gold is mined in South Africa. That programme contained much history, and showed the state of the country. The proposed words are sentimental. They will not have the effect on television or on education about international affairs that the people who put them forward think they will have.
Lord ARDWICK: My Lords, I agree with all the noble sentiments expressed on this side of the House, and I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, when he says that this amendment is superfluous. It is a harmless, indeed excellent amendment, but it is really unnecessary. The idea that in this day and age a new channel, the channel with the objectives of the fourth channel, should neglect international affairs is really quite absurd. I feel that some noble Lords who have taken part in the debate this afternoon have spoken as if in ignorance of what is being done today on radio and television about what is going on abroad. There are some absolutely splendid programmes, just as there are some splendid articles in our national press. I cannot agree with the view that our national press, the serious press, gives less attention or devotes less skill to foreign affairs than does the press of other countries. There is Le Monde, the New York Times, and so forth. Nevertheless our own London Times, financially threatened though it is, and our Guardian, and the Daily Telegraph, too, give excellent coverage. No, The Times has not gone. If it does go, it will not be for the reason that it does not give splendid coverage to foreign affairs and home affairs, too.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, was trying to suggest that the amend-

783
ment is necessary because of a general ignorance in this country of foreign affairs. There is an equal ignorance of home affairs. Think of the amount of time devoted on television and radio to our economic plight; yet if you ask people how much they understand about the borrowing requirement or the money supply, you will find they are as ignorant of those matters as they are of the question of what amount of the gross national product should be devoted to foreign aid.
4.38 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby has found support in all parts of the Chamber, and he will be pleased, and I hope not surprised, to find that he is receiving support from his Front Bench. We have had some distinguished opposition, small, but heavyweight, and I should like to begin by saying that the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, was a little unfair. We all know that my noble friend Lord Hatch is a third world enthusiast. The amendment does not use any term other than "international", and it is quite wrong to suggest that because my noble friend Lord Hatch has certain enthusiasms, the amendment will carry them. It will not. "International" is a perfectly simple word which means international It has nothing whatever to do with one interpretation of international as against another.
This amendment is the equivalent of an amendment I put down on the first Committee day, and withdrew because it was pointed out to me that in the context of where it had been placed it suggested that ITN was unsatisfactory, which was not my intention. I said that I would put down the amendment again on Report, but my noble friend Lord Hatch has anticipated me, and unfortunately has left no room for me to put my name to the present amendment. Like several noble Lords I could not support his original amendment because it dictated procedure in too much detail to the fourth programme makers, but the present amendment is entirely acceptable to me.
In the course of one or two minutes I want to say what I think the amendment is about. It really is about the meaning
784
of the word "education". A number of noble Lords have said that the word "education" ought to imply much wider things. I think that to the ordinary man it does not. To the ordinary man "education" relates to scholastic matters. Therefore, as there is a doubt about this, it is entirely reasonable to remove that doubt and to say that one of the very important areas that education should include is the international stage.
Of course the noble Lord will say that he has been asked by all sorts of other people to do this—my noble friend Lord Hatch pointed this out—but my own view is that the only representations he has had, basically, are about how better to get across education itself. I know he has had applications from the Open University about religious education and things of that sort, but this does not affect that. Giving way on this will not put out of joint the nose of my noble friend Lord Perry of the Open University or the other people concerned. It is simply an extension of a word and a redefinition of a word to be sure that we all mean the same thing by it.
The other point which the noble Lord will probably make is that you have the news. As several speakers, particularly the opener, have made perfectly clear, the news is not the same as continuous and regular commentary on the news, and it is for this that we are asking. We are not saying how much we ought to have; we are not saying what type of thing it ought to be; we are saying that in the educational programmes there should be something along these lines. If my noble friend decides to divide, I shall certainly support him. I think it will be very odd if the Government are unable to accept this, but I always wait with the greatest interest to hear the reasons they give for their wrong actions.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down may I ask him a question? What does he envisage would be the consequences of not fulfilling this requirement?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, it is not customary to ask questions of speakers other than the Government spokesman, but I find it irresistible to say that I have not the slightest idea. A very large number of

785
things put in Bills have no effects at all. This may very likely be in that class, but it is worth trying.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I should like to make it clear that the Government would be very happy indeed to see programmes which include education with an international content on the fourth channel, and I think it could be wholly in keeping with the general character of the channel. I would add that no one who has listened to this debate, and indeed to the opening speech by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, and the final speech by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, will fail to realise the importance which is attached in many quarters to the widening of understanding, in this and other countries of the developed world, of the problems of the developing world. Now, among those who will have read in the debate on the last occasion, if they had not heard the discussion today, the very cogent pleas which have come from many noble Lords are, of course, the Independent Broadcasting Authority and the chairman and members designate of the board of the fourth channel subsidiary, which is actually going to run the channel; and I do not think that the pleas which have been made are going to fall upon deaf ears. Indeed, I know that the IBA and the prospective chairman of the fourth channel board have already reacted favourably to approaches which they have had on this question.
My Lords, if I may say so, I had the impression that one of the factors which lay behind the brief intervention of my noble friend Lord Home was a recognition by my noble friend that the tradition of public service broadcasting in this country is that we do not lay down directions on specific subject matter to the broadcasting authorities, however we may couch those directions. We do not do that. We try to go about it, if we possibly can, in a rather different way. We have gone about it in a different way in this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, pointed out, as he had every right to do, that there is rather a small amount of international educational programmes on the three existing channels at the present time. But look at Clause 3(1)(a). There, one finds a specific requirement that the fourth channel programme should contain,
786
"a suitable proportion of matter calculated to appeal to tastes and interests not generally catered for by ITV".
This is the way we have tried to go about it—more generally—in the Bill as it is drafted.
I accept that this amendment is less specific than the previous one which the noble Lord put down in Committee. Nevertheless, what it contains, even though it is obliquely expressed, still amounts to an obligation on the IBA, and, through them, on the fourth channel board, to cover a particular subject area—that is, international matters—in its schedules. I explained previously (and I shall not weary your Lordships again) that the Government's view is that it really is not right to specify in the Bill subject matter to be covered in this way.
In his speech the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, said that he was in full agreement with the intention that the Bill should not interfere specifically with the content of programmes. If the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so, you could have fooled me! We believe—and I do not think this is the belief of the noble Lord—that those who are going to run the fourth channel really should be left free to decide, within the guidelines in Clause 3 to which I have already referred, and taking account of the views expressed in your Lordships' House and another place, what particular areas they should cover.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, asked the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, what would be the effect if this was left out. Like the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, I am not entirely sure, but I should like to add this. To make an exception to the principle that the Bill does not impose obligations as to specific subject matter in favour of any particular interest I think really is bound to lead to arguments that other areas ought to have similar treatment. That is an argument which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, swept aside on the grounds that there were not many more stages of the Bill left, and that that argument therefore did not matter.
The noble Lord claims that this amendment should be an exception to any other sort of educational programme. That is a claim which we could debate for even longer than we have been debating already this afternoon. I would merely observe

787
that I think it is a very large assumption to claim that international education should be written into a statute, while in some way religious education, technical education, vocational education, remedial education and education of the under-fives should receive no mention at all. If we specify that the fourth channel must have regard to programmes with an international content, does that mean that the fourth channel should not have regard to programmes with other sorts of educational content? Of course it does not; I realise it does not. But it really is leading us down a road which I think is going to end in some sort of an absurdity.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him for only one minute? He quoted a number of sorts of education—remedial, et cetera. Nobody disputes that those are forms of education. The dispute is whether international content is a form of education, and I maintain that in the eyes of most ordinary people it is not.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, that, again, is an assertion which we could debate for a very long time. I would claim, and many other noble Lords in this House this afternoon would claim, that in fact it is. My noble friend Lord Home asserted in his speech that really you should not detach the educational content from the rest of the content of the new fourth channel; and despite the fact that some of your Lordships have parted company with the views of my noble friend, I was interested that the speech which supported my noble friend Lord Home came from one of the most distinguished educationists this country has had in recent years, Lord Alexander of Potterhill. As Lord Alexander was speaking I remembered an old saying that I seem to have in the back of my mind, that educationists refer sometimes to education as being a seamless robe—something which has got different sorts of education running imperceptibly one into another through it; just as, at best, education should imperceptibly form part of all our lives.
My Lords, let us leave it that way. Within the guidelines of Clause 3(1) there will be, I am confident, a place on
788
the fourth channel for educational programmes dealing with international relations; but I do not think it is right to put a specific subject obligation on the IBA, and I ask the House not to agree to this amendment.
4.50 p.m.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to everyone who has taken part in this very stimulating debate. Most of the points which have been raised have been answered by subsequent speakers, but there have been one or two addressed specifically to me that I feel obliged to take up. The noble Lord, Lord Home, suggested that the amendment we are supporting is superflous. May I relate that to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, of my noble friend on the Front Bench; the question of what would happen if this amendment were defeated. The answer is very simple, indeed: and if your Lordships will look at any of the surveys done on public opinion over the past five years you will find that answer. I would suggest that you look at the Schlackman Report published two years ago as a specifically Government-commissioned report on public opinion on international issues. There you will see, admittedly, over-simplifying the findings, that the general finding was that two-thirds of the people of this country were parochially minded and anti-international. And that is what you will find if you leave the situation as it is today, if you consider that this amendment is superfluous, if you consider (as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, suggested) that there was no need to put support behind it.
I would also simply ask the noble Lord, Lord Home, that, when we are talking about the present balance of radio and television being about right, is that not a very static view of our society? Is that not a negative acceptance of the kind of public attitude which many noble Lords on either side of the House this afternoon have been deploring and have been constructively suggesting should be changed? Radio and television, we know, are the two major elements affecting public opinion today. I suggest that those who say that the present balance there is about right are accepting that the present balance of public opinion

789
is about right—and I do not believe that that is the general view of the House.
May I finally and with absolute sincerity assure the noble Lord, Lord Home, over his suspicions of the use of this amendment for the promotion of certain causes, that if I were in any way responsible for a radio or television programme on the Brandt Commission or anything of that kind, I should expect and hope that he would take part, and I should expect and hope that his right honourable friend who succeeded him as Prime Minister would also take part and that those with vastly different views would be enabled to put those views—because that is education. I spent my life in education. That is education, in stimulating the mind through the clash of different opinions. There is no hidden meaning behind this amendment. We want to extend the debate, the discussion and the knowledge of international affairs through the use of the new channel in giving a lead to the whole television business of this country.
May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, for what he said particularly about trade. As he rightly said, we are a trading nation. Let me appeal outside the moral ground, let me appeal on the practical ground, that if we are going to remain a major trading nation, if we are going to extend our overseas trade, if we are going to seek economic recovery through our trading relations with the overseas world, the foundations of that will be laid in the schools. They will be laid in the homes where families are watching television; they will be laid through knowledge and understanding of other people. As I tried to point out in my opening remarks, I believe that there is a much wider dimension than that of trade, aid, charity or morality. There is here the reputation of the United Kingdom. We are being watched. Those of us who have had anything to do with international education know that what is discussed here or in the other place, in the press, in radio or on television, is well known particularly on the Continent
of Europe. I might point out that there have been many important experiments carried out in this field on the Continent of Europe. Take the case in Holland where they were able to develop a commercially successful children's newspaper based on development. This is one, and only one, of many examples of the way in which countries throughout the world are looking to the future and bringing our societies together to greater mutual understanding. I suggest that we are at present lagging behind and that this is one way in which we can do something at least to catch up.
My last word is to the noble Lord the Minister. I think that he and I probably disagree fundamentally on this. So far as I am concerned, when you have introduced into this Bill the phrase, "programmes of an educational nature", you have given some direction, you have given some advice, some aspects of progression that you hope will be followed, that you have laid down in statutory form shall be followed. So far as I am concerned, the words "international" and "educational" are synonymous. One cannot divide the international content of education. One can have an educational institution which is based on technical training, one can have an educational institution purely confined to nursery children; but I do not believe that one can have a genuine educational institution of any kind that excludes the international dimension. That is why we feel that this amendment could have been accepted by the Government. We feel that there has been a very wide consensus of support for it during this afternoon. There have been a few exceptions, but there has been general sympathy for this amendment and we feel that it should be pressed to a Division.
5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall he agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 134.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

David, B.

Bacon, B.

Brockway, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Balogh, L.

Byers, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Banks, L.

Chitnis, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Collison, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Blyton, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Gardiner, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Shinwell, L.

George-Brown, L.

Longford, E.

Soper, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Maelor, L.

Spens, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Meston, L.

Stamp, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Gosford, E.

Oram, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hale, L.

Parry, L.

Stone, L.

Hampton, L.

Peart, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L. [Teller.]

Perry of Walton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Henderson, L.

Phillips, B.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Vernon, L.

Jacques, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Janner, L.

Scanlon, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Seear, B.

Whaddon, L.

Kilmarnock, L. [Teller.]

Sefton of Garston, L.

White, B.

Leatherland, L.

Segal, L.

Winstanley, L.

Listowel, E.

Shackleton, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Glendevon, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Glenkinglas, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Goodman, L.

Newall, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gormanston, V.

Norfolk, D.

Allerton, L.

Gowrie, E.

Northchurch, B.

Ampthill, L.

Greenway, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Auckland, L.

Gridley, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Avon, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Onslow, E.

Bellwin, L.

Halsbury, E.

Orkney, E.

Belstead, L.

Hanworth, V.

Pender, L.

Boothby, L.

Hawke, L.

Perth, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hayter, L.

Porritt, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Henley, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Redmayne, L.

Caccia, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Reigate, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hunt, L.

Roberthall, L.

Carrington, L. (A Principal Secretary of State.)

Hylton-Foster, B.

Romney, E.

Ilchester, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Chelwood, L.

Kemsley, V.

Saint Brides, L.

Clwyd, L.

Kilmany, L.

St. Davids, V.

Cobbold, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Salisbury, M.

Cockfield, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kissin, L.

Sandford, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Cottesloe, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Selkirk, E.

Craigavon, V.

London, Bp.

Sempill, Ly.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Long, V.

Sharples, B.

Davidson, V.

Loudoun, C.

Sherfield, L.

de Clifford, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

De La Warr, E.

Lyell, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

McFadzean, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Strathspey, L.

Dundee, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Swinfen, L.

Eccles, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Teviot, L.

Elibank, L.

Mancroft, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mansfield, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Elles, B.

Margadale, L.

Trenchard, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Marley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Elphinstone, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vickers, B.

Exeter, M.

Milverton, L.

Vivian, L.

Faithfull, B.

Monson, L.

Westbury, L.

Ferrier, L.

Morris, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Gainford, L.

Moyne, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

5.10 p.m.
Lord FERRIER Lord FERRIER moved Amendment No. 3:
792
Page 3, line 2, at end insert—
(" ( ) to provide an impartial account day by day prepared by professional reporters of the proceedings in both Houses of the United Kingdom Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as this amendment is identical with the one I

793
withdrew at Committee stage, there is no need to repeat any of the arguments which were fully deployed in Committee. However, I make no apology for moving it again at this stage because not only did it receive a wide measure of support from all sides of the House—it is not a party matter—but it was withdrawn by agreement with my noble friend the Minister so that it could be looked at again. The result is that a number of discussions have taken place and the Committee's debate has been carefully studied. It is fair to say that the broadcasting people themselves do not think much of the idea, to put it mildly. Indeed, one of the objections I met with was quite savage.
However, be that as it may, I believe that the outcome of the analysis which has taken place on all sides of the House can be summarised as follows: first, there is a fairly wide acceptance of the general principle with the exception that I have already made. Secondly, the fourth channel, with which the Bill is concerned, applying as it does to the evening hours, may well be the wrong vehicle for an up-to-the minute report of the nature contemplated. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, said in Committee, this may not be the service ideal for the purpose. Thirdly, I again refer to the noble Lord, Lord Hill. He was obviously correct in contending, as he did at column 442 of Hansard for 8th October, that the starting point of this matter should be the floor of the House of Commons.
The whole proposal is to my mind—I may be wrong—a momentous one. Unfortunately, so far as this Bill is concerned, it is overshadowed by proceedings such as we have just gone through. It has been overshadowed by the Welsh language matter and the wide range of strictly technical problems, such as that raised by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn under Amendment No. 1. Considerations of these complex subjects may conceal from the media and from the public that the principle at stake here is of considerable importance in the unfolding and the continuity of our democratic system. I therefore look forward to the Government's reply, in the hope that they may have some assurance for us that if I withdraw my amendment the matter may be raised in another place, in which
794
case I shall ask your Lordships for permission to withdraw the amendment.
However, leaving that aside for the moment, in conclusion it is proper that we should ponder what has happened since the Committee stage. The day before yesterday The Times published a letter from Sir Harold Wilson, recommending that State financial assistance should be made available to the ailing press in Fleet Street and presumably also in Grays Inn Road. Personally, I fail to appreciate this idea and I could put it more strongly than that. However, Sir Harold yesterday, in the programme "The World This Weekend", said that on the general principle—and I wrote down his views—
"it is important that people be properly informed".
That has been the touchstone of my contention over the years. In The Times of 16th October, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, is quoted as saying:
"Television reaches audiences wider than even the most widely-read newspapers".
Incontrovertible: but now The Times is under threat, the Evening News has disappeared and the New Standard is being threatened by the same malign influences. It is we, the consumers, who have to pay, whether by the high cost of newspapers or otherwise by state aid to the press, as has just been suggested. I feel like quoting Kipling:
"The toad beneath the harrow knows
Exactly where each tooth-point goes;
The butterfly upon the road,
Preaches contentment to that toad".
I wonder whether it is one of the butterflies out of Lord Hatch's Pandora's box. Nevertheless, let us not seek contentment imagining that the television people know best what we shall or shall not learn about Parliament from the "box". The television authorities know their own business best but, as I see it, it is for Parliament to decide what is best for the people. This is not a question of censorship. It is not, to use the words just used by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, a direction as to the content of programmes. That is a matter for the broadcasters.
As one Opposition Peer pointed out to me the other day, the people have the right to sit in the Public Gallery. In the world of today have they not a right to expect something of the sort on the

795
"box"? Serious mistakes of omission and commission can be made on television, as is only too clear from two of the "Beeb's" biggest blobs. I refer to the recent "Panorama" programme about surgical transplants and the outcome (to be studied in the Listener of 16th October) of the "Nationwide" programme on the Thames Water Authority.
The radio and the press can sometimes be just as silly. As to the radio, "The World This Weekend" disappeared during the time this House has been sitting this last month of October. As for the press, the Daily Telegraph and the Guardian cut Parliament from their indexes on page 1 until the other place reassembled last week.
A noble Lord: Shame!
Lord FERRIER: The only thing that seemed to interest the press about our proceedings over the last month was sodomy in Scotland! However, my Lords, that is enough: I must sit down but I may have said enough to show that it may well be that an element of statutory obligation is necessary if a fair report on Parliament is to appear on the "box". Let me turn to the example set by the BBC's radio programmes, "Today in Parliament" and "Yesterday in Parliament". For all their brevity, they deserve our thanks and our praise. They stuck it while we were sitting here because they had to, by reason of Clause 13(2) of their Articles of Agreement.
In conclusion, may I emphasise that the contentious subject of televising the proceedings of either House has little or no bearing upon the issue raised by my amendment. I look forward to the Minister's reply. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord MARSHALL of LEEDS: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the last speaker whether what he proposes in his amendment is educational or entertaining?
5.20 p.m.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I suppose that I am one of the very few Members of your Lordships' House who have served in the capacity of a professional newspaper reporter in the Press
796
Gallery of the House of Commons. But that was about 55 years ago, and I cannot claim to be in touch with the people who work there today. However, while I was there—and I think that the same applies today—I was impressed by the ability of the reporters in the House of Commons Press Gallery to be able to produce a concise, impartial summary of the proceedings, night by night. I remember frequently listening to an eight-hour debate, and then seeing that condensed into eight or 10 inches of a single column in the newspapers the following morning, and not one important point had been missed and not one piece of partiality had crept in. That does not mean to say that newspapers printed what we might call neutral versions of the debate, but there was always a mention of the varying points of view that had been expressed in the debate.
That is quite a separate matter from the custom, which has grown up, of interviewing Members of Parliament on television or on the radio, because each one of those Members who is interviewed is a member of a political party and, naturally, he stresses his utterances—I will not say that he twists his utterances—so that his party shall come out virtuous, and the other party shall come out with a touch of wickedness about it. Both of the media are desirable—that is to say, we should continue to have Members of Parliament being interviewed on television and radio—but we should also have this impartial report on the programme.
It is a fact that newspaper reports, while admirable in themselves, are usually compelled to reflect the attitude of the proprietor of that newspaper. That is why you usually find out from the newspapers that the Tory Party is right in everything that it does, whereas the Labour Party is wrong in everything that it does. That is an additional reason why we should have this independent, impartial radio and television report.
Lord HILL of LUTON: My Lords, at Committee stage I supported the noble Lord who moved an amendment, because it seemed to me that it was an opportunity to raise a basic issue which, put simply, is that the people of this country are entitled to know what happens in Parliament and they are also entitled to have

797
that conveyed to them by the medium which most of them use most of the time. The Hansard controversy is over. Parliament is said to be open. Then let it be open through the main medium of today, in some form or other—through television.
Although this may not be—and I am pretty certain that is it not—an appropriate amendment in the appropriate place, I hope that the noble Lord the Minister who is to reply will be able to say just this: that his right honourable friend will exercise his influence to see that the other place discusses this once more. It is not much to ask. On a previous occasion, the Motion that Parliament should be reported by television was defeated by one vote. It is time that that was looked at again.
If the Minister can say that such influence will be used to that end, then that seems to me to be as much as we can obtain on this occasion. For it is, to my mind, fully established by those who believe in open government that a greater knowledge of what happens in Parliament will increase confidence in parliamentary democracy; not least because, in some quarters, there is a disposition to dispose of this Chamber. That may or may not be wise, but, for Heaven's sake, let the people of this country know what this Chamber is and what this Chamber does, through the medium that they use most, before that controversy is in the public arena.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to follow the noble Lord who has just spoken, particularly in his last words. There is a great need for what one can only describe in industrial parlance as a good public relations exercise to be made on behalf of this Chamber; indeed, to be made on behalf of having a second Chamber at all. I was interested to hear one Peer's comment the other day, that if 1,000 new Peers were created perhaps they would then vote for the abolition of the other place, which is a possibility that Mr. Tony Benn has probably not thought about.
But, quite seriously, I suggest to your Lordships that the image of this House is certainly not put over at the moment in a fair and impartial way. Even the recordings that one hears in "Today in Parliament" and Yesterday in Parliament"
798
suggest that what goes on in the Commons is a howling mob of third form schoolboys, and they do nothing to enhance the reputation of democratic government. If we could have a much more professional record—and, as has been rightly said, on the medium that most people use—of what really goes on in both Chambers, it could only be for the better knowledge of the citizens and, certainly, it would be in the interests of this Chamber.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, I shall be very brief. As one of the signatories to this amendment, I should like to say that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has done us all a service by raising this matter three times—on Second Reading, at Committee stage and again now. No doubt, following the excellent advice of Lewis Carroll in the Hunting of the Snark, which your Lordships will remember, that "What I say three times is true", it will begin to be heeded as being true. I think that the noble Lord's intention—and I say this without criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who is to reply—is to get a slightly more positive and forthcoming answer at the end of the day. That is my hope and, I think, the hope of the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, also.
I am not in favour of fencing an authority round with all kinds of instructions as to what it should or should not do. But it is, of course, right that here we are in an area where there is a precedent. There is already an instruction in the BBC's Charter requiring BBC radio to do what is instructed in this amendment, so there is a precedent. But I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, would be satisfied if we had a positive answer and, now that he has made these points three times, perhaps they will sink into the place where something can be done. It is in that spirit that I added my name to this amendment, and I certainly support the spirit in which it has been moved.
5.29 p.m.
Lord WILLIS: My Lords, I am very sorry that I have to oppose this amendment. I abstained from voting on the last amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, because I do not believe that one should impose obligations on the broadcasters, and I oppose this amendment for much the same reason. I was terribly shocked

