Sitting of 20 April 1982

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  JOHN FRANCIS DARE AND GILLIAN LODER DARE (MARRIAGE ENABLING) BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time and committed.

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Village Schools
    Mr. Beithasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many small village schools have been permitted to close in the last 12 months.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): Seventy-nine, in the period 1 March 1981 to 28 February 1982.
    Mr. Beith: Is that not a disturbingly large number? Will the Secretary of State make it clear that he does not want his programme of dealing with falling rolls to involve the wholesale closure of village schools? Remembering the position of Northumberland, where viable schools such as Beadnell, Embleton and Craster are threatened, will he make it clear that the Government recognise the community and educational importance of village schools?
    Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, Sir, emphatically. My colleagues and I take the most intense care to take all social, as well as educational and financial, factors into account when making decisions. But the House must recognise that the pace of the fall in school populations, particularly at the primary phase, has accelerated sharply in recent years.
    Mr. Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend pay particular attention to the proposals affecting truly rural village schools? In view of the vast number of village schools that have been closed in Staffordshire, will he look with special care at the proposals that come from that county?
    Sir Keith Joseph: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is "Yes". Certainly in Staffordshire, but no more in connection with Staffordshire than with anywhere else, my colleagues and I thoroughly recognise the social and community factors involved in these decisions.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Secretary of State recall that at the time of the general election he made great play of the fact that small schools should remain open? Is he aware that because of Government cutbacks authorities such as Derbyshire county council are now experiencing difficulties in providing the necessary finance to keep such schools open? Will the Secretary of State ensure that the village school at Wessington in my constituency is kept open and that Derbyshire county council is provided with sufficient funds to keep it open?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I cannot comment on individual proposals, but areas, particularly counties, where there is sparsity of population receive extra money from the taxpayer just because of such factors as rural schools. Besides, the educational interests of children can suffer severely if the schools become too small.
    Mr. Watson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is a hero in Bolton by Bowland, a village in my constituency, whose primary school he has just saved from closure? Is he further aware that there must be at least 100 other villages in the country prepared to bestow on him a similar honour if only he would make his Bolton by Bowland decision the rule rather than the exception?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I am reinforced in well-doing.

    Hereford and Worcester (Selective State High School)
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to decide on the section 12 application submitted by the Hereford and Worcester local education authority for the establishment of a selective State high school.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): The authority has yet to submit to my right hon. Friend its observations on the statutory objections. The proposals were only published by the authority on 29 January 1982.
    Mr. Miller: In view of the widespread doubts about the wisdom of spending money on this experiment at a time when educational expenditure is being severely curtailed in the counties, and in view of the anxieties about the effects on other schools, will my hon. Friend, when replying to the representations, take the trouble to point out that the reorganisation in Worcester was made necessary by the decision of the grammar school to go independent, that, therefore, the attempt is to cater for those children, and that it is unlikely to have effects on efficiently run schools in other parts of the county?
    Dr. Boyson: It is difficult to comment on a section 12 notice when all the information has not arrived at the Department. At the moment the authority is preparing its reply to objections in the area. Once those objections come to us, and once we receive the authority's reply, we shall have to make the decision. I am sure that if my hon. Friend wishes to bring a delegation to see me—not that there are

    107
    so many vacancies in my diary these days on section 12 notices—I shall be delighted to see him and the other objectors.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Minister realise that the extraordinary proposal from the Conservative leadership in the county is opposed by every teacher organisation, by councillors in two parties and independents and by the majority of organisations consulted?
    Dr. Boyson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is a libertarian. He must know that individuals who decide to do certain things contrary to current enlightened opinion may at times be right.
    Mr. Whitehead: As the proposed superschool, which, as has been said, has been condemned by all the main teaching associations, will cream off pupils from schools in and around Worcester and also discriminate in favour of those who can afford to travel to school, how can the Minister say that it will not harm State schools in the vicinity?
    Dr. Boyson: I did not think that I had said that. I must listen to myself more carefully in future. We shall comment further on the proposal when it comes before us, but it is merely for the replacement of a girls' grammar school and a boys' grammar school in Worcester by a mixed grammar school.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: When my hon. Friend considers the application from the county education authority, will he satisfy himself that there is full equivalence of opportunity for gifted pupils from all areas of the county?
    Dr. Boyson: I shall carefully note the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd). I am concerned, as I am sure all hon. Members are, that able, average and least able children are all taught to the maximum of their ability.

    Local Education Authorities
    Mr. Marlowasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will introduce legislation to improve the efficiency of local education authorities.
    Sir Keith Joseph: No, Sir. This is an important area, but not one where further legislation would be helpful.
    Mr. Marlow: Is my right hon. Friend aware—I believe that he is—that industrialists throughout the country have sweated blood to improve productivity, even at the expense of having to make painful decisions to cut labour and overheads, yet local education authorities, including my own in Northamptonshire, which is Labour-controlled with Liberal support, have recently increased massively the number of people that they employ in the education service, thus increasing industry's overheads? Is that not monstrous? Will my right hon. Friend get together with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to introduce, in a short measure, ways to overcome that terrible unfairness?
    Sir Keith Joseph: We are conscious of the difficulties caused by large rate increases. Our proposal to ban supplementary rates will be some protection for ratepayers. If Northamptonshire's spending increases beyond the level of its grant-related expenditure it will incur financial penalties.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister accept that there are people, certainly on the Conservative Benches, who believe that efficiency means cutting education to the bone, so that all our people are hampered in their education, at whatever level? Will he also accept that we on the Labour Benches believe that it is necessary to provide more money for education and to ensure that it is used—especially by Tory authorities which are overenthusiastic to cut—if we are to benefit the children under our care?
    Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friends are just as keen as any other group in the House, if not more so, to achieve effective education, but effective education cannot be measured simply by money spent.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in recent years schools have had devolved on them a great many administrative functions formerly undertaken centrally by local education authorities and have been given facilities to undertake the functions? Therefore, does he also agree that the swelling of central bureaucracy is not as justified as others have suggested?
    Sir Keith Joseph: There may be much truth in what my hon. Friend said.
    Mr. Kinnock: If educational effectiveness cannot be measured in terms of money spent, is it not even more the case that it cannot be measured in terms of money cut? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), showed that less than 2 per cent. of all education expenditure was on administration and that the service is not overburdened with administrators? Indeed, in some respects it is administratively underserviced. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that if efficiency means anything in education it means adequacy of provision? How efficient does he think the 99 education authorities are which Her Majesty's Inspectorate in its most recent report describes as not making adequate provision in essential areas in their schools?
    Sir Keith Joseph: As the hon. Gentleman is willing to accept the general posture that-I advanced, I am willing to accept the corollary that he produced in the first part of his question. As for the administrative burdens of local education authorities, it is true that falling rolls and an increased attempt to take out surplus places and perhaps to remove ineffective teachers involves overheads.
    Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the educational effectiveness of LEAs may improve if more time and resources were devoted to what used to be called the three Rs instead of to peripheral subjects?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I cannot but agree that more emphasis in some places on basic skills, provided that it resulted in effective teaching, would be welcome.

    Microcomputers
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied with the progress being made with the microcomputer installation programme in secondary schools in the Greater London area.
    Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, Sir. One hundred secondary schools in the Greater London area have obtained a

    109
    microcomputer under the Department of Industry's micros in schools scheme, supplementing the substantial provision made by the local education authorities.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a remarkable figure in an imaginative and exciting programme? Is he still confident, as was said when the programme began, that the London boroughs that were ahead of the field in their installation programme before the scheme was launched are still not being penalised because they had a number of computers already installed in their schools?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he wants. All secondary schools are now eligible for assistance under the Department of Industry's scheme, whether or not they have already bought a microcomputer.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that there should be an input into the microcomputers for handicapped children? Is he aware that the microcomputer is a great chance to help them to overcome their handicaps? Is he prepared to give extra resources to that end?
    Sir Keith Joseph: Without a commitment on resources, I shall certainly look into the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

    Youth Training Scheme
    Mr. Severasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied that education establishments in Birmingham will have the resources to meet the off-the-job training aspects of the youth training scheme.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William Shelton): My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the Manpower Services Commission has sufficient resources to fund off-the-job provision and that the education system nationally is able and willing to provide. It is for individual local education authorities, along with the Manpower Services Commission, to plan their response at local level.
    Mr. SeverDoes the Minister accept that many grand-sounding schemes have been heralded in the House by his right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Employment, and that it is now essential that the schemes, which will go some way towards assisting people in areas of urban deprivation, such as Birmingham, are supported far more vigorously than the way in which the Minister has outlined?
    Mr. Shelton: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Government's initiative on, for instance, the new youth training scheme will be of enormous advantage to youngsters. I remind him that there will be a considerable inflow of funds from the MSC into, for instance, further education to support the YTS. That should reassure him.

    New Training Initiative
    Mr. Madelasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from local education authorities as to their responsibilities under the new training initiative; whether he is considering sending them a circular; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the implications for the further education sector of the proposed new training scheme for 16-year-old school leavers.
    Mr. William Shelton: My right hon. Friend has had only a very few representations from individual local education authorities on this subject. In the White Paper "A New Training Initiative" the responsibilities of colleges of further education and their maintaining authorities are set out, and my right hon. Friend will be glad to respond to any specific needs for further guidance.
    Mr. Madel: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the new training initiative is to be successful in its early years, local education authorities must have a special responsibility for retraining and redeploying teachers to help in full-time vocational courses and for the use of surplus educational premises for training opportunities?
    Mr. Shelton: Yes, that is absolutely right. There is no objection to MSC courses being held in school premises and, indeed, using teachers from the school, but l believe that that would have to be done in conjunction with a further education institution.
    Mr. Deakins: How will the Minister ensure that genuinely appropriate courses will be provided in further education, rather than, as is quite likely, merely cosmetic changes to existing provision, to take advantage of the Government funds that are available?
    Mr. Shelton: This is an important matter. In the YOP there have been cases where there has been a breakdown in this respect. That must not happen again. The MSC is planning to introduce a group, on which education services will be well represented, to examine the content of the education courses that are funded through the MSC. I am sure that that will be satisfactory.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that if the new training initiative is to be more than just a cosmetic exercise, there will need to be a great deal of planning, involving local authorities and, in particular, technical colleges? What discussions have taken place with local authorities about the financial implications in this connection?
    Mr. Shelton: Discussions have been going on almost non-stop for a considerable time. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that, for example, there has been an interesting experiment in 12 selected LEAs, where the education content has been planned, and we shall know the results next month. I understand that they will be of great help.
    Viscount Cranborne: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the use that his Department might encourage local authorities to make of the last year at school for training children who are not academically inclined?
    Mr. Shelton: There is another question on this matter. Nevertheless, it is a matter that is under consideration.
    Mr. Foster: Is the Minister aware that the whole education service is appalled at the complacency of his Department about the youth training scheme? Is he aware that the whole 16 to 19 years age group has a chaotic range of courses, examinations, curricula and income support? Does he agree that there is urgent need for a comprehensive education and training scheme with full education maintenance allowances?
    Mr. Shelton: The Department is certainly not complacent. We recognise this as a major challenge, which is of major importance to our youngsters. I would add that tidiness is not necessarily an advantage.
    Dr. Hampson: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been a traditional antithesis between so-called education and training, that both sides—industry and education—have viewed one another with mutual suspicion, and that therefore there might be a case for a circular which reaffirms the commitment of education to industry and also shows education how best it can devise courses that are appropriately geared to local industry?
    Mr. Shelton: I always listen to my hon. Friend's views with great respect. This Government, like previous Governments, have always accepted that training in general should be the responsibility of industry. However, I agree that in the long run the division between training and education, in education terms, is artificial and will gradually break down.
    Mr. Whitehead: As the new training scheme has an element of compulsion, because of the financially punitive elements it contains, will the Minister tell us a little more about the group which is now to scrutinise the project? What remit will it have? Will the new training schemes be approved only if the Department of Education and Science is satisfied with their education elements, and if not, why not? Who are the members of the group?
    Mr. Shelton: The sort of compulsion that the hon. Gentleman is talking about is one that very few people would resist. It consists merely of paying people. So it is not compulsion in any terms. In answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I suggest that he tables a question specifically on that matter.

    Secondary Education
    Mr. Les Huckfieldasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to announce his decision on future secondary education provision in the Exhall, Ash Green and Keresley areas.
    Dr. Boyson: My right hon. Friend has informed the LEA that he is minded to approve these proposals subject to a modification of the implementation date. The authority has been consulted on this modification in accordance with the provision of the Education Act 1980, and my right hon. Friend will announce his decision shortly.
    Mr. Huckfield: I thank the Minister, but he will appreciate that, in the form that he gave it, his reply is not very meaningful? If I accept what he has said in the form that he said it, will he reassure himself that if the proposals are to go through, even in a slightly modified form, some of the building inadequacies will be examined? There were serious inadequacies. Will at least the best possible be done to remedy some of the building deficiencies, if for no other reason than that the scheme is not at all acceptable to the people living in the area?
    Dr. Boyson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is a difficult scheme. It was a long time in the Department, going backwards and forwards between the local authority and ourselves. The hon. Gentleman led a delegation, as I well know, to discuss, first, whether it should be
    112
    implemented, and, secondly, on which date it should come into force. We are still in touch with the local authority, and hope that the final decision will be made very shortly.

    Universities
    Mr. Hannamasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has given any consideration to the implications of a change in the length of the present university first degree course.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William Waldegrave): My right hon. Friend is always prepared to consider any initiatives that might increase the cost-effectiveness of higher education.
    Mr. Hannam: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but does not he agree that, with the introduction of modern teaching practices, the trend should be towards shorter degree courses rather than longer? In this context, will he also resist any weakening of A-level academic standards?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is probably aware that the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) put this forward as one of her 13 points in 1969, when she called for an experiment with two-year courses. As long as we remember that there are some courses, such as enhanced engineering courses, that might be better if they are longer, I agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Sheerman: Will the Minister bear in mind in considering such alternatives that, if anything, degree courses need lengthening, not shortening? Those of us with experience in the university world realise that the intensity of many modern methods of teaching that have been introduced in higher education have meant that the real gap in student education is that they do not have enough time to think, although that is what universities are all about—thinking and learning.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree, from his experience, as I do from my experience, that great difference is possible in this area. There are some courses where it would be interesting to experiment with shorter, more intensive courses.
    Dr. Hampson: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is obviously a case for people going beyond the level of schooling without necessarily having to go to the full extent of a four-year university honours degree? Does he further agree that there is a case now for reviving the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science, of the diploma of higher education, because higher education has got into a trough, particularly in the context of finding a suitable role in the longer term for colleges of higher education?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with my hon. Friend. In general, the Department and, I am sure, the UGC, would welcome proposals for experiments in this area.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Minister agree that, whatever the length of the initial course, the system of student support is of considerable importance? Given the Secretary of State's continual flirtations with the question of loans, will he say whether it is true that the Secretary of State said on "World at One" today that students who cannot live on the grant will have to find more part-time work? If that is true, will he say what effect he thinks that

    113
    will have on levels of scholarship and on the passing of degrees, and, secondly, what part-time work he has in mind?
    Mr. Waldegrave: When the hon. Gentleman studies the transcript, he will see that he has not got the point quite right.

    Education Standards
    Mr. Formanasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on how he intends to see that the educational needs of the bottom 40 per cent. of school pupils in achievement are adequately met.
    Sir Keith Jones: There is a strong case for a greater practical slant in the curriculum for all pupils, especially in the last two years of compulsory education, and the less academically proficient pupils are not necessarily best served by a diluted form of the traditional curriculum. While I am not yet ready to declare what particular measures might be most helpful, I am treating this as a matter of high priority.
    Mr. Forman: I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend accords high priority to this important area of educational provision, but is he prepared to consider sympathetically the idea of having a sort of certificate of satisfactory educational performance for pupils who leave school, especially those who do not have the opportunity to take either CSE or GCE examinations?
    Sir Keith Joseph: Yes. I shall certainly consider such an idea sympathetically, although I cannot make a commitment without exploring all the implications.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Secretary of State agree that the efficacy of any system of education is decided by the degree to which it meets the needs of all its pupils? Does he agree that the educational implications of post-war secondary education for all have never been worked out properly?
    Sir Keith Joseph: If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to agree that we do not have a perfect educational system in terms of providing what each individual needs, I do so. I am not sure of the implications of his question. Perhaps he will write to me about it.

    School Meals
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the latest figures available for the numbers (a) taking school meals and (b) receiving free meals; and how these compare with those for 1979.
    Dr. Boyson: In October 1981 the daily meals take-up in maintained schools in England was approximately 3·5 million, including 0·9 million provided free. This total figure represented about 49 per cent of pupils present. The comparable figure for 1979 was 64 per cent. For both years, the free meal take-up was about 12 per cent.
    Mr. Roberts: Does the Minister accept that the running down of the school meals service has serious implications for the general health of the school population? Will he seriously consider doing something to reverse that trend?
    Dr. Boyson: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the free meal take-up by those who cannot afford to pay for their meals remains at 12 per cent. However, even before the 1980 Act, the school meals service was built on the assumption that the major part of a child's needs would be provided at home. There is still more than £300 million included in the rate support grant for the purpose, and whether the money is spent on food or education, it should go where the real priority is.