799
to hear one or two noble Lords suggest that the job of television and of radio is to do a public relations exercise for Parliament. That is not the job of television or of any respectable newspaperman. If it be said that Parliament sometimes behaves like third form schoolboys, do you expect the media to clean them up and present a nicer image to the public? Not at all—
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting. I think I made the remark and, if I may say so, it is a little dangerous if the noble Lord does not listen carefully. What I said was that a public relations exercise is needed. I did not say that it had to be done by the BBC or by any other medium.
Lord WILLIS: My Lords, many noble Lords have said that television is the one media which most people watch—that it is their one channel of news. The implication—I listened very carefully—is that television should take on this onerous task. I never cease to be shocked by the immodesty of some people in Parliament. Can we not all be honest and say that sometimes our proceedings are so boringly dull as to send us all to sleep? When I think of Parliament in relation to broadcasting I have to tell your Lordships that to broadcast every single day some report of the proceedings of Parliament would do for television what the Boston Strangler did for door-to-door salesmanship.
I am sure that most noble Lords, on the other side at least, who are employed by or who are directors of great companies know that the basic principle which is followed is to appoint the best possible managing director to run the firm. Certain basic guidelines are laid down for the managing director and he is told to get on with the job, and if he does not do it he is fired. That is what we should do in television, and that is why I am opposed to this amendment. I do not want, though this seems to be the wish of many noble Lords, endless obligations to be placed upon this poor little fourth channel which will not have enough money to run itself—
A noble Lord: It will.
Lord WILLIS: It is not going to have enough money. I can assure noble Lords that it is going to be begging for more money and that it will be coming back to Parliament for more money within 18 months to two years. When it comes to making international programmes I can tell noble Lords that they are made at enormous cost. If the fourth channel had to follow the guidelines laid down in, for example, the last amendment, the cost would be out of all proportion. Therefore, I beg Parliament and your Lordships: please stop trying to impose more obligations on broadcasters. This is a very good Bill which lays down the broad outlines for the fourth channel. Please let them get on with it.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, this is the third time in the course of the debates on the Bill that the proposition of my noble friend Lord Ferrier, that there ought to be a regular television report of the proceedings both in this House and in another place, has been debated. I am most grateful to my noble friend, and to the two noble Lords out of the total of three who also put down their name to my noble friend's amendment, for having made it clear in their speeches that they appreciate that there are doubts, which I hold on behalf of the Government, as to whether such a programme would be a suitable addition to the daily radio reports which the BBC provides, given that our proceedings and the proceedings of another place are not actually televised at present. That is of course a different issue. The issue to which my noble friend Lord Hill of Luton attached the most importance in putting down his name to the amendment is one upon which members of another place, and maybe your Lordships, have strong and possibly conflicting views. None the less, it has been enormously valuable that we have had this continuing debate, for it has enabled many who are concerned in one way or another with broadcasting to focus upon this issue. However, I regret to say that I cannot recommend to the House that the amendment should be accepted.
In addition to what I have just said, the main reason is that it would impose a very specific obligation upon the IBA which could be held almost to be burdensome. By that I mean that I know that

801
the BBC has an obligation framed in very similar terms, but the BBC's obligation is much more general in that it leaves the corporation free to decide upon which of its two television channels and its four radio channels it shall broadcast the parliamentary report. This amendment specifically requires the IBA to broadcast a daily parliamentary report on the fourth channel. It leaves no choice in the matter—and this at a time when some of your Lordships at a previous stage of the Bill interestingly enough suggested that if the IBA were to decide to have breakfast time television it might possibly be that which was chosen by the broadcasters as the right vehicle for parliamentary reports. In addition—I hope my noble friend will forgive me for interjecting this—I have the same objection to this amendment as that expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Willis; namely, putting specific obligations into the schedules of the fourth channel. I think that it is the board of the channel which has to decide on the specific obligations so far as its programme schedules are concerned.
My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, asked me for an assurance, and I am glad to give them the best assurance that I can muster. I assure both noble Lords and the House that I will bring the views which have been expressed most clearly to the attention of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I cannot give any promise as to the outcome, but I think that this is a more proper way to proceed than to impose by statute a duty on the IBA to include these programmes on only one of its two television channels.
I should like again to thank my noble friend Lord Ferrier for the very close interest which he takes in these matters and for raising them in the way that he has done upon this Bill. I should also like to express the hope that the assurance which I have tried to give to my noble friend may be enough to enable him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, I should say that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, who also put down his name to this amendment has been detained by an obligation to speak in Edinburgh, other-
802
wise he would have been here and supported me—as have, I am glad to say, the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. There is little more left for me to say, since my noble friend the Minister has given an assurance which fully satisfies me and, I think, my supporters.
Lord Willis was perfectly right in saying that the fourth channel is the wrong place for this particular type of bulletin. He made my point—that the public relations job is not the job of broadcasters. I could not agree more. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, made the point, and at Second Reading Lord Brooks also drew attention to the fact that the ideal, theoretically, would be for the whole proceedings of both Houses of Parliament to be available throughout the day and night. But, as he knows, of course that would not make sense. It is quite impossible. When it was tried on radio in Australia it was found that people lost all interest.
When we speak about other channels, a matter which I hope will be discussed by my friends in the other place, I hope it will be remembered that alternatives are available. People are seriously talking about breakfast television, for which apparently there is a strong demand. It has been pointed out to me that we must remember that people in hospital are woken up early and long for something to think about and that breakfast time therefore would be a very popular time for a bulletin of this nature. It has also been pointed out to me that the new system of having words under the television pictures is extremely valuable for deaf people.
I do not want to take up any more of your Lordships' time. Therefore, I ask for permission to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Content of annual reports]:
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 4:
Page 6, line 39, at end insert ("or international").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment would do for Clause 7 what the House has already rejected for

803
Clause 3. Out of respect for the House, I feel that I cannot move it.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
5.40 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 6, line 43, at end insert ("in particular to include a report from the existing Educational Advisory Committee of the IBA commenting on the standard and quantity of educational and international programmes broadcast on the Fourth Channel.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the important part of this group of amendments. It is an attempt to assert some assessment of the educational performance of Channel Four by people who are professionally engaged in education. In my opinion it is not enough to leave such assessments in the hands of the IBA itself, which is to make it judge in its own cause. I do not believe that my noble friend Lord Thomson will think that I am "getting at" the IBA when I say that the IBA is given a job to do, which is to set up Channel Four according to this Bill, and it is absurd to accept as final its own estimate of its own performance.
If we are going to have very general instructions, as we have in Clause 3, of a kind to which I do not think even my noble friend Lord Willis objects—though I see that he has gone, so I cannot tell—I think one must have some kind of checking that the intention of these very general orders is being carried out properly. At the Committee stage, I tried to produce an independent body which would do this, but the Committee did not agree, so I fall back on the insistence that the existing educational advisory body of IBA should have its annual report to IBA published for all to see. There is an existing advisory body to IBA which is not exactly the same as IBA—it is an advisory body and if the advisory body's advice has been ignored, it will say so and we shall know it.
My Lords, the Open University in particular supports these amendments. It has already expressed grave misgivings about the effect of ratings competition on BBC educational programmes and is insistent that the fourth channel should be protected and I hope my noble friend
804
Lord Perry will enlarge on this when he speaks. We are very glad to have him here. What I am asking for, in effect, is that we should receive in Parliament a professional assessment of the quality and quantity of educational—and I had said "and international", but I withdraw that—programmes produced under the very wide terms of Clause 3, and this should be given and freely commented on by a body chosen for its interest in and knowledge of the problems of education. Such a body is to hand. We want to know each year how well it thinks the new channel has performed.
When I tabled my original amendment, for a public inquiry board to sit permanently and watch the rapidly changing events in communications technology, I was shot down from all sides. The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, said it would be a permanent Annan Committee; the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said that it was not what he had suggested, anyway; the noble Lord, Lord Morris, described it, if I remember aright, as "typical socialist arrogance" and the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, thought it was a direct attack on the liberty of the subject. We thrive on non sequiturs in our debates; they add spice to what could otherwise become dull, so I make no complaint; but I think it might be fair to characterise this amendment as a creeping socialist attempt to pay proper attention to education. I beg to move.
Lord PERRY of WALTON: My Lords, having battled for some 12 years with my friends at the BBC over the need of the Open University for decent air times, may I reinforce what has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. The pressure on the university to release time for other programmes appealing to larger audiences than it can possibly muster is wholly understandable and eminently reasonable. It has also been continuous pressure. The advent of the fourth channel will quite inevitably intensify that pressure and I think it will deal a very heavy blow at the Open University. Competition for the ratings between the fourth channel and BBC2 is bound to occur. The one depends upon advertisers for its income and they demand an audience; the other exists upon licence fees and must justify its costs. The Open University will not

805
easily get any time on the fourth channel, but the advent of the fourth channel will mean that it is squeezed still further off BBC2. We are fast reaching the point where we shall be spending a very large amount of public money—some £7½ million last year—on making high quality television programmes that will be broadcast at times when most of our students cannot watch them.
The fourth channel is charged with broadcasting a suitable proportion of programmes of an educational nature. We have tried to define "educational programmes" and failed, but they can range from instructional programmes, a systematic series of a course aimed at a defined population of students, although they frequently attract other viewers. They can range from that to programmes of general interest which educate adults—and we have spoken at great length about educating them in international affairs—educating them, as it were, by stealth. There are many such programmes and they are absolutely admirable and it is extremely important that they should go out. But this does not mean that instructional programmes of the Open University type are not also important. Modern technology offers alternatives to open circuit broadcasting, but so far they are all far too expensive to be practicable. There is no way of reaching students with a moving video signal other than by open circuit broadcasting.
This amendment asks for no guarantees for education. It does not define what programmes of an educational nature are; it imposes no constraint whatsoever upon the freedom of the fourth channel authorities to programme as they think fit. It asks only that there should be a report to Parliament each year about the way in which the needs of education are being met. It will allow debate to occur here of such things as the impact of what I anticipate as being a heavy blow at the Open University as a result of the impact of the fourth channel.
There can be little reason for resisting this amendment and there is every reason to support it if noble Lords feel as I do; that education in its broadest sense is the most important single function that television can subserve and that continuing watchfulness is therefore worth while.
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, we have had support for this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Perry, so far as the Open University is concerned, and I should like to tell the House of support for it from another educational body; the Advisory Council for Adult and Continuing Education, from whom I heard the other day, saying that they were sure that "everybody in the adult education world would approve of your amendments to Clause 7." They say:
"We are all conscious of the gap between expressed intention and actual achievement in adult education broadcasting on the part of the IBA television and local radio companies. It would be deplorable if this were to be repeated on the Fourth Channel. The statutory requirement of the IBA's educational advisory committee to report on the standard and quantity of Fourth Channel educational broadcasting would provide an excellent monitoring and encouragement device and I am sure it would be welcomed by the education staff at the IBA".
I think that this support from a council which is set up by the DES and which has Dr. Richard Hoggart as its chairman should carry weight with the House.
I should also like to say a word about adult education broadcasting helping to make up for the reduction of local authority provision, which in my view is disastrous. The latest DES statistics for 1979–80 show a 10 per cent. decrease in enrolments at adult education centres—from just over 2 million to just under 1.8 million and that figure is bound to be worse for 1980–81. The sad tales keep on coming in. A number of residential colleges have already closed. I have heard that Gragham and Burwell House, in my own county, are at risk of closing, and Wedgwood College and Temple Hall are still under threat. Leicestershire is closing 10 community colleges and abolishing 20 full-time adult educational posts. These are only examples of what is happening all over the country. Where courses continue, fees rise steeply as the LEAs demand that centres should be self-financing. Many who in the past could afford to attend classes no longer can do so. The other day I saw in The Times Educational Supplement words from Mr. Jeremy Isaacs, the new network's chief executive, saying that he hopes to fill an unfilled gap in education for teenagers and school-leavers. It seems to me that that is extremely important. All this makes one even more keen that the media should produce high quality

807
and a good quantity of educational programmes, preferably at reasonable hours, as the noble Lord, Lord Perry, said, and that they should have to give an account of themselves. For these reasons I hope the House will support this amendment.
5.52 p.m.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, I have a very special reason for wanting to intervene in this debate. Several years ago, before the Open University was established, I was charged with the interesting and important duty of preparing a one-man report about the Open University for the then Cabinet. In that connection, I paid a visit, first, to the BBC and received quite astonishing support and assistance, particularly from Sir Hugh Greene, to whom the existence of the Open University can largely be attributed. Then I paid a visit to the Independent Television Authority, and they told me with great regret that it was not possible for them to find any time at all for the Open University because of the demands already existing on their time. This is not a belated and posthumous criticism of the situation. But I think it emphasises the need for this amendment, which seems to me to be wholly innocuous and virtuous and one that will remove from the independent channels the stigma of being a philistine channel. It is of considerable importance that this amendment or something akin to it should be accepted, and I thought I was justified in intervening because of my own historical experience in the matter.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to all your Lordships who have made speeches, but I am afraid that I do not agree with a single one. If I may be forgiven for saying so, I find this a very strange amendment. First, there is no such thing as the Educational Advisory Committee, which appears in the amendment. The IBA appointed an Educational Advisory Council, so the first item on the agenda is that the amendment is defective; let us be quite clear about that. Secondly, there are more educational advisory bodies than one for the IBA. There is the appointment by the IBA of what is called the Schools Committee, and the IBA also take the trouble to have an Adult
808
Education Committee to cover these specific areas of education. So when I heard an impassioned plea from the noble Baroness, Lady David, that there should be full coverage of adult education matters so far as the activities of the IBA are concerned, because of the erosion of adult education services in the country, I fell to thinking it was a funny thing that this amendment did not mention the Adult Education Committee of the IBA instead of inaccurately referring to the Educational Advisory Committee of the authority. I am sorry to sound rather tetchy, but this has been made to sound as though it is a very splendid amendment. With all friendliness to the noble Lord opposite, it is not.
I do not think it would be appropriate to require in statute a report from this one alone of the whole complex of advisory committees which the IBA have. Do not let us forget that later on in the Bill we are specifically taking the trouble to write in, if Parliament will agree, in Clause 32 that the IBA shall have advisory committees for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. These, of course, will take very seriously the provision of education, amongst other services, in those parts of the United Kingdom. Rightly or wrongly, Parliament is not requiring those national advisory committees to have to produce annual reports. As I understand the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, the noble Lord, Lord Perry, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, really the purpose of this amendment is in some way to inject the claims of the Open University into the annual reports of the IBA. I have the greatest sympathy and admiration for the Open University. Indeed, although I know that it did not come to the conclusion that the noble Lord, Lord Perry, would have wished, on the Home Secretary's behalf I had a long discussion with the Open University representatives, including the noble Lord, about the claims of the Open University to be written into statute in this particular Bill. With very great respect, I really do not think that this is the way to do it.
If your Lordships' House believes that in some way the very real claims of the Open University should be written in, and that the fears maybe of the Open University should be met in a statute, then we ought to do that absolutely openly,

809
deciding exactly what it is we are doing, and not in some way include the claims of the Open University by saying that we believe that the Education Advisory Council of the IBA shall have its particular views put into the annual report of the authority. If I may say so, I think that the inclusion of material about educational programmes on both channels and about the differences between them, which is already a requirement under Clause 7(2)(a) of the Bill, is absolutely bound to reflect the views of the Educational Advisory Council of the IBA. As I have sought to say, I hope not too combatively, I think that to write in this specific requirement, when one thinks of the whole spectrum of admirable advisory committees which the IBA have established, would be very much the wrong way to proceed.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he answer one question? Is it the case that the independent channel does not broadcast any programmes by the Open University and has never done so?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I understand that that is the case.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, uncharacteristically the noble Lord has been pretty disagreeable about this. He put extraordinary weight on the fact that, through my carelessness, we said "Committee" instead of "Council". I expect a better answer than that from the noble Lord. I was really shocked at his referring to it twice, and somewhat irritated. The second thing which I thought verging on the offensive was the suggestion that I and my colleagues were trying to do something for the Open University behind the back of the Bill. This is an absolutely unjustified suggestion and I am absolutely astonished that the noble Lord should make it. We have worked together for many years and he has never accused me before of going behind anybody's back; I hope he never will again. I should like to put on record that I think he should not have said it.
The Open University was brought in by me as evidence of the desire of people who are professionally concerned in education to make sure that the various pressures to which the various channels,
810
the fourth channel as well as others, are subject do not lead to a failure to deal with the high ideals put forward in Clause 3. I have said this not three times, but about eight times, and I should have thought that the noble Lord would have accepted that that was the object of this amendment.
It really makes one feel that it is hardly worth coming here and talking at all if one cannot get the point across. I have made the point again and again that I do not think it is satisfactory to have something which is seen already by some customers to be slipping. That is what the Open University have said already over the BBC, who are the only people who do the educational thing. They see it slipping as a result of the competition for ratings. Not only they, but as my noble friend said, Richard Hoggart and others in other areas of educational study; they are all worried about the pressures of broadcasting gradually letting down the high ideals which are in Clause 3. We have had absolutely no support from the Government over doing this. If the Government would say, at least, "We think it is desirable that some kind of comment from the professional body in education which is advising the IBA should be included in their report", I would accept that as a step in the right direction.
I am terribly set back by this, because this is really important. If the fourth channel is going to be any good at all somebody other than the IBA themselves has got to report on how well the IBA are doing this very difficult and very general thing. It simply is not good enough to make a number of rather awkward remarks, as the noble Lord has, and dismiss the thing in this way. I would like to divide the House on this, but as the noble Lord has revealed a foolish error in the amendment I think I must put it down again on Third Reading. But I would like to tell the noble Lord that when I do so I expect a very much better answer than the one I have had today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE has given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 6:
Page 7, line 21, at end insert—
("(e) it shall be the duty of Parliament to

811
debate both the IBA and the BBC Reports each year.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not know whether it is worth moving this amendment at this stage. There is nothing in it which is inconsistent with the withdrawal of the previous amendment, but I think I would rather wait and put it with the other one on Third Reading.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 7, line 21, at end insert—
("(e) a description of the arrangements made by the Authority for carrying out the powers given it by section 12(1A) of the main Act and a description of the methods used by the Authority to utilise such opinions, comments and suggestions by members of the public as it may receive in entering into contracts, or, as the case may be, extending contracts, with any programme contractor.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, let me say straight away that I fear that there is a small drafting mistake in this amendment. This amendment was originally drafted in reference to the Bill in its unamended state. In the third line of the amendment the reference should be to Section 12(1B) instead of Section 12(1A). This is an amendment in Clause 33 of the Bill in which we are amending the main Act and inserting new provisions in the main Act.
Clause 33 relates to the various duties placed on the ITA. The particular duty referred to here concerns the question of public meetings and gauging the opinion of the public with regard to the allocation of contracts. I do not want to enter into the question of public meetings, and so on, because we shall be dealing with that in later amendments. This amendment refers to the contents of the annual report. We already have the fact that the annual report shall contain a general description of the programmes broadcast on ITV and the fourth channel respectively, an account of the way in which the authority have discharged their duty as regards encouragement of innovation and experiment, a description of the sources from which programmes were obtained and a description of the arrangements made with respect to the broadcasting of advertisements
This amendment places on them an additional requirement, that in the annual report the IBA shall include information about how they have undertaken their duties as laid down in Section 12(1B), which requires them to ascertain the opinions of the public in the area or the locality and to encourage the making of comments and suggestions about the service by members of the public in the area. It would seem only right, having required these other duties on the IBA to be included in their annual report, that this very important function with regard to consultation of the public also should be included. I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, the functions to which this amendment refers, as the noble Lord quite rightly said at the end of his remarks, are laid down in the Bill—as a matter of fact, in Clause 33. But I would like to put this point to the noble Lord. I wonder whether he would agree that it is more important, when one is talking about the annual report, that the authority's arrangements for consulting the public should be made known before and during the period of consultation which forms part of the process leading up to the award of contracts rather than putting a statutory duty on the authority to report on how this is done later on. In this regard the IBA cannot really be faulted.
As early as February last year they published a document entitled ITV Future Contracts and the Public, which set out the methods of seeking public opinion at various stages which the authority intended to employ, and indeed have employed. If I may for a moment quote from that document, the IBA said this:
"The Authority will use a variety of means to make this public consultation"—
this is public consultation in the awarding of future contracts—
"as reliable and representative as possible. A series of public meetings is being held which will focus on the areas served by different centres of production as well as the quality of the ITV service. These will be completed early in 1930. Later in that year the Authority will arrange hearings at which the public may express views on the published sections of applications before interviews with applicants and the award of contracts take place. The Authority will not, however, rely solely on comments made at public meetings".

813
Then in this document the authority went on to say that they would consider the findings of major research surveys and would take into account expert assessment of the programmes, and written comments, ratings, and appreciation indices and attitude surveys. This was really a wealth of information which was given right back in February about how the IBA intended to go about the business of showing the public that they really minded what members of the general public thought in the whole process of reaching conclusions about the new contracts.
I believe that the authority take consultation with the public very seriously, and, as I have tried to show in that quotation, they have gone to considerable lengths to ascertain public opinion without any statutory duty to do so being placed upon them. In Clause 33 we have placed some statutory duties on the authority. This amendment refers to how that would be dealt with in the annual report. If I may say so, I believe it is not necessary for this to be written into the Bill as a requirement in the annual report. If the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, says that he feels that this is arguable, may I say that if there were to be any question that the IBA might not wish to comment about these things in their annual report, there is a power which directs that the authority shall prepare a general report of their proceedings during the year, and should it seem desirable that a particular report be required on public consultation the Home Secretary is empowered by Section 31(4) in the 1973 Act to require the IBA to provide this.
Therefore, there is that fall-back power. It is for that final reason that I would ask the noble Lord not to press the amendment. I am saying in essence that it would be placing an extra layer in the sandwich. There is a power in the 1973 Act for the Home Secretary of the day to require the IBA, if necessary, to do what the noble Lord is after. But, if I may say so, I think that the IBA needs no urging.
Lord PONSON BY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, one entirely applauds the fact that the IBA, in advance, did announce how it was going to carry out its public consultation procedure. But, as the noble Lord realised towards the end of his
814
speech, my amendment is, in a sense, concerned not with what the IBA is going to do in advance, but with the fact that it should report, afterwards, as to how it has carried out that particular duty. I am sorry that he takes the view which he has taken today, because it seems to me that it would not seriously upset the requirements as to what should be contained in the annual report if we were to include this particular amendment in the Bill. However, having said that, I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division but may bring it back again on Third Reading when we have seen how the other amendments on consultation are received this evening. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [The Broadcasting Complaints Commission]:
6.12 p.m.
Lord HOOSON Lord HOOSON moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 11, line 42, at end insert ("a proportion of whom shall have substantial professional experience in making or preparing programmes for broadcast").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8 and, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to deal also with Amendment No. 9, which is consequential upon it. The two amendments hang together. As I explained in Committee, I put down a series of amendments as regards what has now become Part IV of the Bill, which deals with the Broadcasting Complaints Commission.
That series of amendments was designed to show—and I believe did show—that the Government had ill considered this part of the Bill and that if this commission was to achieve the status and standing in this country in relation to broadcasting which the Government hopes that it will, then we should have to think seriously about some of its provisions.
Since that time I have slimmed down some of the amendments and tabled them, I am sorry to say, at a rather late stage. However, I am very happy to learn that I have attracted the support of noble Lords on both sides of the House. It is in no way a party amendment.
It is important when dealing with the first amendment, No. 8, to remember the following. It is important for the future of our country and the future of the status of broadcasting in this country to appreciate that this commission must have the confidence of the public and the confidence of the profession. Therefore, let us look at the Government's present provisions in relation to it.
So far, as the Bill stands, it means that the complaints commission shall not have on it any professional, and anybody with the most tenuous connection with broadcasting is virtually excluded by subsection (2)(b). To quote, if not the exact words, the sense, of Mr. Leon Brittan, the Minister of State in another place, this commission will set up its own corpus of jurisprudence, it will lay down professional standards for the profession of broadcasting. How is it to do so without a single member of the commission having any experience of broadcasting? It would be my own view, as a member of one of the oldest professions in this country—the profession of the Bar—that the majority of the commission should have professional experience of broadcasting. However, my amendment does not say that: it says that a proportion of the commission should do so, and that surely must be right.
Let us consider what we are trying to do. We are trying to set up a body which will earn the respect of the broadcasting profession and the confidence of the country. How can we do that without insisting that there should be among the members of the commission at least one—or a proportion if there are to be more than three; there could be as many as five—who should actually have experience of producing or preparing a programme and who knows the pressures and what professional life is like? Is that not a basic requirement of justice? Indeed, not only that, but is it not also a matter of common sense? If the adjudications of this commission are to have the confidence of the broadcasting profession, surely their value will be enhanced by having on that body somebody at least who had professional know-how.
I should not like, as a member of the Bar, to be adjudicated upon by people who knew nothing or very little about my
816
profession. I do not suppose that any doctor would like it and I do not suppose that any of the professions in this country would welcome it. Nor would any trade unionist like his future to be decided by a body which contained no member of his union. It is very important that there should be a balance as regards this matter. We are trying here to achieve, what?—a balance between the interests of the public and the interests of the community without killing the creativity of the profession of broadcasters.
Therefore, in my view it is right that we should insist, as does my amendment, that a proportion of the people on this commission—and it is proposed that there will be at least three and perhaps there will be five or seven—
"shall have substantial professional experience in making or preparing programmes for broadcast".
If the Government were wise I think that they would accept the amendment. It would enhance the value of the commission not only in the eyes of the public but in the eyes of the profession itself.
The second amendment, No. 9, is to leave out from line 4 to the end of line 10—that subsection which, in effect, provides that anyone at present with the most tenuous connection with broadcasting will be excluded from membership of this commission. I think that the provisions of this Bill, as at present drafted, show how little thought has been given to the matter. How on earth can we have a body which lays down professional standards for what is a very new profession in this country, without having a single professional member on it? I beg to move.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, on the Liberal Benches, whom we all know is a most distinguished lawyer, because, among other reasons—and I shall not reiterate his own reasons—the complaints commission as I see it, and as I think most noble Lords must see it, is a body which has been set up very necessarily and as a direct parallel to the complaints committee of the Press Council.
Noble Lords will also know that the membership of the Press Council does not have a proportion of members learned in that particular profession—it is literally littered with them! The vast majority of

817
the Press Council is made up of professional members of that profession. All that this amendment asks is that there should be a proportion. One member of the commission is a proportion of that commission, and, if the commission comprised 20 members, then he would be a very small proportion. However, that is all that the amendment asks for. Therefore, for that reason, and for the reasons so eloquently put to your Lordships by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, I beg to ask for your Lordships' support for the amendment.
6.20 p.m.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, I think that we are in something of a difficulty over this amendment because whether or not one supports it must depend on the fate of Amendment No. 10. Two quite distinct functions are at present envisaged. There is the function at present in the Bill which is that the commissioners have to determine whether a person has been unfairly or unjustly treated. There is the proposed new function, which heaven forbid we should pass, that the commission should enter into every kind of consideration relating to violence, indecency, morality and so forth.
On the first function, if I may venture to say so to a noble Lord with whom I nearly always find myself in agreement, this amendment is misconceived. I do not think that you need professional people engaged in broadcasting to know whether someone has been unfairly or unjustly treated. An ordinary civilised human being with a proper sense of values can discharge that duty. It seems to me that in fact anyone who is seized of a great knowledge of broadcasting on this kind of matter would be at something of a disadvantage. However, if we adopt Amendment No. 10, I think there is a very different kettle of fish to be considered. It is only to say that possibly it might be convenient—I do not know whether the procedure allows it—for this amendment to be considered after we have decided what the function of the commission ought to be.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, I intervene very briefly. Noble Lords will remember that I moved an amendment, substantially in this form, at the Committee stage, asking that at least one member should have substantial experience.
818
I am glad to see that the ante has now increased, and my noble friend has suggested a proportion and even said that perhaps a majority would be preferred. I do not wish to repeat the remarks I made before about how necessary it is that there should be people on the commission who have practical personal experience of what it means and what it involves to construct and present a programme. I think that that is absolutely essential. I have risen on this occasion because I am bound to disagree most strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who said a moment ago that one did not need experience of broadcasting to adjudicate on matters such as fairness and so on. The whole business of the commission, which is referred to in the Bill, refers to fairness, but I must say to the noble Lord that there is no way that this Bill, or any other Bill, can make broadcasting fair. Broadcasting is very often unfair. By its very nature it is unfair, just as politics is sometimes unfair and, indeed, life is sometimes unfair.
What the commissioners have to decide from time to time at the end of the day is not the result, but whether proper broadcasting practices have been followed with regard to the way in which an interview has been cut, the way in which questions have perhaps been interpolated into an interview, the way in which a particular broadcast has been set and the context into which it has been put. In that connection it is utterly impossible for the commissioners to come to fair and sensible decisions, unless they have a personal understanding of the practical business of making programmes.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, although I think it is important that there should be someone on the commission who has this kind of practical experience, I should like to point out that most of the complaints that one is disposed to make against the BBC and other broadcasting organisations are just the matters that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has mentioned. They concern the way in which interviews are cut, and the way in which one is misrepresented. If there is too high a proportion of professional broadcasting producers and such persons on the commission, they will come strongly prejudiced on one side. Of that there is no doubt.

819
Therefore, although they should, of course, be represented—as the unions should be represented when complaints are made against workers and, equally, as employers organisations should be represented when workers have complaints to make against their employers—the commission should not be very heavily loaded with the professionals; otherwise we shall certainly have a commission which does not start from an impartial base.
Lord ANNAN: My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy with this amendment because I well know how much the Committee on the Future of Broadcasting owes to two people who had professional experience of broadcasting. By that I do not mean that they have been on the air, but that they had actually worked in the case of Mr. Tony Jay in the BBC and in the case of Mr. Phillip Whitehead in the BBC and in an independent television company. For the first time on, I think, any broadcasting committee of inquiry, they brought an expertise to bear which, as chairman, I found most valuable. It is, of course, precisely as the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, said; it is when one comes to such questions of cutting that the unfairness or fairness of the treatment comes very much into question.
In a way I should like to support the amendment. My difficulty in supporting it as drafted is that I think an important small word has been omitted. As drafted, the amendment reads:
"… a proportion of whom shall have substantial professional experience …"
I wish that the noble Lord who moved the amendment had said:
"… a proportion of whom shall have had substantial professional experience …".
I think that there is a distinction to be drawn here. If you take the amendment as drafted, you are asking people who are at the moment professionally engaged in broadcasting for their own benefit financially; whereas neither Mr. Phillip Whitehead nor Mr. Tony Jay at that time were actually engaged for gain in broadcasting. Since then, of course, Mr. Tony Jay has returned to making television programmes which reveal a certain acquaintance—I refer to his programme "Yes, Minister"—with the affairs of
820
Ministers of the Crown and of the Civil Service.
However, leaving that aside, I think that we must accept that people who are, in fact, engaged professionally by the BBC or by an independent television company should not be on this commission. On the other hand, someone who has retired from serving in broadcasting, who has experience of what it is like to have actually been in a production and to have been responsible for programmes, would, I think, be of value. Of course, I need hardly say that I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that if there were any question of the next amendment being agreed by your Lordships' House, it would be absolutely essential for them to be on the commission.
I have sympathy with this amendment because—and this is my last reason—the scope of this Broadcasting Complaints Commission is very much larger than that which was envisaged, at any rate in the Committee on the Future of Broadcasting. There is now the question whether someone who is dead has been libelled, if one may use that expression, or at any rate grossly misrepresented. When one enters that kind of field, it seems to me that it is extremely important to have someone who has a knowledge of broadcasting on the commission. I find it difficult to vote for this amendment in the way it is drafted.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, is in semantic trouble. I could surely say without saying anything wrong, that Sir Hugh Greene has enormous experience of broadcasting; I do not have to say that he "has had". Both are true. Experience is something you have had; it is in the past. It is purely a semantic point and it should not stop the noble Lord supporting this amendment, which I think is very important.
I am always nervous in disagreeing with my noble friend Lord Goodman. Last time I did so, I had to change my mind, but this time I think I shall remain in disagreement with him because I cannot imagine any group of solicitors who would be prepared to put up a complaint against a solicitor to three

821
laymen. It is not the sort of thing they do at all, or any lawyer would do, as the noble Lord said. It is not the way in which people in closed shops, such as solicitors and lawyers, behave. I do not blame them, but to try to suggest that you could not have anyone who knew his subject when you are going to hear complaints about broadcasting is below the noble Lord's usual standard of illumination.
6.30 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I have sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and other noble Lords who have put their names to this amendment, in regard to the intention which the amendment has. Indeed, I endeavoured on the previous stage of the Bill to give an assurance on this matter. I also take to heart what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has said so far as his support for the amendment is concerned. I have also taken on board what the noble Lord said about the somewhat wider remit which the complaints commission under Part IV will have compared with the complaints commission which was envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Annan; although the two are similar creatures none the less there are differences and I have taken that on board.
However, I cannot but remember all the time that a fundamental reason for setting up a complaints commission as put forward by the Annan Committee, if I may call the noble Lord's committee that, was that there should be a body independent of the broadcasting authorities. The noble Lord moving the amendment I think speaks just a little as though this really is not self-evidently right. All I can say is that the Annan Committee had absolutely no doubt about this fundamental aspect. If I may quote from paragraph 6.16 of the noble Lord's report they found that:
"if the Broadcasting Authorities themselves each appoint such bodies, however impartial they may be, the public and the complainants will never be convinced that an independent judgment is being given".
All I am trying to say at the moment is that it was fundamental to the concept of setting up a statutory complaints commission that it should be, and should be seen to be, independent of the broadcasting authorities.
822
Certainly the Annan Committee also recommended that those who hear the kind of complaints that there would be for a commission needed to be:
"those skilled in the assessment of evidence and knowledgeable about broadcasting".
That comes in paragraph 6.16 as well. It would be quite dishonest of me if I had not ferreted that out too. I therefore repeat again an assurance I endeavoured to give on 8th October, in columns 519 and 520 of the Official Report of your Lordships' House, and I give it in my own words today, that the Home Secretary will certainly be looking for representation on the commission with substantial experience of broadcasting.
May I add a couple of things more? I was interested in the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, and the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. I am advised that the BBC's programme complaints commission consisted of Sir Edmund Compton, Professor Kathleen Bell, and until recently the late Mr. Andrew Rankin, QC, none of whom of course are broadcasters. No one has suggested that that commission was not competent, or not able, to do the particular job which it is designed to do, which of course is absolutely the job on which we have modelled the complaints commission in Part IV of this Bill. The problem was not its composition so far as the Annan Committee felt about the BBC's complaints commission, but about its independence and its status in that way. And again that is no reflection on those who sit on that commission.
The other thing I wanted to add is that one must bear in mind that there will be a fairly restricted field when it comes to finding candidates for appointments to the commission, which may be quite onerous so far as the man hours or lady hours are concerned. There may in any case be other people than, as the noble Lord's amendment says, makers and preparers of programmes, whose experience in the broadcasting field would be equally valid for the purpose of dealing with complaints about broadcast programmes. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, may accept my assurance, which I repeat yet again, that the Home Secretary will be looking hard for one or more people with relevant broadcasting experience to appoint to the commission; but for the

823
reasons I have attempted to deploy I would very much prefer that it was not written on the face of the Bill.
6.35 p.m.
Lord HOOSON: My Lords, I differ in principle from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. This is a very important provision in the Bill. What is said in this House or any other House about a Bill has no effect thereafter. Nobody is allowed to look at what was said here in the interpretation of any Act. It is important when you have a point of principle like this that the view of the House is taken. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for his general support. He has very substantial experience of Royal Commissions, but I am not aware that he is sitting on one at the present time, and I really think it is a matter of semantics to say that the amendment does not read "has had". I would have thought that experience lies entirely in the past, and that therefore the wording of the amendment covers the point that the noble Lord made.
With regard to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, I understand her point of view where she says that if too large a proportion of the complaints commission are professional broadcasters then the end that the Government have in mind may not be achieved. That is an understandable viewpoint, but my amendment is deliberately worded, "a proportion". One out of three is a proportion. If only three members are appointed then the proportion is met. This is the first of a series of amendments which I have put down because there is a basic difference of principle here, and I intend to press this to a Division.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I
ask him a question. I hope that this will not be dismissed as semantic. I gather that that is a bad word.
A noble Lord: Why?
The Earl of LONGFORD: I gather it was used in a bad sense. We are told that these ladies or gentlemen have to have experience in the making or preparing of programmes. Would the Director General—I just take that as an example—who has not had that particular experience qualify under the noble Lord's heading? I am not trying to quibble. I really want to know.
Lord HOOSON: That is a matter for interpretation.
The Earl of LONGFORD: It is not. On the face of it he obviously would not, or he may not.
Lord HOOSON: If the noble Earl will bear with me for a moment, that is a question of interpretation. I can say what I intend by it. That is all I can say. I intended that there should be a professional—a real professional—on the complaints commission. That is, one who knows the nuts and bolts of the preparing and making of programmes. However that experience has been gained, I think it important that in a body that is going, as the Government have said, to lay down professional standards one of the members of the commission at the very least should be a true professional. It is in that spirit and with that intention that I move this amendment.
6.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 48: Not-Contents, 104.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Bacon, B.

Ferrier, L.

Jacques, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.[Teller.]

Gaitskell, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Gardiner, L.

Kissin, L.

Bernstein, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Maelor, L.

Beswick, L.

Gosford, E.

Mais, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hale, L.

Mishcon, L.

Chitnis, L.

Hampton, L.

Monson, L.

Collison, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Morris, L.

David, B.

Hill of Luton, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Hooson, L.

Phillips, B.

Seear, B.[Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Shackleton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Whaddon, L.

Shannon, E.

Underhill, L.

White, B.

Shinwell, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Willis, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Weidenfeld, L.

Winstanley, L.

Stone, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Onslow, E.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Halsbury, E.

Orkney, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hanworth, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Allerton, L.

Hawke, L.

Pender, L.

Ampthill, L.

Henley, L.

Perth, E.

Annan, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Auckland, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Redmayne, L.

Avon, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Reigate, L.

Belstead, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Roberthall, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kimberley, E.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Cathcart, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Saint Brides, L.

Chelwood, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Salisbury, M.

Cockfield, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Saltoun, Ly.

Colville of Culross, V.

Long, V.

Sandys, L.[Teller.]

Cork and Orrery, E.

Longford, E.

Selkirk, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Loudoun, C.

Sempill, Ly.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lyell, L.

Sherfield, L.

Davidson, V.

McFadzean, L.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

de Clifford, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Stamp, L.

De La Warr, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Denham, L.[Teller.]

Mancroft, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mansfield, E.

Swinfen, L.

Eccles, V.

Margadale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Marley, L.

Trenchard, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Trumpington, B.

Ferrers, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mottistone, L.

Vernon, L.

Gainford, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Vickers, B.

George-Brown, L.

Moyne, L.

Vivian, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Newall, L.

Westbury, L.

Goodman, L.

Norfolk, D.

Wise, L.

Gowrie, E.

Northchurch, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Greenway, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Yarborough, E.

Gridley, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Clause 18 [Function of the Commission]:
6.47 p.m.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 12, line 24, at end insert—
("or
(c) unwarranted infringement of the integrity of family life, in connection with the material broadcast as regards violence, indecency or profanity, irrespective of subject matter.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish at the outset to apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bessborough who is unable to be here due to the change of date for this debate from last week. He would very much like to have supported the
826
amendment. I moved an amendment somewhat on these lines in Committee but it was very late at night and few noble Lords were present. I know there is a great deal of interest in the problem covered by the amendment and that is one of my justifications for moving it again. Furthermore, we have redrafted it to try to conform more with the drafting of the criteria already in Clause 18(1)(a) and (b) and in the amendment we have stated the main object of our concern, which is the integrity of family life, and in view of the references already made by several noble Lords, I accept that if the amendment were adopted the character of the commission would be considerably extended. However, the Bill gives the opportunity to raise this important point and that is my justification for doing so.
The dilemma is simply stated. It is that at this hour, nearly 7 o'clock in the evening, and every evening, millions of

827
families, mother, father and children, are sitting down watching television, and when programmes containing violence, indecency or profanity come on the screen the parents are defenceless against this invasion of their private family life. If they switch off the programme the children are disappointed and upset. If they leave it on the children are disturbed and upset by unsuitable material and language. The parents' efforts to bring up their children to be decent civilised human beings is undermined. The convention of the TV timetable, which is to show the rougher programmes after 9 o'clock, really is not sufficient protection for children. The surveys show that up until 10 o'clock some 42 per cent. of the viewers are aged between 11 and 14 years, and even up to 11 o'clock 42 per cent. of the viewers are between 15 and 17.
I listened to the Committee stage debates on the merits of setting up a complaints commission at all, and naturally I recognise the immense cogency of the arguments for the complete independence of the BBC and ITV. I have also read with interest the report of the noble Lord, Lord Annan (I hope that he is still present), which has made such a valuable contribution to this field. I recognise the importance of this.
Thus my noble friends and I are not concerned to set up a censorship on the corporation and the authority. We are concerned only to persuade them to measure up to their existing obligations. I shall take the liberty of reading a subsection of Section 4 of the 1973 Act which set up the IBA. The subsection states:
"that nothing is included in the programmes which offends against good taste or decency or is likely to encourage or incite to crime or to lead to disorder or to be offensive to public feeling".
As noble Lords will know, the Lord Normanbrooke letter covers much the same field, with which I shall not trouble your Lordships now.
That the corporation and ITV are falling below these standards is evidenced by reports of the monitoring groups of the Viewers' and Listeners' Association, which many noble Lords have seen, and indeed by the evidence of our own eyes and ears when we see such programmes. The fact is that the television screen presents us today with violence, crudity and coarseness
828
of action and language of a kind never seen or heard 15 or 20 years ago. The progressive downward trend is now a matter of regrettable fact.
The evidence of violence in our national life must be a matter of concern to all noble Lords in all parts of the House. Violent crime is distressingly high, in particular among youngsters, and hooliganism in the football stadium has reached a point where withdrawal of adult supporters, and falling gates, really seriously threaten the very existence of many clubs. So violence is such a serious danger to our way of life that we must examine every factor contributing to it. The TV screen is the major factor in our lives today, and I believe that we must ensure that it ceases to glorify violence; because that is what it does.
I give credit to the BBC and to the IBA for studying this problem in recent times and for both issuing new guidelines in the last year or so. Well, perhaps it is too early to judge the result, but it seems to me that there is still too much of a tendency to strengthen weak drama with excessive violence.
Turning now to the other side of the question, the matters of indecency and profanity, in the short debate we had in Committee my noble friend Lord Hill of Luton made an admirable defence of the television interests and a very sophisticated defence of the downward trend of programmes, on the grounds that standards have changed since we were young, and with the implication that we elder ones ought to adjust ourselves to these new values. Well, my Lords, certainly customs and fashions change, but the ultimate standards are not relative. There are absolute values in life, values of love, truth and beauty, which are the foundation of our morals and our civilisation, and the defence of these values in our our national life is the common concern of all of us. There is some point of concern about the coarseness of a programme where it becomes a threat to these values, especially where a young mind is involved, by presenting brutal and licentious behaviour as if it was normal; and this is where the damage takes place—
Lord WILLIS: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? Will he give me

829
one example of a programme in the last six months containing brutal and licentious behaviour?
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, I should be very pleased to give the noble Lord, Lord Willis, plenty of examples. I do not propose to list them now, but I should be very pleased to pass them over to the noble Lord, and I shall be very glad if he would have a good look at them and let me know what he thinks of them. Certainly that is how I see them. It is in these respects that I believe that the corporation and the authority have failed to meet their responsibilities and that therefore the strengthening of the viewers' complaint by reference to the independent complaints commission is justified.
I recognise that both the corporation and the authority already have their established complaints procedures. In the annual report of the corporation there is a brief account of the working of the complaints procedure and a very detailed account of the admirable range of machinery of consultation. The IBA annual report gives a fuller account, and reports a few individual complaints in some detail. I think that this is very much to be welcomed. My comment on this domestic complaints machinery is that it does not give confidence that this kind of complaint is treated seriously enough, nor does it check the progressive lowering of standards.
I recognise the great weight of the argument that the corporation and the IBA must ensure maximum freedom for creative artists to produce lively, interesting programmes. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, made this point particularly cogently in the debates in Committee. But I believe that there should be some restraint on the kind of material which they daily project into the family circle of every home in this country.
It would be less than fair to the corporation and the authority to end my speech on an entirely critical note, and I gladly acknowledge that between them they present the finest television and radio programmes in the world, which bring immense pleasure and enlightenment into the lives of everybody. My amendment is directed to one small area of blemish in this vast range of programmes. I beg to move.
6.57 p.m.
Lord WILLIS: My Lords, I do not think that your Lordships will be surprised to hear me say that I rise to oppose the amendment. I have the greatest sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and with the feelings behind the amendment, because I know that there are a number of people who are occasionally offended, and sometimes offended in depth, by some of the programmes that are presented on the BBC and the ITV companies' network. Personally I believe that some of those programmes are absolutely necessary. I speak as a small, creative worker in the vineyard of television when I say that sometimes we have to extend the confine of people's thinking to move them forward not a yard, but an inch.
Let me give your Lordships an example. Three or four months ago I was speaking to a marriage guidance counsellor, and he said to me that the whole situation has changed in the last 20 years. He put it down to television, since people came to him and talked about their sexual problems in a way that they would not have done 20 years ago. They have been conditioned or enlightened, or educated by television in such a way that they now know that there are certain problems that they can talk about freely. Since sex—or the lack of it; whichever way your Lordships look at the matter—is one of the major factors for the breakdown of marriage, the marriage guidance counsellor said that it is enormously important that people are able to talk freely about what are very intimate subjects. He put this down to television—and I think that he is quite right. It is not just television in the sense of educational programmes; it is the kind of television that one has seen in drama, which has moved forward just that tiny bit the frontiers of our understanding, and the understanding of the great mass of people who watch television.
What I am afraid of with the kind of amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, is moving is that you will impose yet another restriction on the creative people in television. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, would agree with me that the people who write for television, the people who produce for television and the people who direct for television are, in the main, family men. They are not

831
ogres, they are not villains, they are not people with horns; and certainly they have not sat down together at a private conclave to decide that what they want to do is to corrupt the nation. What they have decided is to do their best, as creative people, to provide the population of this country with the best television.
Occasionally—your Lordships must accept this, and it is an acceptable risk—creative workers(playwrights, and so on) will go beyond the bounds of what even the most liberal-minded person will think is permissible. This has happened throughout history. They have been decried and they have been knocked down by the press and the media of the day, but what has happened is that their work has been reproduced 20 or 30 years later, to acclaim. They were just a little ahead of their time. Sometimes, of course, you get just sheer bad work on television, and I cannot guarantee that you will not get that. You will, because television has an enormous output and it cannot always guarantee quality. But, by and large, what your Lordships have to remember is that the people who work in television are much the same as yourselves, with families. They are family men who want to do the best they possibly can for the audience out there.
Now the IBA and the BBC are already committed to observe the sort of standards that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, was talking about, and in my view they have done that. How can we, on the one hand, say that we have the best television services in the world (which I fervently believe, because I have been all round the world and have watched other television services, and I can tell your Lordships that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, would be in an absolute froth if he had seen some of the television that I have seen in other parts of the world) and, at the same time, try to impose yet one more restriction on them? We have the best television services precisely because we have given this degree of freedom to the creative workers.
Now let me tell your Lordships of one other thing that may well happen if we continue to screw the vice down, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, would like us to do. I can tell your Lordships that what will happen is that the creative
832
workers in television will go to video and will put everything on video tapes, and the video recorders will be sold in their thousands and their hundreds of thousands throughout the country. What you will be left with on ordinary television, on the IBA and the BBC, is marshmallow, cut television which will interest nobody, and everybody will be going out to hire or buy from Boots the chemists, from W. H. Smith or from any other firm, at a very cheap rate, the video discs or the video cassettes which they will be able to show in their private homes. So you will set up yet another network, and you will have to come back to this House and the other place and ask for yet another law to control video cassettes and video discs. My Lords, we have—we have all agreed this—the best television in the world. We already have sufficient safeguards laid down in the charters of the BBC and the IBA. Can we not leave well alone?
7.5 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords. I should like to suggest to your Lordships the following question. What is a "'warranted' infringement of the integrity of family life"; what is "warranted" violence, what is "warranted" indecency and what is "warranted" profanity? I suggest to your Lordships that this is a provision which, if added to this Bill, will be totally and utterly unenforceable, and it will mean nothing. We know already that in the 1967 Act (I think it is) the words "tend to deprave and corrupt" have been used, and they have now been found by the courts to be meaningless because what may tend to deprave one person will not deprave another. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, has spent his life looking at all these things, and he is neither depraved nor corrupt.
A noble Lord: We hope!
The Earl of ONSLOW: We know he is not. Mrs. Whitehouse represents the National Television Viewers' and Listeners' Association, whose numbers may be one, which is her; they may be two, which is her and Lord Longford; or, for all I know, they may be a hundred thousand. But nobody knows who or what they repesent. A week or two ago there was a programme on television which I found very disturbing and very distressing. It