    Textbooks (Parental Vetting)
    Mr. Blackburnasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will introduce legislation to give parents the right to vet textbooks used in schools for the teaching of sensitive matters, such as sex education.
    Dr. Boyson: The Education (School Information) Regulations, which come into effect this year, will require schools to give parents information about the way in which sex education is provided in schools. We have made it clear that there should be the closest consultation and cooperation between parents and schools on this matter
    Mr. Blackburn: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a vital moral issue in the presentation of literature within schools, and will he assure the House that he will exercise vigilance in such matters, especially about sex education? Does he agree that his Department has a moral responsibility for curricula in schools?
    Dr. Boyson: I believe that the Department has a moral responsibility. Last year, through pressure, we ruled that some books that were available in libraries and in general should be used by teachers only. I can quote from one book, which stated:
    "Incest is not particularly uncommon, especially between sisters and brothers, when it can be a loving sexual relationship."
    It would seem that we should exercise that discretion, because the same book talks about bestiality, without any condemnation of it whatsoever.
    Mr. Thornton: I welcome what my hon. Friend has said about the need for consultation. Will he assure the House that parents will have the right to withdraw their children from such lessons if they see fit?
    Dr. Boyson: Consideration was given during the passage of the 1980 Bill to whether parents should have the right to withdraw their children from sex education classes, as with religious education. It was decided, both by this House and another place, that such a decision should not be made, because sex education is not compulsory in schools.
    I know that the Inner London Education Authority has ruled that parents may withdraw their children from schools that provide sex education with which they do not agree. This week a parent from another authority wrote to me enclosing a letter from a headmaster on the subject. Where parents disagree with the way in which sex education is taught in schools, the headmasters should certainly allow withdrawal from that class.

    Universities
    Mr. Welshasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the reductions envisaged in university places in future years.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend has received representations from Members of both Houses and a wide range of other bodies and individuals.
    Mr. Welsh: I thank the Minister for that reply, because there must have been much correspondence on the subject. Is the Minister aware that he will be reducing the number of university entrants in 1982–83 to 72,000? In 1980–81 the figure was 76,900, which means that there has been a large reduction in one year. Is he aware that the 18-yearold population will be at a peak of 924,000? Is what the Minister is doing good or bad for Britain?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am well aware of the figures that the hon. Gentleman gives. The overriding needs of the national economy impose them on us.
    Mr. Whitehead: How many representations has the Under-Secretary of State received from universities where redundancy proposals have been rejected by the university senates or councils? What will the Government's action be in those circumstances?
    Mr. Waldegrave: There is no role for direct Government intervention in those circumstances or in any circumstances of management problems in universities.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Is the Minister aware that when the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts visited Stirling and Aston universities it appeared that circumstances could arise early in 1984 in which those universities, and no doubt others, might have to declare themselves bankrupt and go into liquidation? If that eventuality arose, is the Minister really saying that the Government would have no view about it?
    Mr. Waldegrave: If the UGC took the view that the university could do nothing to avoid bankruptcy, it would wish to take action. However, if the UGC's view was that the university could have taken practical action but did not, the problem would be more difficult.

    Comprehensive Education
    Mr. Guy Barnettasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had about the development of a comprehensive system of education and training for the 16 to 19-years-old age groups.
    Mr. William Shelton: The Government are committed to extending education opportunities for the 16 to 19 age group and to the proposals for training in the White Paper, "A New Training Initiative". To this end, Ministers and officials have had numerous discussions with the local education authority associations, the MSC and others.
    Mr. Barnett: Does the Minister agree that it is very important that the Department of Education and Science, rather than the Department of Employment, should take a lead in these discussions? Is is not vital that the Minister recognises that, unless the problem of the 16 to 19-yearold is examined comprehensively, we shall be in danger of creating another form of education apartheid for 16 to 19-year-olds, just as we did after the Second World War for 11-year-olds?
    Mr. Shelton: The Labour Party publication "Learning for Life" has an authoritarian approach which the Conservative Party and the country would reject.
    Mr. Haslehurst: Can there really be an effective approach to education and training while two separate Departments of State are involved?
    Mr. Shelton: It has been the decision of this and previous Governments that the Department of Employment should be the main agent for training. I reassure my hon. Friend by saying that discussions between the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Employment are constant.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is the Minister aware that there are still many 16 to 19-year-old students who would benefit from a traditional sixth form education or from a sixth form college, but who cannot do so either because of there own or their parents' poverty? Is it not high time that we gave an adequate grant to encourage them to stay on?
    Mr. Shelton: I did not hear the hon. Gentleman's question very well, but I believe that he asked about provision for staying on. I can give him two reassurances. First, about 10 per cent. more of our youngsters are staying on in full-time education. There are 25 per cent. more staying on in further education, for which the Government have made financial provision. We welcome that development very much.

    Burnham Report
    Mr. Jim Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to receive the report of the Burnham committee on teachers' pay.
    Mr. Boyson: The pay claim for school teachers in England and Wales has now been referred to arbitration. The hearing is expected to take place in the week beginning 17 May, and the arbitral body's recommendations are expected to be sent direct to my right hon. Friend quite shortly thereafter.
    Mr. Marshall: If the arbitration award is 6 per cent. or more, will additional financial resources be made available to local education authorities? If there is a vote on the management side of the Burnham committee, will the two Department of Education and Science representatives be under the direction of the Secretary of State?
    Dr. Boyson: It has always been the convention that the attitude of the management panel is confidential, so I could not talk about that in the House. I would be wrong to do so. As we do not know what will be recommended by the arbitration tribunal, it would be hypothetical to talk about that.
    Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister accept that before the management offer was referred to arbitration there was widespread anger in the teaching profession at the paltry offer? Are the Government prepared to say now that they will accept the Burnham committee arbitration award and give finance to teachers who, after all, like all other working men and women, must keep pace with inflation?
    Dr. Boyson: In the Burnham committee the management panel offered what it thought it could afford within the limited amount of money that was available. More money would not be available if the arbitration tribunal said that more should be given. The authorities would have to make their decision against that background.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the teachers that, whatever the arbitration award, the Government can make available only the same amount of money and that either there must be fewer teachers or smaller increases in pay?
    Dr. Boyson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The amount of money being offered by the Government to the local authorities is a quantum that has been set. The more teachers who are employed, the less individual teachers can earn, or vice versa. If the authorities run down the number of teachers, they can pay more for those who are still employed.
    Mr. Kinnock: Was not the Minister in danger—I am sure inadvertently—of misleading the House in his last but one answer when he said that the management panel had made an offer on the basis of what it could afford? Had not substantial numbers of local education authorities quickly communicated the fact that they were prepared to and could find ways of affording more than the 3·4 per cent. increase, and could not the threatened uproar in the education service have been avoided entirely had they been left to their own devices? I shall repeat this question, because this is a matter of great importance, with the examination term coming before us. In the event of the arbitrator making a recommendation, will the Government provide funds to enable the teachers to be paid what the arbitrator recommends?
    Dr. Boyson: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis), the amount of money that has been put before the local education authorities has been set. No more will be provided. Any payment to the teachers must be made within that limit. The management committee has always considered that any offers that are made in the Burnham committee should be confidential. It would be wrong for me to disclose any of the happenings in that management committee.

    Youth Training Scheme
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied that colleges of further education and other educational institutions will have adequate resources to meet the needs of the youth training scheme.
    Mr. William Shelton: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever).
    Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister aware of the concern felt by many colleges of further education at the apparent lack of co-ordination between his Department and the Department of Employment, with the result that courses that colleges are planning as part of the new scheme are having to be cut because not enough money is available?
    Mr. Shelton: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is close co-operation between the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Employment. There are at least four different committees with interlocking memberships sitting well-nigh full time. As I have said, a new committee will look at the education content of the Manpower Services Commission's programmes.
    Mr. Hooley: Is the Minister aware that another 400,000 boys and girls will be leaving school this year with no prospect of jobs, and that many of them will be
    118
    looking to the further education system at least for an opportunity for training? Is he aware that we have an urgent crisis on our hands, which cannot wait for the Government's scheme in 1983?
    Mr. Shelton: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman by saying that that crisis has been met by the Government, not only by the increase in provision for 16 to 19-year-olds, announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but by additional funding for the further education system announced by my right hon. Friend last December.
    Mr. Sever: Is the Minister aware that many of those involved in education, particularly in the colleges to which he referred, will have found all of his answers this afternoon complacent? Will he now give a positive commitment that the job that needs to be done to protect the interests of those young people will be met squarely by the Government and that they will provide the funds necessary to carry out that job?
    Mr. Shelton: As I said earlier, we are not complacent. This is a challenge that the Government are accepting. The hon. Gentleman will know that the funding not only on the educational side, but for the Manpower Services Commission, is greater than we have ever had before in the history of the country.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Departmental Financial Advisers
    Ql. Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister if, further to her reply to the hon. Member for West Lothian on 3 March, she will, subsequent to any further review, establish new criteria upon which appointments of financial advisers are made by Departments, so as to ensure more effective public accountability and parliamentary control.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): Departments are already accountable to Parliament for public funds spent on the appointment of professional financial advisers. It is always in the Government's interest to obtain the best advice available. We have no plans to change the present arrangements.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is this really the right time to go ahead with plans for the dismantling of the British National Oil Corporation?
    The Prime Minister: We shall make the judgment at the precise moment we wish to do so. I am sure that it will be an excellent judgment.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Will my right hon. Friend look again at the proposal to appoint as an experiment half a dozen outside accountants to the new district health authorities and recognise that the problems that they face are urgent and that if there is to be outside financial help it should be on an extensive scale and not just on an experimental scale?
    The Prime Minister: I shall pass on that suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend has made proposals to ensure that those authorities are properly accountable to Parliament, which they have not been in the past.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the Prime Minister tell us who is the financial adviser to the Government on the Falkland Islands operation, and when and how Parliament will be told of the cost of that operation?
    The Prime Minister: I hardly think that that question is relevant to the one that I am discussing. I think that most people in this country will take the view that the Government take on that issue.