833
was a programme, which was done with great seriousness and great skill, about a sex-change operation. I do not know whether your Lordships saw it, but I found it quite disgusting and 1 had to turn it off. But I would not have suggested that it should not be shown. It was a serious programme made about a serious subject, and the programme makers were correct in making it. As I say, I found it quite repellent, but that is another question and one of personal preference.
There is something else I should like to suggest. Twenty years ago Mrs. Whitehouse would not have used the word "masturbation". She has now been seen to use it on television. I am not suggesting that Mrs. Whitehouse is either depraving or corrupting anybody by using it. It is a word which is now used in serious conversation, not bar-room conversation, not sergeants' mess conversation. It is now used quite reasonably and quite seriously. I think I had better go no further, but people do use it; it is a serious topic of conversation. I think that this amendment, noble though it may be, is too woolly and too difficult; and, as I said when I started these few remarks, I should like to know what is "warranted" indecency.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, a few weeks ago, when this Bill was first before this House, I received through the post (and I should think that perhaps a number of noble Lords did, also) a brochure with a light blue soft cover containing probably 15 or 20 pages of extracts from various BBC and IBA programmes. They were extracts taken, in the main, out of context. They were smutty; they were sexy; they were salacious. In fact, the whole publication was pornographic, and it came through the post. It came from the National Television Viewers' and Listeners' Association. The object, of course, was to point out to us before our Second Reading debate, and subsequently, what they regarded as the lowering of standards.
The point has already been made that both the BBC and the IBA are responsible (and the quotation has been given) for maintaining a standard of good taste and decency. The noble Earl who spoke before me hit the nail on the head. If we were to go to every Member of this noble House and pose a direct question about a particular programme, I doubt whether we
834
would get anything like a fair proportion of the answers all in one direction, because what I think is good taste is probably not what anybody else thinks; what I think is indecent someone else may think is quite decent. But that is by the way.
Let me say this from my own experience. I have sat in a room as chairman of the IBA with experienced programme makers and with members of the staff to decide whether or not a word or a number of words should be taken out of a drama in case they offended, as we were required to do. Usually it was found that some of these words at least were absolutely essential to the plot. If I may give an example from my own experience, there was a play, the title of which I know but cannot recall at the moment, since this was 12 years ago, which had in it the four-letter word that we all know but which few of us use, a sixteenth century word meaning to copulate. We considered whether to leave that word in or to take it out. It was essential to the plot but we decided to take it out. We put in a five-letter word, which I shall not repeat, but which made it much worse. But, at least, we tried. That is what I am sure both the BBC and the IBA continually do.
May I come to the amendment itself? With respect, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, a very old friend, did not say much about the amendment; but what the amendment does is this. Take the hypothetical case of the three ladies or gentlemen, the commissioners, sitting down to consider a complaint from an individual and decide whether or not the integrity of his family has been disturbed by something that he has seen on the box. In the first place, he may not be speaking for his family. If he has adolescent children, they may not agree with him. But, assuming that he is speaking for his family, those three commissioners have themselves to decide whether his family—not theirs, but his family—has been affected by what it has seen on the box. The commissioners themselves may have seen it or they may not. They can get a replay of it if they wish. They may feel that they completely disagree with the complaint from their own point of view, but their decision is not a matter of what they think, but of what they believe the complainant's family think about what they have seen. This amendment is not

835
workable. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it, but if there is a Division I shall vote against it.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I spoke on an amendment like this at Committee and I should like to do so now for two or three minutes. My noble friend behind me said that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, was not corrupt: of course I agree. He is not corrupt. But the reason is that when he was a boy, there was no television. It is amazing to think that, if you go naked in the streets or in a public place or if you use foul language in a public place, then you have committed an offence and you can be arrested. But you can see far worse scenes on television. It might be said that one can switch it off. Of course, one can do so and if one is a mature, sophisticated and educated person then one does that. It is complete rubbish; so one does turn it off. But as my noble friend Lord Nugent said, "How about the children?". The children see it. The majority of noble Lords have had children, I imagine. It is the matter of the children. You cannot control them today. There is very bad discipline in the state schools and you cannot control them.
I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, laughing; but how about the courts? I have seen in the newspapers several times that when a young offender, or one perhaps not so young, is had up, his defence for some crime of violence that he has committed is, "I saw it on television". How about that? The noble Lord, Lord Willis, said that there had not been any licentious plays on television in the last six months and he challenged my noble friend Lord Nugent to send him some examples—
Lord WILLIS: My Lords, will the noble Viscount give way?
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: No, my Lords, I will not give way. When the noble Lord sees these examples from my noble friend, he will be surprised; but of course the noble Lord must know them anyway. I will not speak any longer except to say that I do support this amendment. I may say
836
that as far as a great number of scriptwriters are concerned—well, you cannot write a script for television unless you belong to Equity. It is a closed shop. A great number of these plays are creating only filth. They are not creative. They are there to make money and they are in the ratings battle. That is all it is. They are filth. They cannot be called creative art.
Lord WILLIS: My Lords, would the noble Viscount give me the name of the producer and of the director of the play that he described earlier where there is a naked young lady running down the street?
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I did not say that. I said that if you go naked in the streets or in a public place you can be arrested. I do not think that the human form itself, if it is reasonably attractive, is at all obscene; but it is against the law—and you see worse things on television.
7.15 p.m.
Lord COBBOLD: My Lords, it may be appropriate for me to say a word or two about my experience in these matters as Lord Chamberlain, and to recall one or two of the points that I have made in speeches in this House as long ago as 1966 and 1968 on theatre censorship and on the Theatres Bill. As some noble Lords may remember, I was in favour at that time, for a number of reasons, of getting rid of the Lord Chamberlain's powers and duties. The late Lord Scarborough, my predecessor, also spoke in this House along the same lines. However, I expressed anxieties on certain subjects and suggested that some body might be appointed to work in close contact with the authorities in television and radio to exercise some form of supervision, probably in experimental form to be reviewed from time to time. I tried to inveigle the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, into taking an interest and playing some part in that; but I did not even get him to first base.
The points about which I expressed particular concern, first to the Select Committee and to your Lordships' House, were violence, representation of living persons and, more especially, recently deceased persons, and religious matters.

837
I was less concerned about obscenity. You do not have to go to the theatre; whereas radio and television are piped into your home. Government spokesmen expressed the view that the law was adequate to cover the matters about which I was concerned and Parliament accepted the Bill without amendment, I have had some doubts since whether the interpretation of the law has proved quite as straight-forward as was then expected by Government spokesman.
It follows that I have great sympathy with the objectives of this amendment, and I continue to be particularly concerned about the amount and degree of violence on television and radio, and especially on television, which seems to me to have increased to a most undesirable extent in the past few years.
However, having expressed sympathy with the objectives of this amendment, I am bound to add that, with five years of theatre censorship behind me when I was guided only by vague and outdated suggestions (which were never accepted by Parliament) by the 1909 Select Committee, I should have found it extraordinarily difficult to administer a statutory obligation on the lines of this amendment. I should have expected to see almost every decision challenged and argued about and very probably taken to the courts. For a variety of reasons, I feel that the difficulties in radio and television would be much greater than they would have been in the theatre. In these matters of taste, the opponents of any form of restriction tend to be more vocal than its supporters.
I doubt myself whether decisions of the commission, inevitably long after the event, together with the controversy which would be likely to follow them, would convey any clear view of public opinion. My preference—and I confess that I am much out of date—is to leave the full responsibility for implementing their rules and guidelines on these matters of taste firmly on the broadcasting authorities, just as the full responsibility formerly lay on the Lord Chamberlain in the theatre. I believe that the broadcasting authorities could well be encouraged to up-date their guidelines from time to time and to implement them more fully and effectively than has always been the case recently. I also believe it would be a good thing to give up-dated guidelines very wide publicity
838
so that everybody knows what are the rules that they ought to be observing.
Again, I believe that acceptance of this amendment might lessen, or at least appear to lessen, the responsibility of the broadcasting authorities themselves. But whether this amendment is accepted or not, I believe that debates in Parliament on the subject are very useful in underlining the great concern that is widely felt. In the end, it is only the pressure of public opinion which will achieve the results which many of us would like to see.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I intervene because I am probably the only member of your Lordships' House who was employed by the BBC as a professional broadcaster in the days of Lord Reith. I have never had a greater admiration for anyone for whom I have worked. Indeed, he set very high standards and the country as a whole has benefited greatly from them. But we simply cannot accept this amendment. We might as well accept an amendment that declares sin unlawful. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, pointed out some of the objections to it and we have to leave some responsibility on the governors.
We can all point to objectionable broadcasts which have caused us personal offence. But there is something much greater at stake. We live I hope in a free country; public opinion does make itself felt. I remember that in one of the first debates in which I took part in your Lordships' House a noble Lord (whose son I am glad to see is here) tried to have all the works of D. H. Lawrence banned and, in particular, Lady Chatterley's Lover. I was one of those who spoke against it. The day was saved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, who, in the process, re-wrote Lady Chatterley's Lover. Then we moved on to another subject.
However, we really cannot impose this type of responsibility on a body which is not itself executively responsible, which would spend its whole time arguing whether something was in good taste or had taste and an infringement of family life. My advice—with some regret at some lowering of standards—would be that this is an amendment which really we have to reject.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, may I very briefly say something about one word in this amendment, of which I approve? It is the word "violence". Some noble Lords have referred to it. From my experience as chairman of a very large and very difficult juvenile court, I can tell your Lordships that over the past few years the number of young people who have committed crimes of violence, and who have come before me and have admitted that they have been led on by what they have seen on television, has escalated.
I can look back over 24 years on the bench and at least 18 in the juvenile court, and this tendency has escalated within the past five to eight years. That is why I am drawing your Lordships' attention and, I hope, through this debate, the attention of all the media to the fact that standards have lowered, and that damage is being done to our children who see these things. Families unfortunately are not, so far as I can make out, telling their children that what they see is only a story, that it is not a fact that in real life people are stabbing each other. Everybody seems to have a gun and cars are crashed and turned over. I will not bore your Lordships, but I should like to use these few words to draw the attention of the powers-that-be to the fact that the standard has lowered. Can they possibly prevail upon those who write and produce for the media to understand that the standard of violence is now leading to a very, very great escalation of crime among juveniles in this country?
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, I suppose that most Members of the House inevitably bring a kind of automatic reaction to this amendment. Some, like myself, will be supposed automatically to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford; and certainly I do. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, is an old champion of the creative arts and he is very much entitled to speak on their behalf. Let us if we can just for a moment look at this matter a little more closely and not treat it as the old straight issue between pornography and censorship which has been debated a thousand times, and no doubt will be debated another thousand times.
Already the BBC and the independent companies accept some measure of censorship—one may like to call it self-
840
censorship. They accept certain standards. They agree that some things are impermissible. They already apply certain standards which are not altogether clear but at any rate they apply them. This amendment is going a little further and saying that the commission should be allowed to apply additional standards or criteria. Those who say that we do not want any commission at all have a logical position of a sort. In fact, that is not the position of the Bill. The Bill sets up a commission which is still going to impose restrictions which would not be imposed by the companies or the BBC themselves.
It is really a question of whether in this particular area we are going to allow the commission to impose its own standards in addition to those already imposed. That is the issue. It is not the whole wide issue of pornography and censorship, although no doubt in many cases people will take up their positions in advance. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, that there is a great deal that is most unsatisfactory. Everybody seems to agree about this in regard to violence. Let us for the moment stick to that because as soon as sex is mentioned reason goes out of the window.
In the case of violence, everyone in theory is against violence, so there is no fundamental difference there. Most people—I think almost everybody—would agree that there is too much violence and a lot of unpleasant violence on television today. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Willis—an extreme champion of the permissive position—might even agree that there is too much violence. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, neatly picked up what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, that we have the best television service in the world. I should think that we have the best police force in the world. We may even have the best Civil Service in the world. We certainly have the best and perhaps the only House of Lords in the world. If we are going to base all our discussions about our institutions on that kind of attitude, then we would never improve them at all.
I am taking up my stand where your Lordships might expect, on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. But if there are such people as floating

841
voters in this matter, if there is such a person here who brings a neutral mind to this issue, just consider this argument. We agree that standards have to be imposed and that in other matters such a commission should be allowed to impose them, and it is at least a very reasonable suggestion that they should be imposed in this case.
7.29 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, may I crave the indulgence of the House and ask the Government whether they are going to give the House any indication as to how long this debate is going to continue before we adjourn for dinner? As I understand the situation, it was thought that the House might adjourn at 7 o'clock. I appreciate the difficulty, but I rise because it seems as if still quite a number of your Lordships want to speak. I can see this discussion going on for at least another hour and we ought to take into account the arrangements of the Refreshment Department.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. We are, of course, in the hands of the House over this. The main difficulty was that the last amendment came to an end at about 20 minutes to seven and it would have been an inappropriate time to adjourn for 40 minutes at 20 minutes to seven. I think that if it looks as though this debate might be over in about 20 minutes' time we could probably wait for that. If it is going to be longer than that, perhaps it might be better for your Lordships to adjourn now and resume at about 10 minutes past eight. Obviously we must be in the hands of the House on this. I hope that we would have covered this subject fully. We started at 20 minutes to seven and we have been going at it for 50 minutes. I cannot conceive, as the subject has been debated before, that it could take much longer than another 20 minutes; but, of course, I am in the hands of the House on this.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think that, with very great respect. the Chief Whip could move, if he so desired, along the lines suggested, that we should now adjourn until 10 minutes past eight, and test the feeling of your Lordhsips' House.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, of course the difficulty is that the actual active protagonists in this debate are those who have most interest (a) because they are tied here and cannot go out and get their dinner, and (b) because they are interested in the debate. I think I detect the feeling of the House that we should perhaps continue, and hope to finish before dinner.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord HILL of LUTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, in his opening statement, met an obvious criticism that the complaints commission, as now constructed or proposed to be constructed, was not a body that could properly be required to pronounce on matters of taste, so it is not necessary to repeat that point. However, I think that when an amendment is proposed to an Act of Parliament it is appropriate to criticise and to examine with some care the significance, as well as the words, of that amendment. Your Lordships will notice that the amendment deals with—
"… unwarranted infringement of the integrity of family life, in connection with the material broadcast as regards violence, indecency or profanity, irrespective of subject matter".
I understand that to mean "irrespective of the way in which it is presented". We know from experience, particularly with entertainers, how important the mode of presentation is as well as the content of what they say. I would ask straight away: Is Dave Allen profane? He does not seem to be so regarded by his own Church, but is he profane? Think of the kinds of western that involve violence: Is that kind of violence to be regarded as "an infringement of family life", even though, as we have always known, cowboys do not bleed, and cowboys and Indians have always been regarded as harmless forms of human activity? Would it be wrong to depict on the screen the blinding of blustering King Lear?—
The Earl of HALSBURY: Yes!
Lord HILL of LUTON: —and the killings of Hamlet? Surely the noble Lord cannot mean that there are no exceptions in relation to the mode of presentation. If there are to be no exceptions, the people who so advocate seem to me to live in a world which is quite different from that in which the rest of us lead our fallible lives.

843
Even the news is not exempt. Is it possible that it will be an offence to depict on television the cruelties of Vietnam or the shootings in Northern Ireland? Is the news then to be submitted to the same scrutiny, to see whether, in the way of its presentation or because of its violence, it infringes the "integrity of family life"? It really is a most extraordinary criterion to apply in any case. I was going—but we have had such a warning about the length of this debate that I hesitate to do so—to ask the question: which families? It is no good using the generality of "the integrity of family life" without making it clear which families. I do not suppose one means the families of the Borgias or the family life of the Brontes, with father firing a gun in the church belfry and a brother boozing away in the Black Bull from morning till night. Which kind of family life? Does it cover the kind of family life which is split by divorce, all too frequent today? Or one-parent families? Is it the family life of your Lordships which is being protected, or my own—in the fiftieth year of a supremely happy marriage with five children and 18 grandchildren—a family that does not need the nanny-like activities now proposed but which is sturdy enough to resist even the television which the noble Lord described in such terms that I hardly recognised it and I think he must be looking at a different station.
There really cannot be this sort of thing. Again, take an excellent programme called "Sailor" about life in the Navy: should that have been banned because sailors customarily use some naughty words and used them in that programme? What about "Pennies from Heaven", "I, Claudius"? It is no good mentioning "Till Death us do part", because it will not stand a chance in this argument. Really, to examine programmes in relation to violence, indecency and profanity, with-out considering them in their context, in their mode of presentation and in the plays in which they appear is, I think, the sheerest nonsense.
How can a committee judge issues of taste in this world of swiftly-changing taste? Of course, those of my generation strongly disapprove of some elements of that swiftly-changing taste; but what can we do about it? Our children and grandchildren seem to get on pretty well
844
despite the perils; but there is nothing we can do about it. I would ask your Lordships to think of the analogy of the theatre. When J. M. Synge's play, "The Playboy of the Western World" was produced in Dublin there were riots in the streets. Today it is a classic. When Ibsen's "Ghosts" was first produced the Daily Telegraph described it as "an open drain", "a loathsome sore unbandaged", and so on. Now it is a classic. But the classics so often began as condemned plays.
I could give one experience of my own: the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, will remember it. When I was chairman of the ITA, as it then was, we asked him to take out a particular scene from a film he was presenting—I have forgotten why. Yes, it was because of an element of what we thought was sadism. But he refused and said he would not put the film on. A year later he approached me and asked whether we would now view the film again. We did, without any question, and we thought that it was admirable. It had not changed. We had changed in those 12 months. The film was in exactly the form in which we originally criticised it.
So I say to your Lordships that broadcasting must be relevant to the world as it is; otherwise, it loses credibility and it loses audiences. It has to describe the world with faithful accuracy, warts and all, and the world is not a very pleasant place. It cannot be denied—and I do not make the slightest attempt to deny it—that some people are often offended by what they see. I am the same as others. I usually switch it off, if I do not like it. I know that it is expecting too much, certainly in family surroundings. One has warning. I know, if I see a fellow going to bed without a pyjama jacket, that he is up to no good and I switch off. But let us ask ourselves: can we see a future in a Government appointing 12 men and women to assume responsibility for a broadcasting service, and then appointing another group of men and women, without such responsibility, to criticise them on issues of taste?
I should like to say a final personal word. I was criticised during both of my tenures at the ITA and the BBC for being an interventionist chairman. I suppose that I was, particularly if it

845
means that you sought to strengthen the role of the authority and of the governors in the fields that belonged to them. But one thing I must say, and I have no axe to grind. What I say is born of my own experience. I soon realised the immense importance of maintaining a climate conducive to creative work, conducive to creative people enjoying editorial freedom and responsibility—referring upwards when they needed so to do. This atmosphere of creative freedom is the most important single factor in the superiority of British broadcasting.
I know that we are apt to speak of the wonders of this country, although not so frequently as we did, but it is true that British broadcasting is far superior to broadcasting, even in our near neighbours on the Continent. I am convinced—and I speak not as an intellectual, but as one who has observed this situation—and I can say unhesitatingly that it is that intellectual freedom, that responsibility to get on with their work, referring to seniors only when it is necessary, that is the greatest single secret of the broadcasting success of this country. We should not put at the elbow of such people a committee—this or another—which is looking not for violence, profanity and indecency, but only for violence, profanity and indecency which affects the family—a curious limitation of the terms of reference. But I will not go back to that.
What I want to make absolutely plain is that this freedom, with all its dangers, with all its opportunities for error, is absolutely essential to a fine service. We cannot have it both ways. A service which fails to present the world as it really is loses credibility, and, if we want a first-class service, creative people must be given responsible freedom. Take it away, and I am convinced that broadcasting will slip to the drab, the unimaginative, the dull and the routine, and I would rather have a little danger, a little risk but a great deal of freedom, to the dull, drab routine that we so often see in the broadcasting systems of other countries.
7.45 p.m.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, I really do not know where I stand in this matter of speaking to my own amendment. I am well aware that I seem to be under some limitation on this amend-
846
ment. Last time I spoke to your Lord-ships about it, the hour was late, the House was tired and I felt that the least I could do was to wind-up quickly and let your Lordships all go home. The only difference between Committee and Report stage is that the hour is late, your Lordships are hungry and far be it from me to stop you from going off and having your dinners. But since the Leader of the House, the Chief Whip and the Government Front Bench will not let us go and eat, I am afraid that I must try to inflict something on you as briefly as I can. However, I cannot guarantee that I shall be the last speaker. Many of my friends on both sides of the House will, I am sure, want to stand up and be counted on this issue, and it is a great pity that the debate is not adjourned and that we cannot have supper.
If I may come back to where I left off in Committee, when I was discussing the complaints procedures, there has been a tendency in the last 12 months to try to make people with complaints address themselves to the secretary, who will show them to the chairman, as necessary. This caused a collapse of confidence in the system by using the secretary as an apparent filter. I have, since Committee stage, had a letter from the chairman of the board of governors, saying that so far as he is concerned all letters addressed to him will be dealt with by him personally, and there the matter rests. I am very glad to have that assurance and, naturally, I accept it.
There were two arguments used by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, which have been repeated in the course of the debate and which I should like to deal with. The first was that the amendment would render the BBC and the IBA indifferent to complaints, because complaints would be dealt with elsewhere. I cannot accept that argument. Does the existence of the judiciary make them indifferent to law. Does the existence of subsection (1)(a) make them indifferent to unfair treatment, and does subsection (1)(b) make them indifferent to the violation of privacy.
In the context of subsection (1)(b), your Lordships will note that it uses the word "unwarranted". That was copied into the amendment of my noble friend and myself as subsection (1)(c), and that is the answer to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow,

847
who I do not see in his place, but who, I presume, will read the report in Hansard tomorrow. There is, of course, a warranty for entering in some circumstances. Why should subsection (1)(c), as proposed, make the BBC and the IBA any more indifferent to obscenity, than subsections (1)(a) or (1)(b) make them indifferent to unfair treatment or infringement of privacy? This seems to me to be an argument that does not lead anywhere at all.
The second of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in replying on behalf of the Government, was the alleged impossibility of making the requisite value judgments. This alleged impossibility is part of the humbug of the liberal humanist attitude to modern life, and I am sorry to see that the noble Lord accepted it in his brief. It was put forward by Protagoras some two-and-a-half millenia ago, in the dictum that man is the measure of all things. There are no absolute standards, save as we ourselves determine. There are, though the expression that we give to them is a local variable in time and geography.
We say that there is no accounting for tastes, and I agree. If this means that there is scope for personal preferences and priorities, within the general scope of what is felt acceptable, then there is, indeed, no accounting for tastes. One woman may prefer a light scent; another woman may prefer a heavy scent. You cannot rationalise the distinction between them. But neither will accept being sprayed by a skunk. If any noble Lords are in any doubt about that, I invite them to interfere with such a one on one of its lawful occasions, and 30 seconds later they will regret having done so.
Further, if I as a chemist synthesised a skunk substitute for stink bombs and started scattering them about the community to express my displeasure on this or that, the law would very rapidly catch up with me and put an end to the mischief I was making. And if I used obscenity or profanity in your Lordships' House, your Lordships would, like a stroke of lightning, come to a decision. I heard your Lord-shins do it when a noble Lord once went too far. "Order, order!" screamed every-body at once. He was so appalled that he rose to his feet and apologised abjectly. I have never heard anybody so ticked off
848
since, because the lesson went home. Your Lordships make these decisions instantly and demand compliance with them. Why cannot three wise men make the same sort of decisions as to what is obscene or profane?
It is not limited to your Lordships' House. If I were obscene or profane in one of the bars, the Whips, or someone representing the Leader of the House, or the convenor of the Cross-Benchers, would get hold of me and tell me exactly what he thought of me, and I should be subjected to private rebuke on behalf of those offended by a public outrage. That is the way that ordinary, common sense people conduct their affairs. There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that a commission of this nature could not exercise the same kind of common sense as your Lordships exercise on every occasion—spontaneously, intuitively. Do not confuse the concept of a censor on publications with censure for misbehaviour. That is all that this Bill can achieve. There is no censor saying what may be produced prospectively, but in retrospect the broadcasting bodies can be given, following a complaint, an official rebuke from a body that they cannot ignore. And that is what is so important.
Why have standards deteriorated in the way that my noble friend indicated to your Lordships? After the committee, Sir Hugh Carleton Greene went on TV with a kind of apologia pro vita sua. He explained that the Pilkington Report gave rave reviews to the BBC but that only 27 per cent. of the viewers appeared to agree with them, according to the ratings. So he decided to pep things up, and the "pep up" resulted in a programme which was later nicknamed "TW3". When we got to this stage of his apologia, some repeat performances of hits of "TW3" came over on the air. The replay was exactly what I remembered of it, the beginning of it all—rather sniggery, schoolboy smut, and a naive attempt at political satire, not half so funny as the current "Yes, Minister" which is much better informed. You cannot be funny about politics unless you know a minimum amount about them, and, of course, "Yes, Minister" does not spoil the cocktail with any kind of sniggery smut at all.
It was the first step downhill, but because we have two bodies in competition