    Engagements
    Mr. Geraint Howellsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 April.
    The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall preside at a meeting of the Cabinet later today. This evening I am giving a reception for those engaged in business, representing both management and the shop floor.
    Mr. Howells: In view of the seriousness of the position in and around the Falkland Islands, has the Prime Minister any plans to invite the leaders of all the political parties in the House to Downing Street for discussions?
    The Prime Minister: I have no such plans at present. Had the hon. Gentleman been in the House at the time he would have heard what the Leader of the Opposition said. We take it as our duty to keep the House as a whole as fully informed as possible.
    Mr. George Gardiner: Will my right hon. Friend today undertake to consider with great caution any proposals from the Argentine, bearing in mind that if an aggressor is even half compensated for his aggression, that will be an encouragement to others to behave likewise?
    The Prime Minister: I take my hon. Friend's point. It has been made strongly. That is the feeling on both sides of the House. Of course we shall try to seek a diplomatic solution, but we have to be true to our objectives. I cannot disguise from the House that the Argentine proposals at present before us fall short in some important respects of those objectives and of the requirements expressed in the House.
    Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady tell us when she will report to the House—in accordance with what she has said about such reports—on those proposals, on what they are officially and what the Government's views are about all of them? Will she tell us whether they are supported by the United States Administration or whether General Haig was merely acting as an intermediary in the matter?
    The Prime Minister: The proposals are Argentine proposals. We are grateful to Mr. Haig for the patience and stamina that he has shown over the proposals, both in Buenos Aires and in his visits to this country, but they are Argentine proposals. He has kept us fully informed, when he has been able to do so, about precisely what they are. We now have full details. The right hon. Gentleman heard what I indicated a moment ago. We regard this as a stage in the negotiating process that must now be continued. We are examining the proposals very closely and will seek to put forward our own proposals to Mr. Haig. With that in mind, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary plans to visit Washington on Thursday.
    Mr. Foot: When will the right hon. Lady be reporting to the House again? I hope that in these discussions she
    120
    will also be taking into full account the proposals made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) about the implication of the United Nations. Does the right hon. Lady agree that, apart from the inherent justice of our cause, a major source of strength is that this country is acting in conformity with the United Nations charter and in pursuance of resolution No. 502? If the right hon. Lady and the Government follow up the proposals made by my right hon. Friend they could provide some alternatives to the specific proposals from the Argentine and also make sure that we continue to act in full conformity with the United Nations charter and our obligations under the charter.
    The Prime Minister: I do not believe that there is much point in reporting to the House before my right hon. Friend has seen Mr. Haig in Washington. Among the many problems presented by the Argentine proposals is that they fail to provide that the Falkland Islanders should be able to determine their own destiny. The House has always said that the wishes of the islanders are paramount.
    As regards the proposals put forward by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East that referred to United Nations administrators, we are in the process of one negotiation through Mr. Haig, and it would be better not to get our wires crossed but to go steadily forward on that proposal. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said. We are trying to secure implementation of United Nations resolution No. 502, which is clear, but not so easy to implement. We also have rights on self-defence under article 51 of the charter.
    Mr. Foot: I wish the right hon. Gentleman well on his visit to the United States. However, I am not at all certain that it will not be necessary for further reports to be made to the House in the meantime. Does the right hon. Lady agree that as these matters are fully discussued in other places there should be constant and persistent reports to the House of Commons?
    The Prime Minister: There is no intention to hold up information in any way. The right hon. Gentleman, his right hon. Friends and Members have been extremely understanding of the fact that while negotiations are in progress it is difficult to give full details of them. I have indicated one important respect in which the Argentine proposals fall short of the objective of almost every hon. Member. I am here every Tuesday and Thursday, but we will make much fuller statements as often as we can.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her handling of the Falklands crisis with a combination of firmness and diplomacy has commanded the support of the vast majority of hon. Members? Is she further aware that her declaration this afternoon that despite the difficulties or shortcomings of the present proposals she will pursue resolutely a diplomatic solution to the crisis will also have the full support of most hon. Members?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. We remain committed to seeking a diplomatic solution if an acceptable one can possibly be found.
    Mr. David Steel: The Prime Minister knows that she has all-party support for her determination to secure the removal of the Argentine from the islands, to secure implementation of the Security Council resolution and reestablish conditions in which the future of the islanders can be determined in the long-term. However, will the right

    121
    hon. Lady refrain from ascribing to the House as a whole her phrase about the paramountcy of the wishes of the islanders? Does she agree that while their wishes and interests are uppermost in our minds, the long-term issue is a paramount one for the House to resolve?
    The Prime Minister: But the House, in exercising its duty, has always said, not only in these negotiations, but on many previous negotiations, that the wishes of the islanders are paramount. Many previous negotiations have been on the basis that the Argentines wanted what is called decolonisation—that has a particular meaning in United Nations terms—but they have not been able or willing to grant self-determination to the islanders.
    Mr. Newensasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Newens: Does the right hon. Lady agree that it would be a great advantage to involve the United Nations more deeply? That would relieve the United States of the necessity to act in what is called an evenhanded fashion. If the United States adopted the same economic sanctions and brings the same pressure to bear on the Argentine as Western European countries and the Commonwealth have done, is it not a fact that that would have a moral and economic impact and would make a peaceful and diplomatic solution much more likely?
    The Prime Minister: There is a clear mandatory resolution on record by the Security Council, which should have the force and effect of international law. At present it is not being implemented. Mr. Haig is trying to see that it is implemented. I believe that he is a very good and appropriate negotiator, but a negotiator must have credibility with both parties to the negotiations. It is in our interests that he should continue to have that credibility. However, we all know that the United States and this country are democracies.
    Sir John Eden: Are the Government still determined to use whatever means are at their disposal to secure the withdrawal of the Argentine forces from the islands and to re-establish British administration before any question of a longer-term solution is entered into?
    The Prime Minister: I confirm that that is our aim. Our strategy is to try to use diplomatic means, backed up by a task force, which continues steadily on its way.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: In view of the strong all-party support that the Government have rightly received during the past two and a half weeks, will the Prime Minister bear in mind that she will be expected to take future, I hope and believe, un-rushed decisions in an equally non-party way? Does she agree that that demands more than merely asking
    122
    the right hon. Gentleman the Paymaster General, as chairman of the Conservative Party, to a meeting of senior Ministers last night? Will the right hon. Lady seriously consider the proposition made by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells)?
    The Prime Minister: I must confess that I had expected a more fundamental point from the right hon. Gentleman. On the last occasion that this point was raised the Leader of the Opposition said, rightly, that he would not find that the appropriate way to proceed. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to see me—I am sure the same applies to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—about this matter I am always available to see hon. Members on these important issues.
    Mr. John Townendasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 20 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Townend: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the recent proposals, she has widespread support in the country for the stance she is taking to ensure that dictators cannot get by aggression what they fail to get by negotiation? In particular, in view of the Argentine record on human rights, does she agree that the suggestion to bring Argentine police in to the islands is not acceptable, because it could lead to the intimidation of the islanders?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has enunciated a very important principle, not only for the people of the Falkland Islands, but for the people of many other territories which may be invaded if unprovoked aggression in this case succeeded. As to the police, my hon. Friend knows that there were only two police officers on the islands—it was a very law abiding place—and we are very much aware of the record of the present junta in Argentina.

  BILL PRESENTED
    NORTHERN IRELAND
    Mr. Secretary Prior, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Whitelaw, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Sir Keith Joseph, Mr. Secretary Pym, Mr. Secretary Nott, Mr. Adam Butler, Mr. David Mitchell, Mr. John Patten, and Mr. Nicholas Scott presented a Bill to make new provision for the resumption of legislative and executive functions by the Northern Ireland Assembly and by persons responsible to it; to amend the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 1973; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 106].