849
the independents followed and now they openly compete in the Gadarene search for programme material. That is all they are interested in—programme material to fill in the spaces between the advertisements. It was a second-rate solution to the problem which faced the BBC in these days. I address your Lordships as fairly professional speakers. It is our profession here to talk. All of us know that any second-rate speaker who has lost the attention of his audience can get it back again by telling a dirty joke. We also know that if you take that path out of your difficulty, the jokes have to get progressively dirtier and dirtier to produce the same effect. So it was a second-rate solution.
Furthermore, it did not tackle what the independents were beating the BBC at. The BBC were not copying what they were doing. They were introducing something totally different all on their own. But of course competition now forces everybody into line. They apologise when they go too far, but it makes no difference. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, is no longer in his place but if he were—and he will read this in Hansard tomorrow—I would ask him, "What has happened since the days when he was scripting "Dixon of Dock Green", when nobody used profanity and obscenity? What has now made it necessary?" He was saying "We must have an inch". The trouble with his liberal-humanist friends is that, given an inch, they take an ell. When the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, who again is no longer in his place, was saying why it was necessary wanted to ask him: "How was it that Shakespeare got along without it?" I agree that there is an occasional line in Shakespeare which is rather more objective than one is accustomed to on the modern stage, but it does not depend upon it.
Only quite recently, profanity and obscenity were not indulged in in public. This is not some sort of strange battle like squaring the circle which philosophers have fought for years and years and years. It is something quite recent. I do not accept the arguments of my noble friend Lord Hill of Luton that you cannot put the clock back. You can always put the clock back a few minutes. You cannot put it back 100 years, I agree.
850
That brings me to the tactics of some of the opponents of this amendment: "Do not attack the amendment; set up an Aunt Sally and then be funny, or aggressive, at its expense", I am sure that your Lordships all thoroughly enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, which was entirely off the point—the same with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. He said that we were setting up a commission to decide what was in good taste. The words "good taste" do not appear anywhere in the amendment. It refers to such matters as profanity, violence, and so on, and it is up to the commission to decide that for themselves. I do not believe that historically condemned things like Ibsen's "Ghosts" were nearly so much in conflict with the standards of contemporary society as it is easy to make out.
I do not believe some of the things which the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, said about the BBC or the IBA: they have to do this; they have to do that; they have to represent the world, warts and all. They try to misrepresent the situation by pretending that when they are doing something that nobody wants they are responding to public demand. I do not believe that they are doing anything of the kind. I believe that those responsible for the current decline in our standards are a backward-looking lot of out-of-date old men.
The young undergraduates of today have absolutely no use whatsoever for permissiveness, licentiousness and the society that we have been building up in the post-war years. They have gone to the other extreme. It is the usual swing of the pendulum. It is the revolt of the younger generation against the older, and I am glad to be with the younger generation against the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, and others who have spoken this evening. I may be an old fuddy-duddy from some points of view, but at least I am in touch with the undergraduates of today. That is why I support this amendment and have joined myself with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, in proposing it.
7.58 p.m.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, I am quite willing not to speak if the Front Bench will adjourn, otherwise there are a

851
few things which I wish to say. My noble friend Lord Hill of Luton said that the world is a pretty unpleasant place. Well, why is it an unpleasant place? We see that there is a great deal more violence and more divorces. There are more acts considered as harmless which only a short time ago would have attracted public and private disapproval. We also see that on television and in the media there is much more licence of one kind and another. Is there any connection between the two? "No", says Lord Hill; "television is simply there to reflect society as it is". But of course no artists, no writers would agree about that. This is behind all which we have heard tonight.
Everyone is agreed that if the body is what we are thinking about, then the body can be poisoned by bad food, or such things as that. We are agreed about using the law to protect physical health, to exact penalties for pollution or dirty food. Is it not rather extraordinary that the same people are unwilling to use the law to protect the health of the mind? I say it is extraordinary because from my knowledge of the medical profession and scientists in the last 20 years, especially in America, they really have established a connection between mental and physical illness which is so close that one cannot divide the two. In fact we as individuals and our society become what we consume. That is what the doctors say today, and that brings me to the amendment.
I do not think much of the way in which the amendment is drafted. I think it would be very difficult to operate, but it is necessary to recognise that in 1980 the media—radio and television—are the most educational thing we have. They completely dominate the way that public opinion goes and they are not now working within that moral consensus which we used to have before the decline in religion. The real question is—and it cannot be done in this amendment—have we got to fill the vacuum that is left by the decline in that framework?—which is essential because otherwise we cannot govern ourselves in a free society. Those who control these media must have a view about human nature and the future of our society; if they did not, how would they select their material? There cannot be much argument about what their view
852
should be; it would have to be based on the brotherhood of free men and women, healthy in mind and body, reasonable, compassionate and courageous for the public good.
Can we leave it to those who control what is now the decisive battlefield for our culture? Can we leave it to them to fill the gap that is left by the weakening of the moral consensus which we have had in this country for hundreds of years? That is really the problem, and I do not exactly know the solution, but I salute my noble friend beside me for having raised it in this amendment, because if we do not tackle it we shall find that family life will go to pieces, and with it will go the stability of our society.
8.2 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I have prepared a long and closely reasoned speech, but I am far too hungry to make it. I think this debate has been extremely ill-handled. It is ridiculous because I think a lot of people still want to speak, but I suggest that if I forgo my right perhaps the noble Lord will forgo a great deal of his speech and we can deal with this fairly quickly. The answer is that the division between us is perfectly clear. I thought the speech made by my noble friend Lord Hill was brilliant, dead on the point and exactly what I think. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, an old schoolfriend of mine, thinks the exact opposite. That is roughly our position and there is not much more to be said.
I want to say only two things: one is bearing out what the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and other people have said; that one must not handicap the artist. It is a curious but unavoidable fact that some very distinguished artists and writers are fascinated by things which do not fascinate me or you and from time to time they go further than I should like or than you should like. I am not in charge, thank Heaven! but the question is, Do you want to be in charge yourselves as the Government? The answer is, No, so there should be no ukase in the Bill. It must be left as we suggested in our White Paper, for the broadcasting authorities to make the decision. That is all I need to say. People who agree with me will vote against this amendment;

853
people who do not will vote for it. I do not think that there is a great deal more that needs to be said.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, the arguments about extending the terms of reference to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission were of course explored in some detail in Committee, but bearing in mind the adjurations of the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite, none the less I must say that following the Committee debate and the speeches which have been made in your Lordships' House this evening I certainly regard this issue—and I am speaking on behalf of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in this—as being of such importance that I hope your Lordships will bear with me for just a few moments if I try to answer the debate.
Programme standards are matters in respect of which the broadcasting authorities already have specific obligations placed upon them. The 1973 Act laid the obligations upon the Independent Broadcasting Authority and what we call the "Norman-brooke letter" lays the obligations upon the BBC, which they accept through that letter. As my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford very fairly made clear in his speech, this amendment would have some major implications for our system of authority, responsibility and accountability in broadcasting. This is a system which has endured for 50 years in this country and if I were to say to your Lordships that it has produced, I think arguably, broadcasting services which at their best are better than others in the world I am not saying that broadcasters never make mistakes; of course they do, although I am not actually entirely sure that we would always agree on what those mistakes were. My point therefore is not that the broadcasters never make mistakes, but that we must think long and hard before we upset the arrangements which govern broadcasting in this country.
These arrangements are not just the sort of optional extra which are tacked on to the broadcasting system that we have. They are fundamental to the way we organise broadcasting and to the concept of what we call public service broadcasting. The obligations or the BBC and the IBA as regards programme standards include the matters mentioned in my noble friend's amendment, but that is not the whole
854
story. The obligations laid upon the BBC and the IBA, as many of your Lordships will know almost in your sleep, include such things as producing programmes of merit and ensuring accuracy and due impartiality and a proper balance in a wide range of subject-matter, and so on.
Given the amount of broadcasting for which the authorities are responsible and the breadth of the programme obligations and—this is most important—the problem of having to reconcile obligations which may sometimes conflict, they have quite a difficult task, and we must remember that the BBC and the IBA are appointed to carry out this job on behalf of the public. The point I am trying to make is not simply that the authorities have a variety of obligations, but that our broadcasting system depends upon these obligations being applied and administered as a unity by the bodies which have the responsibility for what is actually put out. If we try to separate some of the obligations, I think inevitably we shall erode the authority and responsibility and the accountability of the BBC and the IBA, and undermine our whole system of public broadcasting.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, if the appointed boards are so superior, why does the Bill make provision for a complaints commission at all?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, the answer to that is because the Annan Committee took the view, which the previous Government agreed with and so do the present Government, that the desirable objective was to have a complaints commission which should be seen to be independent of the two broadcasting authorities in certain selected areas, which did not include programme content and it is that path which the Bill is following.
If there is anything in what I am saying (other noble Lords have said the same) that by removing some of the responsibilities from the broadcasting authorities you erode their responsibility, I think you achieve a result which on reflection my noble friends would not wish to achieve, because one could easily have a situation where there was less rather than more regard for the standards to which the amendment refers. There could be a real risk that the programme-makers would

855
come to look upon the adjudication of the commission as the only guide to what was acceptable in the area of sex, violence and so forth, with all the difficulties of getting an adjudication which the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, with his first-hand experience of this, mentioned in his speech.
As the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said, of course there must be standards of integrity which have got to be maintained. But the totality of the obligations which are placed on the broadcasting authorities do require a feel for public attitudes and also a recognition of the way that material which is broadcast is presented. In saying that, I am not saying that the broadcasting authorities should therefore bend to every wind that blows; what I am putting to your Lordships is that the broadcasting authorities ought to have the responsibility for what they put out and the responsibility for trying to ascertain what the public wishes. This the BBC and the ITA increasingly are taking a good deal of trouble to do through audience research and public meetings.
I should like to end by saying two things of a rather more definite nature. The first is that, as I understood the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Willis—if I may be allowed to refer to it in his absence—the noble Lord ascribed the fact that standards of broadcasting in this country are, as he puts it, the best in the world to the freedom which broadcasters have. I am sorry; I do not agree with that. I believe it is much more complicated than that and I believe that the real reason why, at the best, we have got such very good standards of broadcasting in this country is that we have a powerful concept of public service broadcasting and we have broadcasting authorities which are independent to provide those broadcasting services, subject to the obligations to which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has drawn attention.
The second and last thing I want to say is that none the less I realise that many of your Lordships are very concerned about the accountability of the broadcasting authorities. After the debate, in Committee, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary considered seriously how the Government could respond to your Lordships' debate but within the structure
856
of public service broadcasting as we have it. The principle method by which the BBC and the IBA account for their trusteeship of the public interest in broadcasting is through their annual reports, which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has to lay before Parliament. In the light of the debate which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, initiated in Committee, the Home Secretary considered that it would be desirable for the broadcasting authorities to include in their annual reports an account of the volume and nature of the complaints they receive each year and any action taken in consequence. This would enable Parliament and the public to take stock each year of the exact position regarding complaints. Accordingly, my right honourable friend has asked the chairmen of the BBC and the IBA to include this information in their annual reports, and they have indicated that they will do so. If I may say so, I think this is an important step, and I hope your Lordships will take the view that it is a practical response to the views which the House has expressed on two occasions.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can I ask him one question which I regard as being of great importance? If there are to be included in the annual reports the complaints that are received, will he also take steps to see that the approbation of those programmes about which there are complaints is somehow assessed?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, this is a matter which I very much hope will also be included in the annual reports, which of course are pretty comprehensive.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the lengths to which he has gone to try to meet our case. I must also thank my noble friends who have given such valuable support in what I consider was a very interesting debate. I should like also to thank other noble friends, who took an opposite view from me, for joining in the debate, which is very much the type of debate we can conduct in this House, I believe to the benefit of everybody. This is a very important subject. There is involved here an extremely important clash of principles where a very nice judgment is required to get the right

857
answer. I accept that if my amendment were put to the House and even if it were carried and put into the Bill and the complaints commission started to work on what would be an enormously difficult area of problems, after they had delivered their dicta on the complaints put before them it would still be a matter for the corporation and the authority to act. It would all have happened afterwards; the two authorities would then have to act.
My noble friend has just said that he and his right honourable friend the Home Secretary have asked the corporation and the authority if they will elaborate their reports to this very substantial extent of stating the number and the nature of the complaints they receive each year and, what is much more important, the action taken. That is going to give us exactly what I believe we want. I hope my noble friends who have supported me so well on this will feel, as I do, that this will give us an annual report which we can pick up. Those of us who are interested can raise a debate here and can conduct a debate perhaps not dissimilar to this. We shall have a chance because then we shall know exactly how public opinion is reacting. Perhaps we are overstating it; perhaps we are understating it; anyhow, we shall know. I should be disposed, in thanking my noble friend for the trouble that he and his right honourable friend have taken to advise those of us who have supported the amendment, to accept this very constructive suggestion from my noble friend Lord Belstead. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships for what was obviously a misjudgment on my part, in that I got into severe trouble at one moment for keeping your Lordships sitting until 7.15 p.m. when the adjournment had been announced for a convenient moment after 7 o'clock. I beg to move that this House do now adjourn during pleasure until five minutes to nine o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.17 to 8.55 p.m.]
Bill further considered on Report, on Clause 18:
Lord HOOSON Lord HOOSON had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 11:
Page 12, line 24, at end insert—
(" or
(c) unjust or unfair treatment by a broad-casting body of programme-makers whose work has been rejected or edited or in any other way interfered with after the commencement of this section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the interests of time, and as I have already indicated I have down a series of amendments and I have my own priorities, I do not intend to move Nos. 11 and 12.
[Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Making and entertainment of complaints]:
Lord MORRIS Lord MORRIS moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 13, line 18, leave out sections (2) and (3) and insert—
("(2) A complaint may be entertained by the Commission only where the complainant is—

(a) an individual or a body of persons, whether incorporated of not, being the person affected, or by a person authorised by him to make the complaint for him, or

(b) the personal representative of a person affected or by a member of his family, or by some other person closely connected with him, whether as his employer, or as a body of which he was at his death a member, or in any other way, or

(c) any person appointed by the Commission where the person affected is for any reason both unable to complain himself and unable to authorise another person to do so for him.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, as your Lordships are well aware, is solely a drafting amendment, and as such I suggest it is an impertinence, but I believe that this drafting is an improvement on the Bill. It serves three cardinal rules of drafting, namely, brevity, clarity and precision. The brevity point is easily handled; it is 14 words shorter than the combination of the original subsections (2) and (3). So far as clarity is concerned, subsections (2) and (3) deal with the rights, if I may put it that way, of complainants, live, dead and incapacitated. That is the order in which the amendment is drafted, and it serves those particular interests.
What made me put this amendment down initially was a concern about the phrase in the Bill as drafted, in sub-section (3),
"Where the person affected is an individual who has died".
In a sense one should rejoice in this phrase, because it is the first time I have ever seen in a piece of English legislation a phrase which gives legal and religious recognition to the state of immortality. Although some might accept that, I think it is a very difficult concept to accept from a juridical point of view. By drafting the provision in the way I have done I think one personalises the intention by restricting the complainants to the three individual categories and makes no substantive change to the Bill whatsoever.
However, in subsection (2)(c) in the amendment there is a change whereby I suggest that the commission appoint the complainant where the person affected—this is the wording in the original Bill—
"is for any … reason both unable to make a complaint himself and unable to authorise another person to do so for him".
In replying to this amendment the noble Lord might consider asking himself the question, if a person neither makes a complaint nor authorises somebody else to make a complaint, how on earth will a complaint be received? And, if they do not receive a complaint, then the matter will not come into issue.
The other matter that this point raises is, of course, that the Bill says that the complaint
"shall not be entertained by the Commission".
However, in order to appoint somebody, presumably they must entertain it. I take that point. If the consideration of a complaint initially is legally the entertainment of a complaint, then I can sec a defect in subsection (2)(c). However, my major reason for raising the amendment is to ask Her Majesty's Government and, indeed, anybody else learned in the law to consider the drafting of these two subsections—Clause 19(2) and (3)—together, because I am a little unhappy about the drafting. I beg to move.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Alport): My Lords, I must advise your
860
Lordships that, if this amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 14, 15 or 16.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am a little concerned about my noble friend's amendment, because, although my noble friend referred to it as a drafting amendment—a drafting amendment of substance—none the less there is a difference of substance which the amendment introduces in relation to complaints made in cases where an individual affected by alleged unfair treatment is unable to complain himself or to authorise another person to do so for him.
Such circumstances might exist where, for example, the subject of the treatment had died or had suffered a mental breakdown or a stroke which made him incapable of managing his own affairs. The amendment would, in place of the way in which Clause 19(3) deals with this situation, provide that, in a case where a person affected was for any reason unable to make a complaint himself—and this wording would extend to cases where the person affected had died as well as to a living person who could not act for himself—a complaint could be considered by the commission if made by any other person appointed by the commission. That would bring the commission into the whole business of vetting programmes to identify possible instances of unfair or unjust treatment and that changes the whole effect of Clause 19(3).
I wonder whether my noble friend would be agreeable to my taking this away and looking at it before Third Reading, when we can still amend the Bill? If we feel that we can meet my noble friend on this matter I would be the first to do so—there is no particular point of principle about it, I would be only too pleased to do so if I can. But if it means, as I believe it does and as I tried briefly to explain, that it changes the sense of the subsection in a way which would make it more difficult to operate, then I think that it will be difficult to meet my noble friend on this point.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend and, of course, I shall readily withdraw the amendment in the light of his assurances. Briefly, the reason why we made the paragraph (c) point was that I felt it was very much in line with Clause 19(6)(b), whereby the

861
commission has considerable control over a complainant where
"the person affected is not sufficiently close to justify the making of the complaint by him".
However, all these points come into the issue which I have tried to raise. I am most grateful to my noble friend for his suggestion that he will reconsider the draft of these two subsections before Third Reading. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.4 p.m.
Lord HOOSON Lord HOOSON moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 13, linel9, leave out ("subject to subsection (3)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 14 and, with the permission of the House, I wonder whether we could also discuss Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 because clearly they very much hang together?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the noble Lord, of course, is perfectly entitled to suggest that, but I would prefer to move mine separately.
Lord HOOSON: My Lords, if that is the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, I would not cross him in any way, or suggest that one should. Clearly, the matters overlap, and as I put down and moved Amendment No. 16 during the Committee stage, I should have thought that it would have been for the convenience of the House if the amendments could have been dealt with together. If there was any question of a Division, that could have been on Amendment No. 16.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, if I may interrupt, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. He tabled this amendment and so did the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that he should put his name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I think that it would be more satisfactory if we could discuss the problem as a whole and then move the amendments separately, and decide whether to divide on them as they come up.
Lord HOOSON: My Lords, it might assist if I give way to the noble Lord,
862
Lord Strabolgi, and suggest that he moves his amendment first, and I should then follow him.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should be happy to comply with the noble Lord's suggestion, if that is the wish of the House.
Lord HOOSON: My Lords, as I understand the situation. I shall move Amendments Nos. 14 and 15, and refer briefly to Amendment No. 16, but leave the meat of that to be referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. It is subsection (3) of Clause 19 that is at the heart of this clause. It involves the situation where the dead can complain through their personal representatives. I happen to believe that there is a case for amending, the laws of defamation so that, in fact, the personal representatives of a person recently deceased who is defamed might have a right of action. I am not alone in that belief and I think that there is a distinction to be drawn between those recently dead and those long dead. Where the line is to be drawn is a matter for argument.
However, if there is to be a major change in the law of this country, surely it should be carried out as a major change in the law and not by a side wind in a Bill of this kind. I know that this particular clause does not deal with defamation as such, but with something akin to it. It seems to me that changes of this kind in the law, which have far-reaching consequences, should be very carefully considered these days by the Law Commission and then fully discussed by this House as substantive changes in the law, rather than be dealt with in a Bill of this kind, where I do not think that the consequences have been properly considered.
I turn to my first amendment, Amendment No. 14. This would delete any reference to sub-section (3). Therefore, if sub-section (3) is deleted from the Bill, as I believe it should be in any event, subsection (2) would not be affected by it. Amendment No. 15 is to limit the complainants to those who are:
"… domiciled in the United Kingdom at the time of the broadcast which is the subject of the complaint".
Quite apart from any other consideration of sub-section (3), it not only provides

863
that the dead, however long dead they may have been, and their representatives have a legitimate complaint, as the clause is at present worded; but also surely it allows foreign Governments or any pressure lobby from abroad to bring a complaint before the complaints commission. If, for example, there is a matter of high politics, such as the complaint of an arab country about such a programme as the "Death of a Princess", then the representation would properly be made between Governments rather than by way of a complaint by, say, an embassy to the complaints commission.
One can foresee endless argument, no doubt for the benefit of the Bar, because they would brief counsel in this kind of matter coming before the complaints commission. That is why I move Amendment No. 15 which would limit the complainants to people who are:
"domiciled in the United Kingdom at the time of the broadcast which is the subject of the complaint".
Therefore, if my amendments are agreed, Clause 19(2) would read as follows:
"A complaint may be made by an individual or by a body of persons, whether incorporated or not, but shall not be entertained by the Commission unless made by the person affected or by a person authorised by him to make the complaint for him and unless the complainant is domiciled in the United Kingdom at the time of the broadcast which is the subject of the complaint".
Subsection (3) will not be there at all if my noble friend Lord Strabolgi is successful in his amendment, in which I fully support him. I am sure that I shall be able to adopt the arguments which he will advance in support of his amendment.
9.10 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, perhaps it might be the wish of the House if we also discussed Amendment No. 16 standing in my name. We had a debate on subsection (3) in Committee. I have always felt that it is one of the least satisfactory parts of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said then that he would have another look at subsection (3), although I appreciate that he made no commitment. I think, however, that the Government will have to make a rather better case, if I may say so, than they did in Committee as to why this subsection, which is so widely and indeed loosely drawn and goes far beyond the present law of defamation, should remain in the Bill.
864
When the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, why the right to complain about the alleged treatment of dead people should exist in relation to television and to nothing else, the noble Lord the Minister in reply made the astonishing statement that if there are loopholes in other parts of the law he hoped they would be rectified as a result of the Bill.
I must, therefore, in view of this, ask whether the Government are contemplating changing the present law of defamation to allow legal actions to be brought on behalf of the dead. Certainly the present subsection goes much further than anything contemplated hitherto. The right to complain to the commission is not restricted to near relatives for a period of five years after death, as suggested by some of the Faulks Committee, but can include almost anyone, or indeed a number of people acting in a body, and for an unlimited period of time.
I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to explain to the House the meaning of the words in line 30:
"or in any other way",
as these seem to me to be extremely sweeping. The reason, presumably, why nothing has been done about Faulks must be because, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and I pointed out in Committee, you cannot establish the truth if the person complained about, the chief witness, is dead. If you cannot establish the truth in a court of law how can a complaints commission hope to arrive at the truth?
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that the commission would look at the programme and make up its mind after hearing the evidence given. But the members of the commission, the "three wise men" as they have been called, will surely have to have the gift of clairvoyance if they are to arrive at the truth when the person concerned, the only one who knows the truth, has died. I think that this will put an unfair burden on them.
Of course, in actual fact the constant threat of being hauled up before the complaints commission—a body, I may say, which will be backed by statutory authority—will make it more and more difficult for producers to embark on costly historical programmes, particularly those to do

865
with our recent history, especially if the subject is a controversial one such as Suez. The British public will in future have to rely almost entirely on the printed word for an objective account of recent historical events and of prominent personalities, since writers and producers will be increasingly reluctant to embark on any programmes which deal with anything out of the ordinary. They will surely prefer to play safe and give the viewer something non-controversial and anodyne, like some old-fashioned Hollywood epic of a rather trivial kind.
In brief, the wording of this provision is much too sweeping. It goes far beyond the present law on defamation, it goes far beyond even what Faulks recommended, it is in my submission a dangerous inroad into freedom, it creates an alarming precedent and I hope the House will agree to take it out of the Bill.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, I have a few comments to make about the complaints commission, particularly from the point of view that the commission is no good in certain aspects. I have in mind not the question of defamation but simply criticisms that people may have of television or broadcasting. There was a programme about my late husband in Anthony Howard's series Reputations. Many of us have criticisms about incidents that are not necessarily slanderous. They may have a certain slant or they may be very boring, or the case may be made in an unfair way. Having thought about the subject, and in particular having thought about the programme that was done on Hugh Gaitskell, I would like a public right of reply, not the need to apply to a complaints commission.
As it happened, I had my right of reply by accident because Anthony Howard had written a review of The Life of Hugh Gaitskell by Philip Williams in which he let the cat out of the bag. He wrote that one thing my husband could never shake off was an imperial attitude to the leadership. His programme was shown entirely in that vein, with pictures of the Raj and lots of servants—because Hugh's father had been a distinguished civil servant in India—and most of the programme was spent in a most boring way showing little boys from Winchester and the Dragon School kicking footballs. That
866
is the sort of thing a right of reply can correct. I did not need a complaints commission to deal with it. I am thinking in particular of programmes slanted in such a way that make them unfair and about which the public should have a right of reply. That is all I seek.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, my sole object in speaking is the hope that I may persuade the Government on Third Reading to withdraw from the Bill any reference to dead people or proceedings on behalf of dead people. My first difficulty has been to find out from where all this about dead people or actions on behalf of their relatives comes. What, as I understand it, we are supposed to be doing is taking the Annan Report—a massive report of a committee which sat for nearly three years—and then seeing which of the recommendations the Government think should be translated into legislation. I was convinced that I must, somehow or other, have missed all the references in the Annan Report to proceedings on behalf of relatives of dead people. I have now satisfied myself, long though the report is, that there is nothing whatever in it to suggest anything of the kind. Whether for the first time the relatives or others connected with dead people should have a right of complaint is not discussed in any way in the Annan Report.
Then I thought it may have come about in this way. The Annan Committee, after all, recommends that there should be a complaints commission like, or not unlike, the complaints commission of the BBC. I assumed that it had received a good many complaints on which it had adjudicated, by, or on behalf of, those connected with dead people. But, if my information is correct, that is completely wrong. I am informed that the complaints commission of the BBC has never passed judgment on any complaint made by any relative of anybody who is dead, and has never even decided whether it would have jurisdiction to do that if it wished. So the proposal has not come from that quarter.
I thought that it must have come from somewhere, and, judging from an observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, I thought that it must have come from a sort of analogy with the law of defamation, because at one point