Local Authority Tenants (Heating Charges)
3.31 pm
Mr. George Cunningham: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to confer on local authority tenants a right of access to accounts forming the basis of communal heating charges and a right to be consulted before such charges are fixed; and for purposes relating thereto.
The Bill would give to council tenants rights which Parliament has already given to tenants of private landlords and to tenants of housing associations. Under the Housing Act 1980, when a private landlord levies a charge for services provided to a tenant, such as a charge for communal heating, the tenant has a right to get information about the accounts on which the charge is based and a right to challenge the level of the charge as unreasonable in the courts. Council tenants have no such rights.
The rights of private tenants in more detail are as follows. The tenant can demand to have a summary of costs giving rise to a service charge, including a heating charge. He can then demand to see the accounts and receipts on which the charge is based. If he thinks that the charge is too high for the service provided, he can take the point to the county court, whose decision is binding on the landlord, or he can pay only what he thinks is reasonable and leave it to the landlord to take him to court. This is a package of extremely valuable rights which tenants can use to avoid being over-charged for heating and other services. Council tenants are, of course, given rights also under the 1980 Act, but not those I have just described relating to service or heating charges.
Local authorities are obliged to consult their tenants on matters of housing management, but charges for heating or other services are specifically excluded from the definition of housing management by section 42(3) of the Act.
If it is argued that the mere fact that a local authority is an elected body should make it unnecessary to give council tenants the same rights as private tenants, I would point out that elected bodies are sometimes guilty of action just as high-handed and unfair as private landlords.
A more serious argument would be that section 159 of the Local Government Act 1972 gives everyone a right of access to accounts, including bills, vouchers and receipts, of a local authority. To that, the answer is that without any obligation on the authority to provide a summary of the costs specifically relating to a heating charge, no member of the public could possibly identify and draw together the relevant information unless he was a chartered accountant and district auditor who had missed his profession. Even if he did manage to dig out all the information explaining the level of the charge, he would still not have the right the private tenant has to challenge the reasonableness of it in the county court.
It is particularly wrong for Parliament to discriminate against council tenants on this matter, because those council tenants who have communal heating systems pay far more for their heating than anyone else would consider remotely reasonable.
In my Adjournment debate on 31 July last year, I showed that on average council tenants with communal heating systems pay about double what most others pay for
124
the same service. They pay double what the gas boards and the Department of Energy publish as normal costs. The difference is not explained by the fact that many communal systems use oil, whose price has overtaken that of gas. Even when using the same fuel, many communal systems cost tenants far more than systems with separate boilers in each house or flat under individual tenant control.
Some examples drawn from my own constituency are as follows. On the Packington Square estate, the charge in a three-bedroom maisonette is about £500 a year. For that one gets hot water and space heating in only the sitting room, dining room and hall—no heating in any of the bedrooms.
In Jessop Court, one pays about the same for a three-bedroom maisonette, and besides hot water all one gets is hot air from one central heating column blown into the sitting room, the hall and the kitchen. Few people, of course, want extra heating in their kitchens, but the architects who have over the years treated council tenants as guinea pigs for their diseased imaginations are unaware of that fact.
On the Golden Lane estate belonging to the City of London, the occupant of a bedsitter now pays about £370 for hot water and one space heating outlet.
On the Delhi-Outram estate, a modern and efficient system with heating in every room costs tenants £680 a year for eight radiators and hot water.
Why are the charges so much higher than in individually controlled systems? It is partly because the systems are old, partly because they are inefficiently serviced, partly because the efficient systems must subsidise the inefficient ones and partly because with most communal systems the tenant either has no control of the system at all or, if he can turn it off, he gets no financial gain from doing so. So, even if the house is unoccupied all day while everyone is out at work, the tenant cannot save money by turning the heating off.
Where the systems provide only partial heating, tenants must supplement, usually with forms of heating such as electric fires which are particularly expensive, so they lose all round. When the systems break down, as they not infrequently do, it is the devil's own job to screw any refund at all out of a local authority.
The whole situation begs for some central body to take an interest and to do some central research. One would think that with energy saving so much in the air, the Department of the Environment would at least be prepared to collect some sample figures throughout the country to see just how big the problem is and what we might do about it. But two successive Department of the Environment Ministers have refused my request to do exactly that, and the Department of Energy seems to be doing no more about it. I still hope that it will summon up the energy to reply to a recent letter from me on the subject.
But even if those Departments took the interest that they should take, there would still be a need for the Bill I am proposing. Tenants faced with bills double the size of what they should be ought to have a right to get at the costs behind them and ought to be able to challenge the reasonableness of the charge in the courts just as private tenants can. My Bill would give them the right to have a summary of the calculations behind the charge, just like

125
a private tenant; the right to see the books, just like a private tenant; and the right to challenge the charge as unreasonable in the county court, just like a private tenant.
It is worth pointing out that any council tenant who buys the leasehold of his flat under the right-to-buy legislation and who has a communual heating system will have the rights of a private tenant with regard to a heating charge. He will have the rights, but the person next door who continues to be a weekly tenant will not have those same rights.
If the Government mean what they say about enfranchising the council tenant, they will accept this proposal in principle. I shall be happy to negotiate with the Government on the exact drafting of the Bill, which might present some minor difficulties.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. George Cunningham, Mr. David Alton, Mr. W. Benyon, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. John Cartwright, Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann, Mr. Christopher Price and Mr. Phillip Whitehead.

LOCAL AUTHORITY TENANTS (HEATING CHARGES)
Mr. George Cunningham accordingly presented a Bill to confer on local authority tenants a right of access to accounts forming the basis of communal heating charges and a right to be consulted before such charges are fixed; and for purposes relating thereto: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 109.]

Employment Bill (Allocation of Time)
3.41 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Bitten): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the bill:
Committee
1. — (1) The Standing Committee to which the Bib is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 29th April 1982.
(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 29th April may continue until Eleven p.m., whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 30th April 1982.
Report and Third Reading
2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted clays and shall be brought to a conclusion at Seven o'clock on the second of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 43 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.
Procedure in Standing Committee
3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatiory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.
Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
Dilatory Motions
6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
Extra time on allotted days
7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion fen the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.
Private business
8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.
Conclusion of proceedings
9. —(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
Supplemental orders
10. — (1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
Saving
11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—
128

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or

(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal
12. — (1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
Interpretation
13. In this Order—

"allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has ben agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;

"the Bill" means the Employment Bill;

"Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;

"Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

No Leader of the House would wish to make his first essay in debate on this sort of topic. I realise that the conciliatory qualities that are normally supposed to touch, however lightly, the Leader of the House cannot be much in evidence this afternoon. We all play many roles in our time. As Leader of the House I have to play a role of moving timetable motions as well as, I hope, taking part in other more congenial parliamentary occasions.
Having said that—I feel that it is a ritual that is required of me—my sense of the traditions of the House tells me that timetable motions are almost as integral a part of this assembly as the Chair itself. If I wanted any reassurance, I would have only to turn to the Leader of the Opposition, who has kindly remained in the Chamber. Doubtless a sense of nostalgia brings him here to hear the House deal with a timetable motion on employment legislation. On that great day, 20 July 1976, the right hon. Gentleman managed to bag five timetable motions in one wide-ranging grapeshot. That remains a record. The right hon. Gentleman's unbridled enthusiasm worries me. Surely a man of such fastidious concern as the right hon. Gentleman should be one of the first deeply to reflect upon Talleyrand's dictum, "Pas trop de zéle". However, on 20 July 1976 there was practically nothing that was too radical or too sweeping for him. Given that precedent, I do not stand before the House with any penitential sheet.
I shall detain the House but briefly. I am aware that a number of hon. Members wish to make speeches on this important occasion. However, I shall draw the attention of the House to three matters. The first is that, in a sense, the subject of the great debate is the Employment Bill. The second is the experience of the Bill in Committee. The third, and most important, concerns the proposals in the motion that we are formally debating.
The subject before us is trade union legislation. The Bill addresses itself to one of the central items of debate in the democratic procedures of the House and the country: what is to be the appropriate legal framework which will provide a balance between trade union immunities and privileges and trade unions' legal obligations? There is

129
nothing startling or new about addressing oneself to that principle. It has featured in legislation from time to time over the past few years.
Whenever I want guidance on these topics I turn to the Leader of the Opposition for my inspiration. Admittedly, one has to go back to the days when, if there was a strong light behind him, he could be considered almost a radical. I refer to the days when, as managing director of Tribune, he became engaged in one of those fraternal dialogues with the late Arthur Deakin. On one such occasion he placed the following on record:
"Trade union leaders are not a special breed of humanity, always to be shielded from the rough breezes of democracy, rare birds to be protected by special game laws."
I note that the right hon. Gentleman cheers. I am glad that the same robust sentiments that were expressed a couple of decades ago still beat within his breast. That is an encouragement to us all.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: In the halcyon days to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, he will note that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was talking about trade union leaders. The Bill that is the subject of this motion is not about hamstringing trade union leaders. Its purpose is to attack the rights of 12 million trade unionists. There is no conflict on the Labour Benches with what my right hon. Friend said many years ago.
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) does his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition a disservice by suggesting that he can defend him rather better than the right hon. Gentleman can defend himself, and does so more disastrously by suggesting that the power of trade union leaders does not rest upon the power of the bodies that they lead. The privileges, immunities and effectiveness of the trade unions invest in the leaders of those organisations the very real power that they have in today's society.
The Bill that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment introduced not so very long ago is a measure that touches upon matters of controversy. That is perfectly understandable. It touches upon the closed shop, the immunity of trade union funds and the determination of a trades dispute.
Mr. Giles Radice: Touches upon?
Mr. Biffen: I must be very gentle in responding to the interjection of my pair, the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice), who said "Touches upon?", as though I were guilty of some disgraceful underplaying or of plundering the English language of all its meaning. However, on Second Reading my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment said:
"`The Bill … is a modest measure, in both size and purpose."—[Official Report, 8 February 1982; Vol. 17, c. 738.]
Mr. Ian Mikardo: Rubbish.
Mr. Biffen: The violence of the reaction does not tell us anything about the modesty of the measure. However, it tells us something about the mental attitudes of those who have enjoyed privileges over the decades and who are horrified at the thought that anyone might question their enjoyment of those privileges.
We have had early warning that the Bill would be trial by verbiage. The sittings motion and order of consideration—admittedly, they were two approaches—were considered for over four hours. Clause
130
1 and schedule 1 were discussed for 36¼ hours, while discussion on clause 2 continued for 37½ hours. Then something happened. I am not entirely clear what happened, even after a close study of the manuscripts, but clause 3 took only 4¾ hours. However, a fairly good record was being maintained. So much so that clause 4 was eventually secured in slightly more than 10¾ hours. This morning there was suddenly a burst of speed and clause 5 was obtained in one hour.
Sir Anthony Fell: Breathtaking.
Mr. Harold Walker: Clause 3 was dealt with quickly for two reasons. First, the Chairman refused to allow a debate on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. Secondly, and more important, none of us, including the Minister, could understand the clause.
Mr. Biffen: There are important conclusions to be drawn from that intervention. However, the proceedings in Committee have reflected the conduct of parliamentary opposition on a more generous and extended scale than any Government could reasonably contemplate given their commitment to the securing of their business.
I approach this matter in a fairly charitable mood as I know that there is a certain other worldliness about debates on timetable motions. Before the debate is over, we shall be knee-deep in tears of anger and remorse, but everyone knows perfectly well that when Governments face difficulty in securing their legislation there comes a point when they must strike a balance and secure reasonable consideration of immportant outstanding aspects of the legislation.
Before I leave the subject of the length of time spent on the Bill, an accolade or two should be given out of sheer puzzlement at the sustained loquaciousness of certain Opposition Members. I am afraid that I shall have to disapoint the hon. Members for Bethnal Green arid Bow (Mr. Mikardo) and Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton). They are old hands at this, but the leading contestant is a newcomer who shows great promise. I refer to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), who will no doubt be recruited to take part in many future debates on these matters.
Mr. Stan Crowther: I have looked again at the figures for the number of hours spent on the Bill, and I believe that the right hon. Gentleman does us an injustice. Adding up the figures that he gave, I make the total just under 60 hours. I do not wish to make the right hon. Gentleman's case for him, but I am sure that the Bill has been in Committee for longer than that. If his figures were right, we should not have been doing our job.
Mr. Biffen: That was simply the characteristic deployment of my case by understatement. I am happy to be corrected and to hear that the verbosity was on a scale beyond even what I have suggested.
Important issues remain to be debated. For instance, there is the "union labour only" requirement in contracts, which is an oblique form of closed shop. That falls to be considered in clauses 10 and 11. The bringing of immunities of trade union funds into line with the immunities of trade union officials is dealt with in clauses 12 to 14. The definition of a trades dispute and its consequential impact on immunities is dealt with in clause 15.

131
The Bill and the consideration of those matters must not be lost in a quagmire of verbosity. That is the reason for the proposals before us today.
The purpose of the motion is to ensure that the passage of the Bill is expedited so that the remaining important clauses can be properly debated. Under paragrph 3 of the motion, it will be for the Business Sub-Committee to determine the number of sittings between now and 29 April, when the Bill must be reported to the House.
Mr. Cyril Smith: Having had the pleasure of serving with the right hon. Gentleman on the Procedure Committee in years past, I ask him seriously to consider for the future the possibility of introducing the kind of timetable now before us at the commencement of a Bill's passage through the House, rather than after the Committee has wasted perhaps not all but a great deal of the first 100 hours of debate on the Bill? As Leader of the House, will he seriously consider the possibility of timetabling Bills in future?
Mr. Biffen: I note what the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) has said. I also note that this morning The Times—the house organ of the Social Democratic Party—carried an article in which the hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) makes a broadly similar point. I hope that the hon. Member for Rochdale will acquit me of any discourtesy when I say that this is a fairly substantial sidewind, even for him to suggest, in a fairly narrow debate of this kind. He is, of course, right that we should always be attendant upon our procedures and consider ways in which they might be improved. Nevertheless, I must say straight away that what he has suggested en passant will not immediately commend itself unreservedly to all quarters of the House.
Mr. Cyril Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Committee on the Bill on 9 March, as reported at col. 176 of the Official Report, I pleaded for just such a timetable for the Bill?
Mr. Biffen: Yes, indeed; and I am sure that when other opportunities arise to debate the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised he will be able to use that as evidence to sustain his case.
The Government hope that the present four sittings a week will be retained until 29 April, when the motion will lead us to complete the Committee stage after that afternoon's sitting. The motion will therefore enable a further six sittings to take place before Report to deal with the remaining clauses and schedules. This means that the Committee will have had over 135 hours in which to debate the Bill. We believe that to be a reasonable allocation of time.
As is usual on these occasions, it is left to the Business Sub-Committee to determine the compartments into which the Bill should be divided and the times at which debate should close.
Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading have been allocated a day and a half, with consideration on the first day coming to a conclusion at midnight. The Business Sub-Committee will be able to decide how the time on Report is to be apportioned.
In conclusion, I believe that four considerations underpin the virtue of these proposals.
132
First, the proposals provide for measured debate on important outstanding topics.
Secondly, the motion will secure the passage of an important, albeit modest, piece of legislation that was outlined in the Queen's Speech and which the House has every reason to expect will be secured during this Session.
Thirdly—I add this as a consideration to appeal both to the Leader of the Opposition and to the hon. Member for Bolsover—this arrangement means that Third Reading may come tolerably soon and thus secure the tantalising spectacle of how the Social Democratic Party will actually vote on that occasion.
Mr. Skinner: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, it should be placed on record that on the last Tory Government's Industrial Relations Bill, which was debated on the Floor of the House at far greater length than this Bill, Liberal Members who then represented the "breaking the mould" type of politics into which the Social Democratic Party has now entered, voted for the Bill until Third Reading, when they voted against it. One of my hon. Friends aptly described their position as being like a rocking horse—all motion and no progress.
Mr. Biffen: That intervention shows how avid an alliance spotter such as the hon. Member for Bolsover must be to see the arrival of Third Reading. Therefore, I am sure that with his heart, if not his boots, he will be in the Lobby with us.
Fourthly, and finally, I revert to the ringing declamation of the Leader of the Opposition all those years ago. It is important for the House to demonstrate that there are no rare birds protected by special game laws. Today we are using a parliamentary device which in this instance will be a vindication of democratic parliamentary procedures against entrenched corporate interests.
3.59 pm
Mr. John Silkin: I regret that I congratulated the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House during business questions the other day. I should much rather have done it at this moment, on his speech today and particularly on the quality that I think every hon. Member of the House willingly accords to him—the quality of modesty.
It is remarkable how in about a fortnight or three weeks the right hon. Gentleman has already completely immersed himself in the other spring ritual of Governments. The first is the Budget and the other is the timetable motions that Governments of both parties introduce about this time. In the debate on the last timetable motion, when his predecessor was in office, I pointed out the remarkable coincidence that with a Conservative Government the timetable motions started on the first Monday in March and went on to a Tuesday in April. The right hon. Gentleman has got it absolutely right. This is the time that he should be introducing this motion.
The right hon. Gentleman is also engaged in the verbiage of the ritual of saying that the Government introduced the guillotine but regret that they have to do so. While plunging the knife in, they apologise to the House for having to do so. The Opposition also have their rituals. Our ritual lies in saying that fast progress has been made on the Bill. As far as I am concerned, the slower the progress that we can make on this Bill within the