867
the noble Lord said that if there were loopholes in the law of defamation, they ought to be put right.
We have had two committees that have considered the question whether or not there should be some form of complaint made on behalf of dead people The first committee was the Porter Committee, which was a committee of great authority. Everybody who knew Lord Porter knew that he was not only a very fine academic lawyer, but also a man of great good sense. That committee considered the question at considerable length and reported entirely against it. That was fully considered by Parliament, which endorsed the recommendations of the Porter Committee and which resulted in the legislation of the Defamation Act 1952, which introduced no such right on behalf of dead people.
Then there was a subsequent committee, the Faulks Committee, which considered this question and which split into making a majority report and a minority report. So far as the Faulks Committee is concerned, this matter has not been considered by either House of Parliament, and, so far as I can make out, the whole question of whether it should be possible to make complaints on behalf of people who are dead arose solely in the Home Office. Somebody in the Home Office thought about this. To me that was, on the face of it, odd, because of course the Home Office has no remit in respect of the law of defamation, which has always been entirely a matter for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. So the Home Office has no expertise in this field.
Two or three days ago, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked a Question for Written Answer about the Faulks Committee. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—not the Home Secretary—who, naturally, answered the question said, as reported at column 396 of the Official Report:
"None of the recommendations of the Faulks Committee has been implemented and there have been no changes of substance in the law of defamation since 1975. While the Government is willing to consider proposals for change, there is no present intention of introducing legislation".
I think that, when the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, replies, it might be that he
868
will not now wish to press any analogy with the law of defamation. However, this matter arises, solely as a result of this debate, out of the Bill prepared by the Home Office, and what I must most respectfully suggest to the noble Lord is that the Government have not sufficiently thought out the question of this ability of relatives of, or other persons closely or remotely connected with, dead persons to present a complaint.
As I understand it, faced with an idea of its own in a field in which it has no special expertise, the Home Office did not call for the Society of Authors, or the Writers' Guild, or the programme companies to come and discuss this entirely new suggestion, and it seems to me that even today the Home Office, perhaps quite naturally, does not really understand all the factors involved. For example, I do not think the Home Office understands that when an author sends a script to a programme company, he does not give the company the copyright, but merely a licence to present his script. They have not got the copyright, and they have no power to alter any of his script without his consent. Where the author comes into the Bill as drafted, and what right he has to defend what is his child. I have not yet discovered. On a complaint being made he may be in Australia engaged on another film from which he cannot return. He does not seem to have been thought of at all.
Nor do I think they appreciate the fact that these prestige films—films like Suez; the present one. Oppenheimer; Edward and Elizabeth, and so on, which have gained, so rightly, great prestige for the British film industry—take between a year and a half to five years to make and cost from half a million to two million pounds. The amount of finance required is so great that as often as not the British programme company has to get an American television company or some other foreign television company to share the immense risk with them, and, of course, it can pay only if it is sold to practically every country in the West.
I should like to ask the noble Lord. Lord Belstead, whether it is the fact that he has been informed by programme companies that if this clause about dead people is retained in the Bill it is unlikely that any such prestige films will be made

869
again because the risk would be too great for them. If the noble Lord cares to refer to tonight's Evening Standard, even, he will see that one programme company, for the first time in its history, is going to lose money this year while another programme company has today had to cut a million pounds out of its budget because the television programme companies are as much affected by the prevailing economic conditions as is everybody else, including advertisers. The money from advertising is falling and falling, and it is on that, of course, that they have to depend.
Therefore, I hope very much that the noble Lord might at least consider, before we come to Third Reading, whether the Government ought not to withdraw these references to dead people, some of which I must say I find quite incomprehensible. At the Committee stage of this Bill I asked who were the people who are said to be unable, though not dead, to make a complaint, but I was not told. I agree that if a man is deaf and dumb and blind he would be in difficulties, but as long as he is not all three—if he can see even though he cannot hear, or if he can write although he cannot speak—he can instruct solicitors; but I have asked in vain, and have never been told, who are the people who are unable to make complaints.
Of course, in view of the amendments now on the Marshalled List in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, it will be a field day for lawyers in discussing who is somebody who is "closely connected with him". Lawyers will be arguing for years whether there is jurisdiction in that case. He has also to be—
"for any reason both unable to complain himself and unable to authorise another person to do so for him".
While I am sure the Home Office have done their best, I do not think that this is one of their best ideas. It was, as I understand it, entirely their idea. As I understand it, they did not really consult with those who understood these matters. I would hope very much that the noble Lord might be willing to take away the matter of these references to the dead and, before Third Reading, see whether this had not better be left to some later occasion rather than this Bill.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, may I add my own hope that the invitation extended by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, that this provision should be reconsidered, will in fact be accepted? I can think of an instance of a person who is unable to make a complaint who is neither deaf and dumb nor blind, and that is someone who (shall we say?) has been kidnapped by cannibals. I think he might be in a position of great difficulty; but I cannot believe that in those circumstances his principal concern would be to have some observation made about him on television rectified by an apology. If I may say so, I think this is a case where the road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions and hard cases make bad law, because, clearly, the draftsmen have been carried away by a quite unreasonable enthusiasm for the sort of "perfectomania" that German jurists used to engage in when they wanted every detail tied up. It is perfectly clear, if I may say so, that a great number of absurdities are incorporated into this clause.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, made an attempt to rectify one of the obvious dangers, that complaints will be sped across the sea from every country in the world by post, by telegram and by radio, asking that a complaint should be heard from someone who is not here. I venture to say to a most distinguished lawyer that his suggestion creates an impossible situation. I do not have to tell him that domicile is one of the most difficult conceptions in the law. Many people do not know in fact where they are domiciled. Domicile entails, first, that you are settled somewhere and, secondly, if I may be didactic, that you have an animus manendi and intend to stay where you settle. Courts have argued for months about a particular individual's domicile. I cannot see how one can adopt this criterion to determine whether someone has the right to make a claim. It would involve probably an action over some weeks or months entailing thousands of pounds before establishing where a man is domiciled.
There are very grave objections to this on other grounds. When I spoke on Committee on these clauses, I ventured to suggest that the whole complaints procedure was unnecessary. I remain unrepentant on that. But, also, being

871
realistic, I realised there was a mood in the Committee which wanted the complaints procedure. There is a feeling that television companies have been free of restraint, that they are not sufficiently controlled and that there ought to be some means of rectifying an injustice. That being the mood, it would have been folly to move an amendment which would have been doomed to failure. But this particular amendment I think ought not to be doomed to failure.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has said from his unrivalled knowledge that there have been two committees which reported on this matter. The Porter Committee, probably the more authoritative of the two, recommended that there should be no change and that no remedy should be given in respect of the dead. The Faulks Committee recommended that there should be a limited remedy, I think for a period of five years, and the remedy available should be only by way of declaration and injunction. I am not sure what good a declaration and injunction does to a gentleman who is dead. On the whole, it would be better to leave his reputation to be repaired by history. On the matter of the five years, one is driven to the view that that might have been a cynical assessment of the length of time during which a widow's solicitude will remain in existence. Whatever the explanation may be, it is patently absurd. Suppose that the book reviling the late husband (or the late wife) appears five years and one month after his death, why should she then be deprived of remedy?
When we analyse the situation, it is clear that there is no effective way by which to repair an injury to the dead except to leave it to the judgment of history. Looking at instances, let us take the case of that great and good man, Mr. Gladstone. There were many rumours put about, nasty, salacious rumours, about the character of his interest in the street walkers whom he counselled to turn to a better life. There was a libel action inspired by his dutiful and devoted son whereby he was sued by a Captain White, I think, who was provoked into doing so by the challenge that what he was saying was an untruth. Everyone has assumed up till now—and the jury went out of their
872
way to add a rider to the verdict—that they totally accepted the view that the reputation of the late William Ewart Gladstone was free from any sort of taint. I think it is free from taint; but if you look at the now-emerging diaries of Gladstone, you find he was tortured by all sorts of difficult emotions in relation to these particular activities. It would have been absolutely wrong if an instant correction had been sought by Mrs. Gladstone; yet, in decency and humanity, if she had gone before this complaints commission shortly after the death of her husband, could it be otherwise than that they would have declared that the story told was totally untrue? Must we not leave these things to history? Mr. Gladstone's reputation has not suffered on account of it. He remains one of the greatest of men; but it is clearly wrong.
If we go back hundreds of years, let us assume the complaints committee had been in existence shortly after the execution of Mary Queen of Scots and she was accused of having murdered Bothwell on the strength of the casket letters. To this day, nobody knows whether they are authentic or not, and despite the hundreds of years that have elapsed, there is no convincing tale of whether they were true or false. How could any commission adjudicate on that? When the principal character is dead, how can a commission, which has no power to subpoena witnesses or order discovery, resolve issues relating even to the living, and certainly not the dead?
I do not want to take up your Lordships' time except to make one further point. We often have the illusory belief that we are benefiting people by bestowing a complaint area which did not exist previously. My Lords, please remember this: if one has a complaints commission, every time something offensive is said about a dead man, someone will ask, "Why hasn't his wife complained? Why haven't his personal representatives complained?". Incidentally, this is a new and hideous duty devolving on executors which I do not think they will relish in the least. Why have not they carried out their obligations to the dead man by complaining? The answer is that they did not bother to; they took the sensible view that they would leave it to posterity. The fact remains that the very existence

873
of the commission creates a risk that people will say, "It must be true because they have not complained."
In my view, it would be a splendid thing and, if I may say so, a tremendous vindication of the function of this House if, at the end of this Broadcasting Bill, we saw this particular provision expunged. There is another part of the clause which does not relate to the dead but to the making of complaints by some proxy or delegate. If I may venture to say so, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has indicated that he cannot think of circumstances in which a person could not make a complaint on his own behalf. I have thought of a circumstance where the person is lying bound hand and foot in front of a stake and is about to be boiled. That apart, it is very difficult to think of any instance that creates this sort of situation. That being so, I again most fervently invite the noble Lord to consider whether this clause should not be left out.
9.37 p.m.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, I confess that I am still impenitently of the view that, as the Faulks Report says, a law under which you cannot prevent any malignant or malicious person from publishing a quite atrocious libel upon a possibly very distinguished man who has just died is not a satisfactory law. The Faulks Report further says:
"Where publications contain false accusations against dead men they constitute a highly objectionable method of profiteering out of his death. In our opinion, while grief is fresh—and for rather longer—such accusation should be actionable".
What I have not noticed in the speeches of my noble friends who have spoken before me is in any indication of any feeling that the situation is not very satisfactory. The blissful, cheerful and humorous way in which they have dismissed this part of the law has surprised me a little.
However, I understand that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has indicated that it is not the Government's intention to introduce any legislation to give effect to the Faulks Committee recommendations. That was a hard-headed and distinguished com-
874
mittee, and a majority of nine to two came out in favour of what is proposed in the field of the law of libel. That is not a large majority; two took a different view. Nevertheless, as the law of libel itself is going to remain as it is, I see the force of the argument that one should not anticipate what may never happen, so to speak, in a side wind on a Bill dealing with a different situation.
While not in any way apologising for my strong view that the present law is very unsatisfactory, on the whole I have been impressed by what has been said by noble Lords that certainly subsection (3) as it stands has too many faults and leads us into fields which could present very grave difficulties. It is however worth saying that of course the dead man cannot be benefited or comforted; but his family could be. One of these days we must look at this again without the wry humour that we have enjoyed tonight from my noble friends.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, one of the nice things about this House is that argument here, unlike argument in certain other places, is listened to carefully and can provide grounds for changing one's mind. The arguments that we had in Committee and the many discussions outside the Chamber with people concerned with the artistic side of the business, plus one or two new thoughts of my own, have convinced me that I should change my mind and support the exclusion of this subsection so that there will be no special reference in the Bill to complaints about the unfair treatment of the dead.
The reason I ever thought that unfair treatment of the dead should be available for complaint is simple. If I, for example, were to be portrayed as a character in a programme—played no doubt by a very charming actor—and it suited the storyteller to make out that I was a drug addict, I could complain to the complaints commission and, as I am not a drug addict, my complaint would certainly be upheld and a public denial would be broadcast.
The object of the subsection we are discussing—and I am talking to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi—is to ensure that if the same untruth was told about my father, who

875
died in 1915, and who was not a drug addict either, a complaint would stand equally well. The blatant lie that Sir Winston Churchill deliberately murdered Sikorski—and incidentally Victor Cazalet—is a case in point.
Here I must say this to my noble friend Lord Willis, who called me an élitist because I thought that people who read books were more able to sift truth from falsehood than the millions who see television: yes, of course I am an élitist in the sense that I think that the privileges of a better and more leisurely education enable an individual to distinguish the truth from imaginative libel more easily than the less elaborate education which ends at 16. I also think that no one buys or borrows a book unless he thinks it is going to interest him, whereas very many people switch on TV just because it is there. So I make no apology for my élitism: no one who loves the arts can be anything else but.
However, going back to lies about the dead, surely under the Bill as it stands, I, as my father's son—and equally Lady Soames as Sir Winston's daughter—can make a complaint that what is said is untrue and without foundation, and I should have thought, without the disputed subsection, the complaints commission would uphold that. Surely I would suffer if my father is described as something very disagreeable, and surely this is something which, under the Bill as it stands without this subsection, could be upheld.
The Bill says in Clause 18(3)(a)—and I quote:
"'the person affected'…in relation to any such unjust or unfair treatment as is mentioned in subsection (1), means a participant in the programme in question who was the subject of that treatment or a person who, whether such a participant or not, had a direct interest in the subject-matter of that treatment".
Surely, if Lady Soames's father is called a murderer she has got a direct interest. If that is not the case and if for some reason the lawyers, who are always totally inexplicable to me, think that does not give her an interest, then I should like to suggest that on Third Reading we have an amendment, "direct or indirect". My worry about this is that I think it might
876
go too wide, but the strongest argument is really that of the artist. We have had this on the last amendment and it is a very important item indeed.
To make a good programme, you must find an artist who can create and write, and he must find a producer who can not only give him actors and scenery, but also find a backer who will put up, for a really good programme, anything up to £1 million of £2 million; and financial men are as nervous as kittens of seeing their money going down the drain, because of objections of this kind. The fewer chances there are of objections to the finished article, the more chances there are of finding a backer for a creative artist of interest or, perhaps, genius. The most important objective of channel four is to find such people and give them scope. We must be chary of restricting them.
I plead with the Government to take this away and think again. I believe that the remedy for the crudest slanders exists already, without this clause. I do not think that my noble friend Lady Gaitskell would think the kind of misrepresentation which we saw in the programme about Hugh is something which should at all be dealt with by law. It was a misrepresentation. I thought it was a most unfair programme, but I do not think that one should have the right to object to it, except in the sense that my noble friend has suggested, that she ought to have a right of reply. But that has nothing to do with this clause.
The clause may frighten our, perhaps, excessively nervous financiers and will hamper the finding and production of really good programmes, which is what channel four is about. Though the Broadcasting Complaints Commission applies to all channels, it is channel four that we specially want to see adventurous and innovative.
The noble Lord rejected my amendment of "died recently", and I was not sorry because I do not think that a time limit really meets the case. But I think that, without the disputed subsection, the Bill as it stands gives protection enough to very close relations against very crude and vicious libels on their dead, which, on the whole, is all I want to do. I hope that the

877
noble Lord, Lord Hooson, will withdraw his amendment and, if we are to divide the House, let us divide on Amendment No. 16 of my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, which seems to me the more important of the two.
9.48 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge, has just explained, very clearly and very persuasively, as part of his argument on this amendment that it is vitally necessary, if we are to expect the best, as we do, from our creative artists in radio and broadcasting in this country, that they have reasonable freedom in which to work. But, of course, broadcasters are not the only section of the community who deserve consideration, although I go along with the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, who has much greater experience of this subject than I have, and it is vital that we should pay heed to what he said.
None the less, in many ways, broadcasters have a special duty to the public. Broadcasting is not, and, as I understand it, never has been, the same as the other media. The other media—newspapers and magazines—are essentially private operations governed, as I understand it, by the general law of the land. Very often, there are organs of the press which take a very high-minded line on issues, but, even so, I think that what I have just said is essentially true. Whereas broadcasting services are conducted in this country only as public services in the trusteeship of public authorities, which have special obligations to the public they serve.
Freedom of the media is of vital importance in a democracy such as ours, and it must be appreciated that the freedom which broadcasters have is a freedom within the special obligations and responsibilities which broadcasting authorities have and exercise on our behalf. I see no reason why a person who has been treated unjustly, or who alleges that he or she has been treated unjustly or unfairly, or who has had his or her privacy infringed, should not be able to go to a body of some standing and ask them if they agree with him. This, and the need for that body to be independent of the broad-
878
casting authorities, is the basic justification for the setting up of a complaints commission in Part IV, with the added gloss on top of it, which I feel very deeply, that we are talking about a medium of communication which has got more power than any other medium.
Television in particular does literally come right into the living rooms of most of the people of this land. Therefore, I was grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, for reminding us this evening that whatever the difficulties which are being thrown up by this debate—and undoubtedly the difficulties are formidable—one must bear in mind that people feel very deeply when they believe that they have been aggrieved by an invasion of privacy, as they see it, or by unfair treatment, as they see it, either for themselves or for someone who, it may be, they have loved very much but who has died, through a medium of communication which has this tremendous power.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, asked me, none the less, where this particular provision has been dredged up from? The noble and learned Lord always puts it much more elegantly than that, of course, but in essence I think that is what the noble and learned Lord asked me. As usual, I am guilty perhaps not of having misled the noble and learned Lord but of not being as helpful as I might have been when I had the opportunity to discuss this matter last week with the noble and learned Lord.
I had not at that moment become fully aware that the drafting of subsection (3) of Clause 19 was more or less lifted direct not from the fertile imagination of those who work in my right honourable friend's department but from Section 6(2) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, an Act which I have no doubt the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, piloted through your Lordships' House when he was Lord Chancellor. Therefore, this particular provision has, I think, quite a reasonable pedigree. It does not, if I may dare to say so as a non-lawyer, cut across the law of defamation. The Bill is not about defamation. It is about unjust or unfair treatment. We are not establishing in the Bill either an offence, or a civil wrong, or a court of law.

879
I should also say in this connection, with very many apologies to all your Lordships and not least to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who raised it, that I know I spoke out of turn in Committee when I suggested that the fact that the law of defamation did not extend beyond the grave was a loophole. I have, particularly as a result of that faux pas, tried as best I can to acquaint myself with the different arguments that there are about putting a provision concerning dead people into this part of the Bill. Indeed, I had the opportunity last week of meeting a deputation which consisted of members of the Writers' Guild, the Society of Authors and BAFTA, a deputation which was led by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner.
I am conscious, both as a result of that meeting, and of other discussions, that when we divided in Committee on this issue there was a substantial majority in favour of making no change at all to the Bill. But there is a case, obviously, as a result of what has been said today for saying that posthumous complaints might be removed from the Bill altogether—two extremes. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, put to your Lordships in his speech what might perhaps be a middle way.
As I understand it, in essence the noble Lord said that, if one looked at the Bill where it mentioned people having a direct interest in the subject-matter, someone who felt aggrieved because, as they saw it, there had been an invasion of privacy or unfair treatment of someone who had died could say, if they were a son or a daughter, that they had a direct interest and therefore they could bring the complaint. All I can say is that we in the Home Office would be by no means certain that the noble Lord's thesis is right in this matter.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, what we are certain about is that the subsection is wrong, which is a different point.
Lord BELSTEAD: Just one moment, my Lords. Let us first clear the point made by the noble Lord. We are certainly
880
not sure that the noble Lord's thesis is right on that matter, and I do not think that he has thought, and I certainly know that we have not thought, what would be be effects—which might be quite considerable—if we were to add, as the noble Lord suggested, the word "indirect" to "direct". Therefore, bearing in mind that grave apprehensions have been voiced this evening in the House about the wording of this clause, in the Home Office we have looked to see what we ought to try to do.
There is something to be said from the point of view of creative people that the Bill should at least make it clear how far back in time the Commission's remit extends. We were impressed by the arguments deployed in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, for some such qualification as "recently", although I know that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has rethought that. As I understand it, those noble Lords accepted that "recently" would not do and I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, is not persuaded any longer by that argument.
Taking these thoughts into account, we feel that there is merit possibly in going down the "recently" road although not using that particular expression. If one went down that road, one would need a time limit, for reasons which I explained in Committee. We should have to accept that any time limit, if the House agreed that this was the right way to go, would be arbitrary. This, however, is the only way in which a compromise could be reached, and if it were the wish of your Lordships, I feel, having listened to the debate this evening, that I would be ready to introduce amendments on Third Reading which would impose a time limit on complaints on behalf of the dead. I realise that it is difficult to know what time limit one would choose, but my feeling is that five years could be said to be about right. I know that it happens to be the period of time which is recommended in the Faulks Report, although I do not rely on that, nor must I be taken to imply what conclusion the Government might reach on that Committee's report; and indeed the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has given his

881
reaction to Lord Gardiner's question on this matter.
I realise that by going in that direction there would be the disadvantage, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, put quite clearly in his speech, of arbitrariness, but it would have the advantage of enabling those who feel aggrieved to seek to protect the reputation of someone recently dead who could possibly have been unfairly treated by a medium which I say—for the third time, I know—has more power than any other medium in the modern world today.
I am sorry that I have gone rather slowly through my argument. On behalf of my right honourable friend I have genuinely tried to listen to what has been said to the Home Office, both outside the House and on the Floor of your Lordships' House. I am certainly not coming back at Third Reading and moving amendments for a time limit, if the sense of the House is that it would be entirely wrong to do so and it is possible that outside your Lordships' House certain noble Lords may like to give us advice before we reach the final stage of the Bill. Recognising, none the less, that there will be disadvantages in choosing an arbitrary time limit, I put it to your Lordships that this would be one certain way of giving to creative people in the media some certainty when they are preparing their material, and some certainty to those who feel aggrieved that they can still protect the reputation of those who have died.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I make one or two observations on what my noble friend has said? I do not think he should be carried away with the glory of creation. To many senses, when one is writing about history one is not creating; one is reconstructing, and what those who are reconstructing in that way must recognise is that they have a duty to establish the facts so far as possible. Very often, if they create falsehoods, it is because they have not done their homework properly. I am not too certain that five years is sufficient. Those who are writing for television ought to exercise the very greatest care and consult all their sources. In the context of an ordinary report in a newspaper, editors are asking all the time, "Have you checked all your facts?" The same should apply to the
882
script reader or whoever it may be. He should check every single fact and satisfy himself that what is in the work is, so far as can be established from all living persons, the truth. The living persons may be the key—those within whose memory the facts are. I put up that thought, because I think it is worth bearing in mind.
Lord WILLIS: My Lords, I think this is a very reasonable compromise and, on behalf of creative writers, I welcome it very much and thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for the care and attention he has given to this problem. I can only say to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that it is not just a question of verifying the facts. Of course, all responsible writers—in fact, all writers—when they are embarking on a major programme of this sort are conditioned to the maximum to researching and investigating the facts. There is no question at all about that. In fact, if they were not so conditioned the television companies or the BBC would intervene to see that they were. One then enters another area beyond the five years we were talking about, where one is discussing the motivations and where the writer's concept of history must intervene. It is a perfectly fair thing that this should happen. First, one establishes the facts—for example, that there was an invasion of Suez and that a certain number of countries were involved. But the argument about what was the motivation for the Suez episode can go on and will go on for the next hundred years. We do not know exactly what happened; there is a whole area that is under wraps. It may be disclosed in another 20 years when certain official secrets can be revealed.
But it is a legitimate area for the writer, provided he does not slander the principal people involved, to impute certain motivations, to draw his own conclusions and to do a drama out of that. Such a drama can be very valuable in the sense that often imagination can supply the answer to problems that logic cannot solve. So I can assure the noble Lord that he must not imagine that there is out there a whole host of writers who are ready, immediately this Bill is passed, to take every incident of history beyond the five years that we are talking about, lie about it and make great dramas which will be distortions. That just would not happen; it is not likely to happen. But

883
what we must allow, and what I think this very reasonable suggestion would allow, is that distinguished writers can make a view of history, a view that is not offensive, a view that some people may object to but a view that will add to our understanding. People may then come back and say, "That is wrong", or, "It is an absolute lie and we disagree with it", and you will stir up a bit of a hornet's nest. It does not matter; it helps history. But there are no writers out there, I can assure your Lordships, who are anxious to assassinate characters. What they do is to create characters on the basis of the facts and then their own imagination supplies the motivation. I welcome very much the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, if I may just add one word to what Lord Willis has said, with which I very much agree, there is a different problem also which comes into this, and this is not responsible writers. My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn described how an editor might turn to his reporters and say, "Are you sure this is true, and have you checked your facts?" I know, having been in public life for a little while, that once or twice the editor has said, "Have you checked that the man is dead?", and having checked that the man was dead then produced stories which were really totally disreputable and absolutely untrue.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, there is one final question I would like to put to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, before we come to a conclusion as to whether the proposal he has put forward is reasonable or not. It seems to me that what the noble Lord said in his reply related entirely to this complaints commission set up as an independent avenue to which people can complain, and frustrated people will wish to feel that there is an avenue of complaint to people other than those complained about, that the complaints procedure provides remedies. In suggesting that that remedy should now be opened up to the dead or recently dead, however recently, or for a limited period—and I am not at all sure that I regard that as acceptable—it seems to me the noble Lord overlooked the fact that there is an avenue of complaint at
884
the moment. It would appear from what has been said in this discussion that the broadcasting companies and the BBC are entirely oblivious to whether programmes are right or incorrect or whether they contain lies or otherwise. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, referred to outrageous libels on recently dead people in which lies are told.
Let us not delude ourselves into thinking that there is no avenue of complaint for that kind of conduct by professional broadcasters. This is precisely what the Independent Broadcasting Authority and the BBC governors are for and what the companies are for. It has always been my experience that if a complaint is made regarding something which has caused public outrage, with regard to lies told about recent events or people recently dead, there is already an avenue of complaint. My experience is that where a broadcasting company found that one of its employees had made that kind of an error that complaint would be dealt with very effectively, but there would be no remedy so far as the dead person is concerned. I think that in coming to a conclusion with regard to the compromise arrangement the noble Lord has suggested we should not forget that there are avenues of complaint at the moment and there are authorities charged with the statutory duty of controlling standards of broadcasting. The idea that without this clause there is no kind of protection for honesty, probity or factual correctness, really is not so.
10.9 p.m.
Baroness TRUMPINGTON: My Lords, I am so sorry to prolong this debate when the noble Lord opposite has spoken about conclusion. I do very much welcome what the noble Lord the Minister has said, that he will consider this and consult, and this is not the end of the matter. If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Willis, talked about writers outside willing to write lies. This is not a question of writers, in my view; it is the slant which the spoken word takes on, as opposed to the written word read in private by probably far fewer individuals than hear it in one single evening, when a man or woman's reputation can be slaughtered simply by the way that the chosen word is spoken.