133
parliamentary rules, the better, because this is the worst Bill that has ever come on the Floor of the House since the Industrial Relations Bill of 1971. The Bill surpasses that Act in both evil and in fear, contention and division in the House.
The right hon. Gentleman went fairly deeply into the principles of the Bill. I do not know why, as everybody knows what the Bill is about. However, as he has done so, the Opposition obviously have to keep pace and do the same. The first and most important principle is that trade union funds are attacked at such a level and in such a way as to endeavour to make trade unions impotent in our society. This is much worse than it was in 1971, when, as the House will recall, the architect of the Industrial Relations Bill was the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) who is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is no wonder that the keystone of the Industrial Relations Bill fell apart soon after it was passed.
This Bill is in more cunning hands. The architect is the same architect who flew an aircraft for many years and invariably reached his destination without crashing. He has clearly in mind what he wants—he wants to go back to the Taff Vale decision. That is what the Bill is about. Therefore, the phrase "trade dispute", for example, in the Bill has a much more restrictive meaning than the 1971 legislation. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of that.
The second part of what the right hon. Gentleman is doing is concerned with closed shops. He does not make them illegal; he is much cleverer than that. Instead he makes them virtually inoperable. The effect is much the same. Even clause 1, under which payment is made out of public funds to certain people dismissed between 1974 and 1980, is intended as a piece of deliberate shop window dressing, and a piece of deliberate destruction of trade union principles. All this is clear and has been well thought out and is one of the reasons why progress has not been as fast as the Government would wish.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) is right. His and my mathematics make the total time the Bill has taken so far near to 100 hours. If the Government had had their way it would have been one hour. That is what they would have wanted. It is interesting to note the effect of the guillotine. We can watch the effect of the guillotine on the previous Industrial Relations Bill.
In 1971 the result of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer's architecture was that the guillotine meant that although that Bill took longer than this, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) pointed out, the effect of it was that large sections were not the results of the measured debate about which the right hon. Gentleman is talking. Large parts were not discussed, with the result that when the Bill was enacted it was shown to be legislatively one of the worst Acts ever, and inoperable. That is what happens.
Another result was that in the complete year following the enactment of the Bill 24 or 25 million working days were lost through industrial disputes—the worst period of loss of industrial working hours and days since the general strike of 1926. The Secretary of State for Employment is out to make records—we know that. No doubt, if this Bill becomes law and remains in operation for a year—which is highly dubious because I doubt whether the Government
134
will exist a year from now—that 24 million lost working days will be equalled. Therefore, the last thing we shall have is measured debate.
The second point made by the right hon. Gentleman is clear and fair. Governments want their legislation. The Labour Government next year will want their legislation and will look to the right hon. Gentleman for full support in getting it through. [Interruption.] That will certainly happen next year.
The right hon. Gentleman's third reason in support of the guillotine tempts me. It will be interesting to see which way the Social Democrats vote—one way, two ways or three ways. If it were not for the fact that this Bill is disastrous from the point of view of uniting the country, the right hon. Gentleman would have completely convinced me. It is his most convincing argument.
Mr. Cyril Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman recall that since that vote on Second Reading the Social Democrats and the alliance have won the Hillhead by-election and now have 43 per cent. support in the opinion polls? Voting three ways cannot have done them a great deal of harm.
Mr. Silkin: I have a feeling that, with a few more by-elections and a few more three-way votes, the result may be different. We shall see.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Will my right hon. Friend take note that this morning in Committee, where there were only two Members of the alliance, which inhibited a three-way split, there was only a two-way split?
Mr. Silkin: I am not sure that the presence of two Members of the alliance necessarily inhibits a three-way split. On the contrary.
However, this argument was the most attractive and possibly the only argument that the right hon. Gentleman could give us. We shall resist the timetable motion and the Bill as it goes through the various stages. When the time comes the Bill will go into the dustbin of history as the 1971 Act did in its time.
I should like to end on a more serious note by pointing out what an opportunity has been missed. Whatever one may think of the Bill, it is one of the most divisive Bills that we have had. The right hon. Gentleman knows and paid tribute to this. At a time when the Government are talking about national unity, to bring in a Bill such as this, carry on with it and to see that it goes through against the wishes of the whole Opposition and at least half the population of the country, possibly more, is to miss an opportunity that the right hon. Gentleman, if he had thought about it, would have been the first to grasp.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Tebbit): I think that the right hon. Gentleman overstated the case when he said "against the wishes of' the whole Opposition". After all, the Government had a majority of 107 and that included several, or parts of several, of the Opposition parties.
Mr. Silkin: There is only one Opposition party, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. He had better get it clear in his mind, because a year from now, when he is sitting on the Opposition Benches, he may find himself sitting below the Gangway. I hope to tell him that, although there will be several opposition parties at that time, we shall recognise the Opposition.
4.10 pm
Mr. Reg Prentice: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his first speech in his capacity as Leader of the House. His appointment was popular throughout the House and all hon. Members wish him well. I follow that with a critical point. I do not think that my right hon. Friend need have been apologetic, in the sense that he seemed to be, when he said that he would have preferred to be speaking on a different motion in making his first appearance at the Dispatch Box as Leader of the House. I support guillotine motions. I think that there should be more of them and that they should take place earlier. I agree with the proposition of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) in his intervention. I should like to develop that argument in a moment.
The speech of the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) was typical of the exaggerated hysteria that has marked debate on this subject. It is an important subject. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of House that it is one of the central items of debate in our time. Hon. Members should be debating in depth and carefully the role of trade unions in our society. We should be discussing properly and seriously such matters as who pays the damages in cases where there has been an action outside the proper immunities of trade union action. We should be discussing carefully how workers can liberate themselves from the closed shop if they want to get out of it. There should be a reasoned debate. We are not getting it either from the TUC or from the Opposition Benches.
Mr. John Silkin: The right hon. Gentleman appears to think that I was being hysterical or slightly so. Will he not agree, when he considers the Bill that he so rigorously opposed from these Benches——
Mr. Skinner: Not rigorously.
Mr. Silkin: —that he pretended to oppose rigorously—that this Bill is infinitely worse from a trade union point of view?
Mr. Prentice: That is an example—it is one that I was going to quote—of the exaggeration in which the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends indulge. I was opposed to the Industrial Relations Act 1971. In retrospect, I am still opposed to it. I do not think that we can solve the problems of or improve industrial relations through a special court with the powers that it possessed, including the power to order standstill periods in disputes and the power to order unions to hold ballots of their members. The practical experience of the early 1970s showed that the legislation was wrong. This is a matter on which both sides of the House should reflect.
The document "In Place of Strife" in 1969 contained many of the proposals included in the Industrial Relations Act 1971. I believe that both political parties have learnt the lessons of those years. The present Government are not bringing forward a great blockbuster of an Act of that kind. In 1980, the Government produced a modest step to change the balance of industrial relations in certain ways. This is another modest step. I for one look forward to further steps on such matters as compulsory ballots before major strikes and compulsory ballots for the election of senior trade union officers.
I believe in strong, responsible and democratic trade unionism. I believe that the trade union movement of which I have been a member since leaving school is falling
136
short of the democratic standards that we are entitled to expect these days. It was a gross exaggeration to compare this measure with the Industrial Relations Act of the early 1970s. The right hon. Gentleman went further. He suggested that the objective of my right hon. Friends was to go back to the Taff Vale judgment. What illiterate nonsense that is. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to make statements of that kind, they should be backed by some reasoned arguments. What has been lacking in recent months has been reasoned arguments.
The Trades Union Congress has failed to make its case on this matter. The recent special conference was a nonevent, not simply because it was overshadowed by the Falklands crisis but because everyone, including the people who were participating, knew that they were not speaking on behalf of this country's trade unionists. I was interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman's statement that perhaps half the nation was against the Bill. In other words, perhaps half is for it. Perhaps half Britain's trade unionists are for it. If a representative number of rank and file trade unionists was to be gathered together in a room of this House—I mean the genuine rank and file in the widest sense—to discuss point by point the clauses of the Bill, it would be found that the Bill had the overwhelming support of those trade unionists.
Mr. Skinner: Not in the pits.
Mr. Prentice: The TUC is using such absurd tactics in denouncing not merely this Bill but so many aspects of Government policy that it robs itself of any credibility in the eyes of the public. This means that when the TUC has something worthwhile to say, it will not be listened to. That would be a pity. I want to see the TUC recovering some credibility in this country.
The Opposition have a duty sometimes to tell the TUC when it is wrong. As someone who, 10 years ago, sat on the Labour Front Bench as Shadow Secretary of State for Employment, I can say that I was prepared to tell the unions when they were wrong. I believe that this should happen now. What has happened on this Bill and in relation to so many matters is that the Shadow Cabinet decides to find out what the TUC wants it to say and then says it hour after hour, day after day and night after night. It never takes an independent judgment on any of these matters.
I wish to put the timetable motion in the context of the manner in which this House conducts its affairs. I have expressed myself in favour of more timetable motions. I have warned my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that I would try to bend his ear on this subject. I did so privately with both of his two predecessors, for whom I have the greatest respect. On this matter, however, they turned out to be almost as reactionary as Labour Leaders of the House over the years. In other words, they did not believe in modernising or updating our procedures.
I believe, nevertheless, that my right hon. Friend should initiate discussions to find out the views of hon. Members on the proposition that there should be an automatic timetabling motion immediately after Second Reading of every major Bill. Those consultations should not be conducted simply through the usual channels, which tend to become blocked so easily on such matters. The consultation should take place with Back Benchers on both sides of the House, not only those who like to speak