885
This is a very modern problem. It is not the type of thing that happened when Mr. Gladstone was alive because in those days there was only the written word. Nowadays there are many relations of ex-Prime Ministers still alive—indeed, my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood is a relation of an ex-Prime Minister—and they are deeply hurt by various things that are said about their relations, not as regards the way in which they are written but as regards the way the listener hears them. It is not merely as regards Prime Ministers that I make these comments, because many subjects can be treated in such a way that the slant of expression in a man's voice can change the context of the written word. So, I very much welcome that my noble
886
friend the Minister is prepared to hear more about this matter.
Lord HOOSON: My Lords, speaking for myself, I think that the compromise suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, on this narrow point of the dead and subsection (3), is about the best that can be achieved in the circumstances. I should like to put on record my belief that there are other and much wider implications to subsection (3) than have been dealt with in this very short debate. Nevertheless, having regard to all the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 14.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
10.12 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI Lord STRABOLGI had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 16:
Page 13, line 23, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for meeting us at least some of the way over this matter and I hope that he will come back to the House on Third Reading with a definite proposal. I do not, therefore, intend to press the amendment. On the other hand, I must say in the friendliest possible way to my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones—if he will give me his attention for a moment—that we who move these amendments, certainly speaking for myself, are not insensitive to the feelings of relatives, and certainly I did not approach this amendment in my speech in a mood of dry humour, which is what I thought my noble and learned friend said.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, I said "wry" humour, which is a slightly different word.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, it means very much the same. I think that I know just as well as the noble Lord what it is to be related to well-known people. I was not the son of a Prime Minister, but my father was a well-known politician. I was born into the limelight at a fairly early age. I know very well what it is like and that there are advantages and disadvantages. But I think that relatives of well-known people should take the rough with the smooth. I am by no means insensitive to the situation. I am well aware of the feelings which can be aroused. Indeed, when my father died there were various obituaries—some were favourable and some were not. There was a particularly wounding one from Kingsley Martin whom we regarded as an old friend. But I did not rush into print or go to complain. I felt that prominent people should submit themselves to the bar of history. With that thought, I shall not move the amendment.
Lord HOOSON Lord HOOSON moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 13, line 30, at end insert—
(" ( ) The Commission shall not entertain a complaint unless it has first been raised in
888
writing with the responsible broadcasting authority within a reasonable time of the transmission to which the complaint refers, and unless it includes a statement of reasons why the complainant is dissatisfied with the authority's response.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 17. This is a short amendment and in moving it I would remind your Lordships once again of the recommendations of the Annan Report. It was recommended that there should be a complaints commission, but that it should only hear complaints after the initial complaint had been made to the broadcasting authority. It seems to me that that was a very sensible proposal and in line with the experience of the BBC to date; that is, if a complaint is to be made it should be made within reasonable time to the authority concerned, either the BBC in the one instance or the broadcasting company, the television company, in the other. If the complainant is then not satisfied with the response of the broadcasting authority concerned, then and only then can the complaint properly be brought to the complaints commission. It seems to me that this is a sensible course; otherwise the complaints commission could be inundated with complaints which it is not sensible to deal with in this way. Thus the complaints commission can be reserved for really serious complaints when the broadcasting authority has not responded properly to the initial complaint. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I agree with every word that the noble Lord has said, and I shall not add to them.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, I endorse everything that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has said. Bearing in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said at an earlier stage in these proceedings, I should like to give one example of a complaint to an individual broadcasting company. In many cases the complaints are just not sufficient. Her Majesty's Government were quite right in setting up this commission to deal with instances such as that which occurred in the "Nationwide" programme about the Thames Water Authority, where there was a very serious complaint problem. The four main areas complained of were breach

889
of faith, untruth, triviality and partisan reporting, all of which were upheld in full by the BBC complaints commission. However, the BBC in no way apologised to the Thames Water Authority for what happened in the "Nationwide" programme. Indeed, the deputy Secretary to the BBC writing in the Radio Times said:
"In this case the complaint was fully upheld and as usual the BBC has paid very serious attention to the adjudication."
But that just is not good enough. This is a classic example where the BBC even settled the legal costs involved, but there was no redress whatever within the ambit of the programme as regards, in effect, the sinner. Although this new clause is in a sense limiting the right of the complainant, I think that it is eminently sensible.
Earl DE LA WARR: My Lords, I should also like to say a few words in support of this amendment. It does two things. First, it creates a useful sieve to stop too many frivolous complaints coming before the commission. Secondly, it performs the very useful function of keeping the people who now deal with complaints in the two organisations on their toes. If we have this commission, there must be a danger that people will go straight to it, and that the existing mechanisms for dealing with complaints will wither.
Therefore, I should like to suggest that it is sensible to keep the existing mechanisms going and to go to the new complaints commission only when one's efforts have failed. I believe this to be a sensible idea and an idea that might cut down the work of the new commission and leave to it only the job of dealing with the really serious complaints.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I wonder whether the amendment might not be improved by adding at the end something to the effect:
"…or a response has not been received from the authority."?
Baroness TRUMPINGTON: My Lords, as one who made a complaint against the BBC quite a long time ago, I should say that it is possible to get a complaint dealt with because I have done
890
so. All you have to do is to get a Question asked in Parliament, and it works. Two nights later, when equal time had been given to the opposite political party to express its views on the radio, I happened to dine with some television people who said that the most terrible things had been going on and that there was an awful old bag in Cambridge who had caused Questions to be asked in the Houses of Parliament. I said, "I am the old bag in Cambridge, but I got what I wanted." It is perfectly easy to get a complaint dealt with in that way.
10.20 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I wonder whether it would be helpful to your Lordships if I reminded the House of the procedure under Part IV when a complaint is made to the commission. The first thing that the commission will do is to decide whether the complaint is one which it can entertain and which it is prepared in principle to consider. Next, and before the commission can proceed to consider the complaint, it must under Clause 23 send a copy to the appropriate broadcasting authority. In doing so the commission can ask the authority to do a number of things, including providing the commission and the complainant with a written response to the complaint.
This could result in three possible next steps. Either the complainant is satisfied and the matter is dropped, or the complainant is still not content, but the commission decides in its discretion not to proceed to consider the complaint—for instance, because it has been shown to be without any merit—or the complainant is not satisfied and the commission decides to proceed to consider the complaint. In other words, the Bill allows for what I might call a conciliation process, which in many ways is what the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, is after.
In reflecting on what was said in Committee when this was discussed on an amendment of the noble Lord, I took particular notice of what my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn said. My noble friend was chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority. Having initially expressed support on this amendment in Committee, my noble friend returned to the point and said that he did not see why a complaint

891
could not go to the commission and why the commission could not then refer it to the broadcasting authority. That is precisely what the Bill requires.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, in his speech made a certain amount of the Annan Committee's recommendation that a complainant should first put the complaint to the relevant broadcasting authority, and only if dissatisfied with the response refer it to the commission. It is on this that the amendment is based. The Annan Committee did not actually argue the merits of this particular procedure. I therefore looked at the previous Government's White Paper to see whether the previous Government had argued the matter. In paragraph 78 of the previous Government's White Paper I found this:
"The Committee will consider such complaints only if they have first been put to the appropriate broadcasting authority and the complainant is dissatisfied with the authority's response".
I did not feel that I was doing very well, because this was not the way I wanted to see it drafted. Then I read on:
"The commission will therefore send any complaint of this kind which it receives direct from the complainant to the authority concerned, and it will receive a report from the authority on the action taken. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the reply he has received from the authority, the commission will proceed to consider the complaint".
I would suggest that that procedure is rather closer to the Bill than it is to the noble Lord's amendment.
Moreover, I think that the Bill and the last Government's White Paper recognise that, once the commission has been set up and if Parliament agrees to Part IV of the Bill, members of the public will expect and want to be able to approach the commission direct. Indeed, some people who feel aggrieved will want to try to get publication of the direction of the finding of the commission if they feel that the case is going to go their way. In many cases individuals will approach the commission first whatever the Bill says.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, will obviously say in a moment that he does not think I am right and that people will not want to do that. Let me just read finally the words of the noble Lord's amendment. May I ask your Lordships to think of some
892
perhaps not very erudite or learned person living a long way away from London?— perhaps an elderly lady who has not got the advantage of her husband to give her advice, or maybe an old gentleman who is going blind and who has no longer his wife to tell him what things are about, but who wants to make a complaint. If the amendment is made, such a person will have to follow these words:
"The Commission shall not entertain a complaint unless it has first been raised in writing with the responsible broadcasting authority within a reasonable time of the transmission to which the complaint refers, and unless it includes a statement of reasons why the complainant is dissatisfied with the authority's response".
Do noble Lords honestly think that any ordinary person who feels aggrieved will follow that? However reasonable it may seem to the noble Lord. Lord Hooson, who is eminently a reasonably man, I am afraid I do not. The reasonable thing to do is to say to people, "There is a complaints commission and if you really feel you want to make a complaint on invasion of privacy or unfair treatment, you may complain to that commission." That is a more reasonable way of trying to serve the interests of the general public than the more complicated wording of the amendment.
Lord WINSTANELY: My Lords, on that specific point, may I ask the Minister if it is his belief that for claimants or aggrieved persons the first port of call should invariably be the complaints commissioners? Does he therefore believe that in no circumstances should an aggrieved person try to sort it out with the broadcasting company, the BBC or the producer by any other means?
Lord BELSTEAD: That intervention is not quite on, my Lords. I was at great pains when introducing my remarks in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, to explain that what will happen as the Bill is drafted is that very often—because of the interaction, which is written into the clause, between the complaints commission and the broadcasting authority when the complaint is first made to the commission—there will be satisfaction from the broadcasting authority. Having said that, I believe, for the reasons I have given, that the actual direct line of approach should be from the ordinary member of the public to the commission.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: I hope the Minister will think again about this, my Lords. Before I proceed, do I see the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, wishing to speak?
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord. The Minister has batted absolutely brilliantly throughout the afternoon but he how appears to be taking off into flights of fantasy. Where are these blind old ladies in obscure villages who will have complaints against the BBC, and what will they have to complain about? The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, is sensible because if one receives a reply direct from the broadcasting authority, that has much more validity and credence than if one thinks the reply has been winkled out of them by an approach to the commission, and it may well be that a great many complaints will be aborted by skilful, polite, sensible explanations given by the broadcasting authority before the matter goes to the commission.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has expressed in more elegant language than I would have used what I had in mind to say. I should have thought there was considerable advantage in a preliminary sieve in this matter. If the complainant can get satisfaction direct and immediately from the BBC, that would be the best thing for public relations, certainly from the BBC's point of view.
Lord HOOSON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is a kindly and persuasive man but I am not persuaded at all by him on this occasion. Let us take his imaginary old lady and/or old man who are nearly deaf or blind or both. They hear or see a matter on their television set about which they have a legitimate complaint. Is it not natural that they should complain to the BBC, if it is on a BBC programme, or to the programme company concerned, be it Granada, Harlech or Southern? They see the imprint of the programme and they know exactly what they want to complain about. The Bill requires the complaint to be made in writing and the complainant must specify exactly what it is the commission is to investigate. So
894
why is it simpler for the complaint to go to the complaints commission, probably a body of which the complainant has never heard? The normal procedure now is to complain to the BBC or the programme company; it is a normal, reactive procedure if you like, and the complaints commission should remain there for a complaint that is not satisfied.
I now wish to deal with the very helpful suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, about improving my amendment. I should have thought that if a broadcasting authority ignored the complaint, that is a response, and it is a response of which complaint can be made. So surely no amendment of my drafting is necessary to encompasss that situation.
However, in all the circumstances, I hope—and here I add to the plea of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones—that the Government will think again about this matter, and perhaps take advice of people such as the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, who has had so much experience and has found that the present procedure works so very well in the BBC.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I add a brief word here—
Several noble Lords: No. Order!
Lord HOOSON: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Provisions relating to the consideration of complaints]:
10.31 p.m.
Lord HOOSON Lord HOOSON moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 14, line 26, leave out ("in private") and insert ("in public, unless all parties agree that the hearing should be in private, and the Commission is satisfied that such a course is in the public interest").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel very strongly about this particular amendment, which in Committee I probably argued more strongly than I did any other amendment. I very much believe that if there is to be a complaints procedure of this kind, the hearing should be in public,

895
not in private. It seems to me that many bodies appear to be obsessed with the idea of privacy. I think that it was in an article in the Listener that the suggestion was first made that the complaints commission could possibly become a Star Chamber so far as the broadcasting world was concerned. The reason that there was a suspicion of that in particular was that it was thought that the whole of the procedure would be in private.
The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, mentioned in Committee the fact that many of the complaints received by the BBC, and by the Independent Broadcasting Authority, about programmes were often couched in unfortunate language, very often obscene language, even though the complainants may have been complaining of the obscenity of a particular broadcast. The noble Lord asked, how could these complaints be published? At the time I pointed out that they need not be published, because they were the initial complaints.
But I thought that they should be published in any event, because the public have the right to know. For example, if there are 502 complaints about a particular broadcast and 250 of them are obscene, why should not the public know this? If there are 502 complaints and 499 of them are in exactly the same form, so that obviously they are inspired by one particular organisation, why should not the public know this? Why should not the hearing be in public, where in fact the complainant can be heard, and the broadcasting authority and the producer or the director of the particular programme can be called upon to justify himself in public?
That does not mean to say that the commission cannot deliberate in private. In this respect, it is exactly the same as a court. People tend to forget that though the hearings of a court are in public, the judge or the jury can consider the verdict in private. In the Court of Appeal the arguments between the judges take place privately, and that is understandable, because there must be no inhibition about the arguments when weighing up the evidence.
But why should one be so coy about having a complaint of this kind heard in public? The broadcasting services are
896
public services, if ever there were any. All noble Lords have constantly referred to the impact of programmes on the public. If there is a complaint about a programme, why should it not be heard in public? No adequate explanation has been given to me. After the last debate in Committee it was suggested to me privately by people well versed in television that on occasions there was a case for having the hearing in private, and my amendment has provided for that: where all the parties agree that the hearing should be in private, and the commission does not think that that is against the public interest, then the hearing can be in private. I can conceive of certain circumstances where that might be desirable, and I have allowed for it. But as a general rule I believe that these hearings should be in public. The public should know what is going on, should know what the complaint is—the quality of the complaint, the nature of the compliant—and should be entitled to hear a public justification from the broadcasting authorities.
I am a great believer in the fact that, if a producer or director of a broadcasting programme has gone wrong, has really crossed the line, he should be answerable for it. I am a great believer in giving people as much freedom as is compatible with their situation, and if they go wrong then they can be dismissed or they can have public odium poured upon them at such a hearing. But, equally, they must have a chance to justify themselves publicly, so that the public know what it is all about. Then, the adjudication of the commission can have so much more weight if it is delivered publicly after the complaint and the justification, equally, have been delivered publicly. I beg to move.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, I wonder whether I may suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, a reason why these hearings should not be held in public. If the broadcasting authority is proposing to vindicate what has been said, that must involve the bringing of evidence which, obviously, might entail some rather disagreeable suggestions against the complainant. It appears to me to be a rather terrible price to pay, where all you are seeking is the publication of an apology, that there should be ventilated in public an investigation as to your sexual morality,

897
as to your personal honesty, as to whether or not you murdered your grandmother, and so on.
I should have thought that there were very valid reasons why nobody should be inhibited from saying what they want to say or hearing what is being said by the unnecessary expedient of a public inquiry when the ultimate deliberation is to be made in public. This is not a court of law. The remedy is really a very inadequate remedy. In my view it is no remedy at all. I have already expressed my view that the publication of an apology by a broadcasting authority which can be instantly repudiated by the people who made the programme, who undoubtedly will instantly repudiate it in any forum to which they can find access, is not a remedy; and I should have thought it was a terrible price to pay that there was a public ventilation of their attempts to justify, and possibly successful attempts to justify, the subject of the complaint.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, there is also another consideration, of course, and that is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said, this is not a court of law and it would seem that it is best in the interests of the fluency of the complainant, and also of time, to make the proceedings as informal as possible. What is going to emerge at the end of it is expressed in Clause 21(3):
"The Commission shall publish, at such intervals and in such manner as they think fit, reports each containing, as regards every complaint within this subsection dealt with by them in the period covered by the report, a summary of the complaint and of the action taken by them".
Of course, there can be an analysis in the report that is made. I should have thought that the more informal this procedure could be kept the better.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, I very much support the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, in this amendment of his, and in so doing, if I may, with the greatest respect. I would point out to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in relation to his argument that there could be many factors against the interests of the complainant, who would have to justify his position, that this amendment refers only to cases where there is an actual hearing, and there are going to be very few complaints indeed which reach the hearing stage. If, prior
898
to that, the complainant learns from the commission that it might be extremely uncomfortable for him to take the matter as far as a hearing, then of course in his own interests he will not do so. But where he does, it is very much in the public interest that a hearing by any body, be it quasi-judicial, be it governmental or be it Civil Service, should be open. In fact, the more open it is the better.
I most strongly believe that the reason why we have the greatest judiciary in the world and the greatest practitioners in the courts in this country is the very simple reason that everything is open. I think it is venturing down a very dangerous path indeed if we have these private hearings. There is a very good example of this in your Lordships' own sub-committees. We choose whether they are in private or in public and we choose carefully on this. If we consider that it would harm the interests of veritas to do so, we do not have it in public. We bend over backwards for hearings to be in public.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, with respect to my noble friend Lord Morris, I do not think it is quite as clear cut as that. Under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, if the commission were to think it best to hold a hearing on a complaint of unjustified infringement of privacy but the complaintant, perhaps for understandable reasons of the sort mentioned by Lord Goodman, wishes the hearing to be in private and the broadcasting body does not agree, that is too bad for the complainant. He perhaps will withdraw his complaint. I am sure that is not what the noble Lord intends; but that could be one effect of the amendment. Possibly the commission in some cases may decide under the Bill, as they can, not to hold a hearing at all but to consider the complaint by interviewing the parties separately. I am surprised that Lord Hooson has not put down an amendment to that. I should have expected him not entirely to approve of that particular procedure; although I am not inviting the noble Lord to put down such an amendment. I am saying to my noble friend Lord Morris that I do not think these issues are as clear-cut and easy under the amendment. Another thing that is not clear cut, and I am not deliberately nit-picking, is

899
the wording of the amendment. I am not sure who all the parties to the complaint in the amendment are supposed to be. Are they all those who must under Clause 23 be given an opportunity to attend a hearing; or all those who may be given such an opportunity?—for instance, the writer of a play who may or may not have been responsible for the making or provision of the programme. It is not clear to me. I would suggest that the amendment may be defective on this point.
The reasons why the Bill provides only for private hearings at the discretion of the commission do not honestly derive from any wish on the part of those of us who had a hand in drafting the Bill to try to be secretive. None of the parties to a complaint will be prevented from speaking or writing about the consideration of the complaint or from commenting on an adjudication. As my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has said, there is the provision of Clause 21(3) where the complaints commission will almost certainly make a summary of their findings. The important point is that we are trying to provide an informal and simple procedure for dealing with complaints about unjust or unfair treatment or unwarranted infringement of privacy. We are not dealing with offences or civil wrongs and the commission is not intended to be a court of law. In this connection I am a little surprised at son-le of the arguments for complicating the commission's procedure, seeking to make it more like a court of law; since these arguments in some cases seem to be based on a fear that the corn-mission will be a court of law.
We have honestly simply tried to model the commission on the BBC's programmes complaints commission which does not hold public hearings. I appreciate that a statutory commission will have a different status but I do not see why this points to public hearings. The effect of the noble Lord's amendment could be to make the commission that much less inclined to hold hearings at all, even when a frank discussion of the complaint between the parties may be useful not least for the parties themselves. For that reason, and for that alone, I am resisting the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord HOOSON: My Lords, I am bound to say that I find the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, very different from those that Mr. Leon Brittan, the Minister of State, used in another place. He has actually drawn the analogy between a court of law and this commission. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, knows that that is so. I know that here Lord Belstead has been backtracking on what has been said in another place. If I may deal with the points made, first the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, seemed to overlook the point that, if the complainant has a remedy at law where, for example, he has been defamed, as in the case of a man whose sexual morality has been impugned by a film or something of that kind, then he has no complaint because there is a specific provision in this Bill, that if he has a remedy at law, he has no complaint. So we are not dealing with that kind of complaint. That matter goes by the board.
Secondly, the parties to which I refer are the parties referred to in Clause 20 (2) (a) (b) and (c):

"(a) the complainant;

(b) the broadcasting body by whom the relevant programme was broadcast; and

(c) any person not within paragraph (a) or (b) who appears to the Commission to have been responsible for the making or provision of that programme."