137
at length late at night but the majority who conduct themselves more modestly but who also have a valid view on these matters.
I have referred to previous Leaders of the House. The one episode in the career of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) to his credit in the 1970s is the fact that he introduced more guillotine motions than anyone occupying that position had previously done. I cannot think of many other things to his credit, but that certainly is. Our parliamentary procedures, in many ways, operate badly. They have been getting worse during the last decade and they will continue to get worse unless we are prepared to make radical changes.
The House of Commons sits twice as long as the second longest-sitting parliamentary assembly in Europe. The second longest sitting parliamentary assembly in Europe is the British House of Lords. This has been the case for many years. I believe that these excessive hours of sitting and time-wasting tactics in debate have reduced the quality of our debates and have reduced our influence on the affairs of our country. Responsibility lies mainly with successive Oppositions. I am not making a party point. I am merely saying that the extent to which Labour and Conservative Oppositions in turn have tried to make a virility symbol out of the way they can hold up Government business and keep Committees sitting late at night has got worse over the years.
Mr. Skinner: That is what they are supposed to do.
Mr. Prentice: Nothing of the sort. They are supposed to make a reasoned case against Government policy. That case is not advanced by wasting time. Indeed, the case becomes weaker because of the time-wasting.
Mr. Skinner: Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that one of the jobs of the Opposition is to obstruct, as he will find in all the textbooks on the British constitution? It is widely held that one of the reasons for Committees debating over a long period is that the passage of time itself is sometimes conducive to changing the nature of a Bill. The most important reason for opposing the short, sharp passage of Committee stages is that hon. Members should have time to reflect on what has happened and to see how it affects people, and so enable action to be taken inside the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman's short sharp ideas would ruin that deeply held philosophy.
Mr. Prentice: First, I am not suggesting short sharp Committee stages. I am suggesting that Committee stages should proceed on a timetable motion, which, I hope, would normally be agreed between both sides of the House. That would provide adequate time for debate, just as the motion before us provides adequate time for the remaining debates on the Bill. There is nothing short or sharp about what I am proposing.
Secondly, the idea that an Opposition can use parliamentary time as a political weapon seems to me completely out of date. Successive Governments have used the guillotine to get their main business through. Therefore, the effect of time-wasting is not to defeat a Government's main proposals but to squeeze out of our debates smaller and non-controversial measures—possibly Private Members' Bills, possibly minor Bills that Departments want to bring forward. Many people are
138
deprived of the benefits that can come from such minor legislation which could be dealt with if time was not wasted on measures of this kind.
Mr. Harold Walker: In case anyone is misled, the right hon. Gentleman should make it clear that he is not a member of the Standing Committee. I may be wrong, but to the best of my knowledge he has not sat in on any of our proceedings. Therefore, he is hardly in a position to judge the merits of debates in that Standing Committee. If Committee members are ready and willing to continue to debate and examine the Bill carefully, why should he complain? He is not losing by it at all.
Mr. Prentice: This is a motion for decision by the House. I agree that I have not sat on the Standing Committee, but I have read its proceedings. When the right hon. Gentleman intervenes, he knows that he is speaking not for the whole Committee, but for his own side.
Three major advantages would flow from the regular timetabling of Bills. First, it would put an end to the unhealthy and unnecessary business of excessively late sittings. At the moment, we sit excessively late. Sometimes both the House and its Committees sit all night. That is not a sensible way to do business. Members of the public say that we are foolish to conduct our business in that way, and they are right. When a Committee or the House sits all night we inflict work not merely on ourselves but on the police and other staff who have to do extra and unpredictable hours. We should have some thought for them.
Secondly, debates are better if time is limited. Arguments will be put more briefly and crisply. Hon. Members will not seek to talk just for the sake of talking. Such debates are likely to have a bigger influence on public opinion than those which take an excessive time.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I want to make a non-political point which I think the right hon. Gentleman will accept is true. Although the House is supposed to be fair, we all know that it is not. Some hon. Members are better treated than others. A Privy Councillor can be called when he wants, take part in a debate and walk out. He is not seen any more. Why should Privy Councillors further restrict Back Benchers, who are already restricted? The right hon. Gentleman knows that he has privileges above all others because his political antecedents give him privileges. He was born almost into the trade union movement, obtained a trade union job and went on the payroll——
Mr. Speaker: Order. That was a lengthy intervention.
Mr. Prentice: I was not born a Privy Councillor. I could give the House a different version of my career from the one that has just been heard. However, it would be unfair to take the time of the House on such matters. I am one of those Privy Councillors who do not address the House all that often. I agree that one should not abuse the privilege of being a Privy Councillor.
Thirdly, timetabled Bills would give Government Back Benchers a genuine chance to contribute to debates. Under our present arrangements time is taken mainly—I do not say exclusively—by Opposition speeches and ministerial replies. If no timetable motion has been passed, debates in Committee or on Report tend to be debates between the Opposition and Ministers. For understandable reasons the

139
Whips will always encourage Government Back Benchers either not to speak at all or speak briefly. Government Back Benchers are then reduced to waiting for the bell to ring. Their role is that of Lobby fodder rather than that of legislators. That is not right. That point may appeal more to Conservative Members than to the Opposition. However, if the right hon. Member for Deptford is correct in his claim that the Opposition will win the next election, they should have a view on this.
This is one of many changes—there are others—that should be made in our parliamentary procedure. It should be made partly for our own sake, partly for the sake of our staff, but, most important of all, so that we can give better service to those we represent by the quality of our debates.
4.26 pm
Mr. Cyril Smith: I am sorry that the first motion that the Leader of the House has to move in his new capacity is part of the annual charade that the House of Commons allows itself to be subjected to. I am sorry too, if I may say so, that within three weeks he appears to have steeped himself so deeply in the office. When I read of his appointment with great pleasure, I thought "I know this man. I have sat next to him in Committee. I have listened to his points of view as expressed in the Procedure Committee. At last we have a radical as Leader of the House who will attempt to change our procedures and get a bit of sense into them." I thought that he would put forward new ideas and proposals. However, instead of that, within three weeks, we find that he is steeped in the old routine and that there will not be much change. I see that he nods his head in approval. That is a great shame.
I sincerely believe that the time for change in the procedure of the House has long since passed. I agree with much of what the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) said. There is a need for a little bit of order in our procedure, especially in the Committee stages of Bills.
When I intervened, the Minister tried to say that I was following some SDP line as reported in The Times this morning. He should get the order of priority correct. [Interruption.] He said that he had read the reports of the proceedings of the Committee. He may be interested to know that on 9 March, at the sixth sitting of the Committee, I pleaded for a timetable motion for the Bill so that we might properly discuss each clause.
Mr. Biffen: If it would help the hon. Gentleman, may I say that I regard the hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) as very much his junior in these matters?
Mr. Smith: That may help me, but I am not sure what it does for the hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant).
I said in Committee on that day that it was obvious that we would finish up with a guillotine on the Bill. The right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) asked me how I knew that there was to be a guillotine, and whether I was privy to some information that he did not have. I replied that experience showed that we would end up with a guillotine motion. Five or six weeks later we are faced by a guillotine motion. That motion has been moved after spending 90 hours on the Bill and after debating five clauses. One of those clauses went through in an hour this morning. As a result of the guillotine motion we have been left with three days in which to discuss the rest of the Bill.
140
One of the remaining clauses is far more important to the trade union movement than all the clauses so far discussed. I refer to the clause on trade union immunities. We have not yet reached it and it will now be limited because there was no proper timetable motion at the beginning. Instead of having a proper timetable motion at the beginning we have gone through the idiotic charade of trying to carry on talking while knowing that the object of the exercise is to force the Government to introduce a guillotine motion. When that has been done we can all say that the guillotine motion is a disgrace and that the Government have not allowed sufficient discussion on the Bill.
Such speeches will not be made in the House. There may be the odd comment in the House for the sake of