They are the people who can be heard and they are surely the parties to the complaint, so there is no ambiguity in the parties to whom I am referring in the amendment.
Thirdly, the point surely must be made that it is not often that a complaint will end up in a hearing. As often as not, it will be otherwise dealt with. If I may again advert to what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said, if in fact the complainant is to be embarrassed if he or she has brought a complaint which on the face of it, and from the information within the purview of the broadcasting authorities, is obviously not going to be justified because of the information they have, there is no reason at all why the complaints commission should not inform the plaintiff of that. How often in a libel has one heard: "If you proceed with this action, you know perfectly well what is going to happen; we can justify it"? Very often this brings the action for libel or slander, as it may be, to a sudden end. That is when your opponent tips you the wink and says

901
that this is what is going to happen. There is no reason why that informal procedure before the hearing—because I am only talking about the hearing—should not take place.
I perfectly well accept from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that there is no intention, as it were, to hide facts from the public. But the truth is that in our age we are for ever concerned with dealing with things privately in the belief that a private hearing is necessarily more simple and less complicated than a public one. Why should that be so? In the small claims courts, for example, where parties go in person to argue their cases, it is very simple and informal; but the whole procedure is nevertheless public. Why should a hearing be complicated because it is held in private?
Under the provisions of this Bill, I venture to think that what is going to happen very often is one is going to have complaints made by foreign countries, financed by embassies, with silks and juniors there to make the complaint. Whether it is going to be in public or private that is what is going to happen under this commission. I can well imagine that if this state of affairs had existed at the time of the showing of the television programme: "Death of a Princess", then the Saudi Arabian embassy could have made a complaint. They surely would not have gone to argue it themselves. They would brief solicitors and counsel and it would be very complicated.
I do not think that these arguments really hold water. There is a modern tendency to believe that things decided privately are more informal and less complicated than things heard publicly. The contrary is true. The experience of our country over centuries is when one compares courts like the Star Chamber with what succeeded them, it is better, despite all the disadvantages, for issues to be heard publicly. The public are educated by the process of knowing; they come to accept certain rules as they have done over the centuries in relation to the law. They will come to accept them in relation to broadcasting. It is very much better in the long run that these things should be done publicly rather than privately. Nevertheless, having said that, I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter. I beg
902
the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 [Grants by Authority to local sound programme contractors]:
10.49 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 19, line 34, at end insert—
("including details of secondary rentals retained by local sound programme contractors").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now move on to Part V of the Bill. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the position of the IBA in relation to grants made to independent local radio contractors from money collected by way of secondary rental. Your Lordships will remember that in Committee I drew attention to the manner in which the authority collects from radio contractors a rental charge that is meant to be a levy on excess profits. I explained how much of that levy remains in the hands of the contractors and that no details of the amount of money collected by the authority, the specific amounts retained by the authority, the specific amounts retained by the contractors, and the details of the programmes and projects supported by this money was given in the authority's annual report.
At Committee stage I said I would study the noble Lords's remarks on this issue. This I have done, but I am bound to say I still finds his remarks ambiguous, and it is in order to clarify the ambiguity that this amendment is tabled this evening. The Minister said I was being a little hard on the IBA, because I suggested that,
"insufficient information is given by the authority as to the uses to which grants are put".
The Minister then drew attention to Clause 27(5), which requires the authority to include in its annual report an account of the way in which the power to make grants has, under this section, been exercised during the year. Does this mean that Clause 27(5) requires the authority to provide details of grants made only by the exercise by the authority of the powers given to it under this clause? Or does the noble Lord believe that the grants I referred to as being either grants made from the secondary rental pool or by

903
allowing the contractors to retain a proportion of the secondary rental due are the very same grants as are defined by Clause 27? If the Minister is of the opinion that these are the very same grants, I need proceed no further with this amendment. However, if they are not, then the noble Lord will surely agree that we need an amendment to Clause 27 of the type that I have tabled here. Indeed, some have questioned under what section of the main Act the IBA possess the legal authority to make such refunds, grants and retentions. I hope that the passage of this clause will clarify that situation.
Another observation I should like to make is that in his reply to me the noble Lord said:
"We have every reason to believe that in the context of its annual report this"—
that is the secondary rental grant information—
"is precisely the kind of information that will be provided by the Authority"
I wonder whether the Minister could say what precisely he means. Does he mean the total amount of secondary rental due to the authority in the relevant year, the total amount given in grants and details of the use to which those grants were put, the amount retained by each contractor and the use to which those retentions were put? If that is so, then, again, my amendment is not necessary. If not, then surely the Minister will accept that further specific guidance needs to be given to the authority. I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I hope I was able to convince noble Lords at Committee stage that the Home Secretary has adequate powers under Section 31 (5)(b) of the IBA Act 1973 to require the IBA to provide such information in relation to their financial transactions and engagements as he may require, and that this can apply to the collection and distribution of monies raised through what is known as secondary rental as it can to any other of the authority's financial dealings. Nevertheless, I can understand that some doubts may still linger on the question of secondary rental retained by some of the larger ILR companies, and how this may be accounted for. This was really the final point which the noble Lord made.
904
I do not think I need go deeply into the meanings of "primary" and "secondary" rentals at this stage, as there was a very clear explanation by the noble Lord. Lord Ponsonby, at Committee stage. Suffice it to say that the authority sets a rental payable by each ILR company to cover the cost to the authority of running this particular branch of their services; for convenience, this is known as primary rental. In addition, the authority charge additional rentals, secondary rentals, on those companies whose profits are above a certain level, and the money raised is used to extend and improve the service of independent local radio. Part of this money is used, and will no doubt continue to be used by the authority for expanding, maintaining and controlling services, while part is paid out by the authority to individual companies to assist them in providing good quality programmes and services. It is by means of these payments out of secondary rental that the grants provided for in Clause 27 will, in practice, be made.
A grant may be made to any ILR company, but will be particularly important in the case of an intrinsically less profitable station in a less populous area, to enable it to provide kinds of programming which it could not otherwise afford. However, the fact that a company itself pays secondary rental does not make it ineligible for a grant under Clause 27. This is a point which is not always hoisted on board by people who discuss this subject. It is for the authority to assess whether any particular project or development would be eligible for a grant. In the case of those companies who pay secondary rental, the amount of such a grant is likely in practice to be deducted from that company's liability—hence "retained" secondary rental.
It is, perhaps, unfortunate that this term has crept into usage, but I hope that noble Lords will realise that under the provisions of Clause 27 it will, in law, be a grant made at the discretion of the authority, like any other. Hence, retained secondary rental will fall to be treated as grants under Clause 27(5) and he accounted for in the authority's annual report.
I would additionally be loath at this stage, to see the term "secondary rental" appear on the face of the Bill. Clause

905
26(1)(a) empowers the authority to raise payments from their contractors, but does not differentiate between primary and secondary rentals, and I do not think it should. The level of rental, be it primary or secondary, should be a matter for the authority, hearing in mind the general economic situation and the circumstances of the individual contractors.
I hope that I have answered the two specific questions which the noble Lord put to me. I have said hardly anything about the desirability of secondary rentals or about the way in which they are spent, because I think—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, thinks—that within the general structure of the secondary rental system this is something which works fairly well.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, the point on which I was seeking assurance was that the word "grants" in this paragraph includes retained secondary rental. From his reply the noble Lord was clear that retained secondary rental will be regarded by the IBA as a grant and I am glad to have that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.59 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 32 insert the following new clause:
("Local Radio Advisory Committees.
.After main section 11(5) (which indicates the functions of Local Radio Advisory Committees) there shall be inserted—
"(5A) It shall be the duty of each local committee to publish an annual account of the way they have discharged their functions under section 5 above." ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, local advisory committees are another subject which we discussed in Committee. This amendment would require local advisory committees to produce an annual report of how they had gone about the duties which are placed upon them by the Act, reflecting, so far as is reasonable, the range of tastes and interests of people residing in their particular areas. The report would have to be published by a committee in the area which it served, and would considerably help the committee. It would provide the public with
906
an account of how their representatives had gone about their tasks and formed their opinions. It would also give the committee a chance to reflect publicly on how their advice to the IBA had been taken up and used. The publication of these reports would also serve as a reminder to the public that such committees are appointed, exist, meet, discuss broadcasting matters and inform the IBA that the IBA should take such matters seriously.
I mentioned during the Committee stage that these local advisory committees operate under great constraints. They meet in private, with IBA officers present. The IBA keeps the reports made by the committee secret. Members of these committees feel so constrained by the authority's stress on confidentiality that they are unable to discuss freely with members of the public what their committees do. This does not appear to be an entirely satisfactory way of conducting the business of a public committee advising a public authority on a matter of public interest.
Let me remind the Minister how the IBA regard the duties of the members of the local advisory committees. An internal IBA memorandum entitled LACs for Local Independent Radio, published in November 1978 on the subject, says that the role of the local advisory committee is essentially to help assess each station's progress and performance, to identify strengths and weaknesses and to suggest targets for future development. The authority has, in the local advisory committees, says this document, a valuable source of information and opinions. In this sense they are the IBA's ears in the localities. For local residents and listeners, the local advisory committee for each transmission area is a body to which views and comments can be addressed locally.
Of special importance, says this document, is the period immediately preceding the authority's annual decision whether or not and on what conditions to roll a station's contract. Then each committee is asked to take a wide-ranging look at its independent local radio service, compare it with the published application plans and identify its strengths and weaknesses.
These are important tasks and the

907
public has a right to know how this committee has gone about fulfilling these tasks. This is what the amendment seeks to do. To place the committees under the constraints of confidentiality is unnecessary. The authority and the contractors have nothing to fear from allowing the public this small glimpse into their decision-making. I should have thought that it was eminently sensible that the local advisory committees should publish an annual report. I beg to move.
11.3 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, there is a genuine problem about the amendment. Advice from local advisory committees as a matter of practice is generally on two levels. There is the on-going day-to-day advice—praise or criticism about the output of local radio stations. In addition—the noble Lord mentioned this himself in his speech—the authority may seek a comprehensive assessment of a contractor's performance before considering whether to extend a contract.
As the noble Lord said, there is this system in independent local radio of rolling contracts, and reports and comments of local advisory committees form an important part of the comprehensive report prepared by the authority's own officers on the performances of contractors, which in turn considerably influence the authority's decision whether or not to roll a contract.
I really must part company with the noble Lord in his assessment of what would be right. I think it would be damaging to the relationships that exist between the authority, their local radio contractors and the local radio advisory committees if the advisory committees were themselves to publish accounts of the advice they had given to the authority. It would be very difficult if everything that they had said about the performance of the contractor in assessing whether the contract should be rolled or finally renewed was made public. I hope the noble Lord will not mind my registering this disagreement with him, but I do not see eye to eye with the case he has made.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. I think there is still some
908
merit in the publication of the annual report, but I note what the noble Lord said. I shall read his reply, and, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 [Duties of Authority respect to programme contracts]:
11.5 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 21;
Page 25, line 24, leave out ("if they think fit").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 22 while moving No. 21. They are actually essentially different amendments, but they both deal with the question of public consultation and the holding of public meetings. At Committee stage I dealt with this area of the Bill, but then I had a further amendment down, dealing with a code of practice, and I have not pressed forward with that amendment, accepting what the noble Lord said in response to that particular suggestion. However, I feel that these two amendments which remain on the Marshalled List, the one that the public meetings shall be held and the other that those attending the meetings shall have the opportunity to examine an applicant or a re-applicant for a contract in an area, are amendments to which the House should give further consideration on Report.
The Annan Committee's recommendation No. 53 was that:
"The Authority should conduct public hearings in the locality in which a franchise would be held before awarding or renewing a programme contract"
In paragraph 13.24 of their report they enlarged on this and said that the public hearing
"would enable the people living in the area to express a view on the performance of the current programme contractor and on any applications from new groups. We would also expect there to be some sharp questioning, helpful to the IBA, at the public hearing if companies were suspected of making exaggerated claims in their written submissions".
The authority has already made a good move in this direction by making available summaries of the prospective contractors' applications in both radio and television,

909
but what is needed at the meeting is the means to enable the public to question the prospective contractors, and Annan said this would be beneficial to the authority.
The Minister cannot be unaware of the criticism of the present system of public meetings. This is common and widespread. This Bill extends the life of the IBA until 1996. Are we to assume that the criticism made at these meetings is to be ignored for the next 16 years? Let me remind the noble Lord the Minister of some of this criticism. Mr. Philip Kleinman, a widely respected commentator on media affairs, after attending the London public meeting, recently wrote in the trade paper Campaign an article. He said:
"Having read the applications of all eight contenders for breakfast-time I travelled to Croydon full of curiosity about what they might, under cross-examination, show of their respective strengths and weaknesses. My first surprise was that the platform was occupied not by representatives of the eight consortia ready to answer questions from the IBA and from the audience but by members of the authority itself and their attendant staff. Most of them said nothing, or next to nothing.
"The way the meeting proceeded was that, after the opening waffle session, Lady Plowden called up representatives of each of the eight consortia to address the meeting for no more than about five minutes each. They were free to reply, or not, to anything previously said.
"The one injunction laid upon them by the chairman was that their remarks should be couched in general terms and that they should not put in a 'commercial' for their own company.
"In the circumstances this seemed a curious restriction. It was indeed ignored by several speakers, notably Lady Trumpington, of the Daytime consortium."
"But there was no opportunity to put questions direct to Lady Trumpington or to any of the other company representatives, who included Lord Lever, Christopher Chataway and Peter Jay, for after they had finished the meeting was dismissed. The real cross-examination will be conducted by the IBA itself behind closed doors. How detailed it will be I do not know, but I do know that the interviews with all eight consortia are to be squeezed into only two days. What I would like to suggest is that these interviews themselves should be conducted in public".
That is a comment on a public session held by the IBA. The National Consumer Council has stated that the National and Scottish Consumer Councils believe that the IBA should maximise the impact of consumer views in the bidding for broadcasting contractors. They say that to create a competitive, responsible and responsive broadcasting service in the United Kingdom public meetings could
910
in their opinion make a useful contribution to this end. The councils wanted a full examination and cross-examination of the applicants. This amendment goes some way to establishing this. Since the Committee stage I have received a letter from the Newcastle region of the National Union of Public Employees expressing their views on the IBA's public meeting held in that city. Their divisional officer, Mr. Sawyer, had this to say to me:
"The Independent Broadcasting Authority, North East Region, organised the final public meeting before the award of television contracts to be made in December of this year at the Centre Hotel, Newcastle upon Tyne, on Thursday 16th October, 1980, and although my Union had always been interested in the issues of broadcasting, we did not as a formality receive an invitation to this meeting, despite the fact that we represent 50,000 members in the region. I made my own enquiries about the applications and the public meeting and in so doing found that a number of small organisations in the region, like the Kilmarnock Flower Circle had been invited, although as I say no approach had been made to our organisation. I was however able to obtain no more than six tickets for the meeting and on attending found that of the several hundred people present, a large number, obviously unquantifiable by me, either worked directly for the present franchise holder, Tyne Tees Television, were clearly associated with the new applicants, or were there as obvious plants for the companies; their regular sympathetic contributions and cries of 'Hear, hear' every time the company concerned was mentioned made this all too obvious".
These are just examples I wish to quote to your Lordships' House about the concern over the way the public meetings are held and the fact that there is no opportunity for the public to be able to examine the contractors. These two amendments deal with the questions that public meetings should be held and that the public should be able to ask questions of the potential programme contractors. I beg to move the first of the amendments.
Lord BELSTEAD: The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who is always very fair in the way he presents the case for his amendment, none the less had made it sound not only as though the IBA do not conduct their public meetings very well but as though the system for taking public opinion, when contracts come to be re-negotiated, is deficient in some way. I wonder whether the noble Lord would like to consider with me for a moment the way in which schemes for secondary reorganisation of schools in this country are arranged statutorily; at least they have

911
been in the past. If I remember rightly, one finds under the Education Act that there is a responsibility to publish that a school is going to change its character—something which may be of the greatest moment to the people who live in the area. If we look at the Bill, we see that before entering into any new contract with a programme contractor the IBA shall publish, in such manner as they think fit, a notice saying this is what is going to happen. Under secondary reorganisation schemes for schools there is a statutory right, if I remember correctly, of objection for people who live in the area, something people set great store by.
What happens under this Bill? The authority are under a duty to ascertain the opinions of the public and to encourage the making of comments, to take into account these opinions and comments and suggestions which are received. The processes are almost on all fours, the new process under this new Bill and the old process which has been continuing with regard to schools since 1944. Nothing in the 1944 Act says you have to have public meetings, but of course any sensible local authority, as the noble Lord knows from his experience, would never indulge in any scheme of reorganisation of schools, which mean so much to parents, without holding public meetings; in fact, the local authority always tries to make its case as best it can at public meetings. This is exactly also what the IBA have been doing.
So we put into the Bill a provision about holding public meetings if they think fit", because arguably in addition to public meetings there are other ways of collecting the voices locally, public opinion surveys and of course talking to the statutory local advisory committees. Arguably those methods of collecting the force of public opinion can be as effective as holding public meetings, which can sometimes be dominated by interest groups unrepresentative of the locality as a whole. Moreover, the informality of the meetings which the IBA has been holding can result, of course, in insufficient protection for less vocal minorities; on the other hand, very great formality, as the noble Lord would write in under the next amendment, where it would be laid down statutorily that members of the
912
public should examine the contractors, can in its turn lead to difficulties.
For these reasons we have felt it was right, obviously, by mentioning them in the statute, to encourage public meetings, knowing the IBA normal procedure of having public meetings, but to sheer away from tying them down to how often and in what manner. I hope the noble Lord did not mind my going off on what seemed a tangent in comparing this Bill to education legislation which has been on the statute book since the end of the war, but I do not think the analogy is a bad one, and I think the process in the Bill is right.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, if the analogy about education public meetings is taken a stage further. I cannot envisage any proposal for reorganisation of a group of secondary schools with those attending not being able to ask questions of those involved in regard to what would happen to their own particular school. To take it further, there is considerable substance in the second of my two amendments, which I think underlies one of the major concerns about the public meetings, that the public involvement with the programme contractors is not there. I do not intend to divide the House on either of these two amendments at this time of night, but I warn the noble Lord that I may return to the second of the two amendments at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 22 to 26 not moved.]
Clause 35 [Training of persons employed by programme contractors]:
Baroness SEEAR Baroness SEEAR moved Amendments Nos. 27 and 28:
Page 27, line 20, at end insert ("and without discrimination on account of race, sex or ethnic origin").
line 25, at end insert ("and the report shall include the numbers employed in each area by race, sex and ethnic origin").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 together. This is a modified form of the amendments that I moved in Committee, but those amendments covered a wider field in that we were emphasising both the importance of the extended training

913
inside the industry as well as the need for no discrimination in the provision of training in the industry. These amendments are concerned only with the latter aspect—the question of discrimination on grounds of sex and racial and ethnic origin and the desire to get this emphasised in the Bill.
It will of course he said that, given the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act, there is no need for such an inclusion in this Bill. On the other hand, this industry is no ordinary industry. The mere fact of the Bill before your Lordships' House is evidence of that. This industry is a public industry of very great importance to the public and of very high visibility. It is also an industry in which new skills and new knowledge are being developed all the time. It is, therefore, an area of great opportunity for people to learn new skills, at a time when the learning of new skills is of the greatest importance because of the decline of so many other occupations in which traditional skills are no longer required.
Therefore, this industry and the opportunities that it offers, is in many ways unique. We know from figures that I gave your Lordships' House in Committee that women are very much under-represented in management areas—only 1·3 per cent. of top management positions being held by women—and that women are concentrated in a very limited number of occupations inside the industry. That, of course, is typical of a great many other industries. But here is an opportunity to do something about it. We do not know the figures—they are not available so far as I am aware—in relation to race and ethnic origin, but it is highly probable that in this regard, as in relation to women, the employment of people of ethnic minorities is on a very small scale in the higher posts and in the more skilled occupations.
So what I am urging is first that a particular responsibility should be placed on the industry to emphasise the importance that there should be no discrimination in training; and, secondly, that in the annual report an account should be given, so that the public can see what is happening in relation to training for women and ethnic minorities in this new, very important, expanding industry in a modern sector. I beg to move.
Baroness TRUMPINGTON: My Lords, I made clear my views on the question of training programmes during the Committee stage of the Bill. I have listened with great interest to Lady Seear's explanation of her amendments this evening and I still cannot go along with her. Briefly, to include Amendment No. 27 would indicate to me that if such an amendment is necessary then the Equal Opportunities Commission—whose views the noble Baroness quoted in Committee—is not doing its job properly; while to adopt Amendment No. 28 would be to imply to me a quota system and would add a sort of threat at the end of what seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable and adequately written paragraph which should stand as it is. I fear that these amendments will not bring about the changes which the noble Baroness and, indeed I, so earnestly wish for—they will not deliver the goods. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendments.
Earl DE LA WARR: My Lords, I should like to add my support to what my noble friend Lady Trumpington has said. I find it very hard to accept the thesis of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that the television contractors should be treated differently, that they should be treated as golden calves. She has admitted very openly that there are many industries in which training is not adequately given to women and people of other ethnic origin, and there is much to commend in what she has said. But just because we happen to have an industry under scrutiny and under our control, it is a great pity to take advantage of it and to impose, by statute, something which would be much better done by exhortation.
I entirely agree with my noble friend Lady Trumpington that we should let the existing law work in the same way as it does for any other industry. As I said, I can see no real argument in this particular case of training for treating the broadcasting authority and its 13 contractors as though they were something special. I am sure that they will do all they can, just as other industries will do all they can. Whether or not it is with success is beside the point. But do not let us take advantage of this scrutiny to impose this sort of thing on the authority and its contractors.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I must say that I am a little perplexed by the first of the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—Amendment No. 27. As the noble Baroness herself pointed out in her speech, and as both my noble friends Lady Trumpington and Lord De La Warr have also said, there is the effect of the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 firmly embedded in the law of the land, and I really would not have thought it was necessary to write the provisions of these Acts yet again into this Bill. Indeed, I am not quite sure what my noble friend Lord Renton would say—and he is by way of being a considerable expert on legislation—but I think he might have some well-chosen words to say about putting unnecessary provisions into legislation—unnecessary because they are already firmly embedded in the law of the land.
Amendment No.28 is rather different and says that the annual report shall include:
"the numbers employed in each area by race, sex and ethnic origin".
My noble friend Lady Trumpington has criticised this provision on the ground that it would, in a sense, set up a sort of quota. I should like to make a rather different point. It would be a very unusual provision to write into legislation for this reason. As I see it, it would place an obligation on one sector only of the broadcasting industry that does not apply to the other sector—in other words, the BBC—or to industry generally.
I think that equality of opportunity is more likely to be achieved in partnership between employers and employees who can work together to devise mutually acceptable arrangements. Whatever arrangements may be devised, either within individual companies or within the industry generally, I do not think that the IBA should be called upon to monitor these arrangements or to comment on them statutorily in its annual report.
Nothing that I have said means in any way that I do not agree with the general thrust of the argument of the noble Baronesss, Lady Seear, but, if I may say so, I think that the first of the amendments is unnecessary and the second one is not entirely reasonable so far as the Independent Broadcasting Authority is concerned.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I am not surprised, but I very much regret the reception which has been given by the Minister, and I shall reply briefly, despite the lateness of the hour, to one or two of the other remarks that have been made. Of course, if the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act were working as intended there would be no need to do anything more about it, but they are not so working. We have already sufficient evidence from work that is going on in this field that it is far better that individual industries should really launch effective schemes for themselves. This is what this is intended to do. It is to give an impetus to the 1I3A to take the initiative using Section 47 of the Sex Discrimination Act, which allows discriminatory training, or preferential training. Unlike any other kind of preferential treatment, the training is permitted under Section 47 to groups which are under-represented in particular occupations.
There is no question but that there are many areas in this industry in which both women and ethnic minorities are underrepresented. What I ask here is that Section 47 should be invoked by the authority in order to work out their own scheme. Of course, there is no question of a quota. The word, "quota", is very much misused and has been misused this evening. This is only to show to the public and to the groups concerned who are deeply interested in this matter what progress is being made. That is why a monitoring system is required. A quota of course would mean that a particular percentage had been set. That is not the suggestion. It is to show the public and to the people interested what is required. I do not accept the argument that this industry should be treated just like all other industries. Throughout the debate this evening it has been emphasised again and again that this is a special industry of special public importance—and for an industry of this kind I submit that it is entirely reasonable that they should have such obligations put upon them. I would dearly like to divide the House, but since there is scarcely any House to divide I regretfully withdraw the amendments.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved].

  DRUGS: SEIZURE AND DESTRUCTION
  DRUGS: SEIZURE AND DESTRUCTION
  MAXIMUM SENTENCES
  MAXIMUM SENTENCES
  PRISONERS: SEGREGATION UNDER RULE 43
  PRISONERS: SEGREGATION UNDER RULE 43
  LEGIONNAIRES' DISEASE
  LEGIONNAIRES' DISEASE
  KEW GARDENS: RESTAURANT
  KEW GARDENS: RESTAURANT
  THE HONG KONG SOCIAL WORKERS' GENERAL UNION
  THE HONG KONG SOCIAL WORKERS' GENERAL UNION
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT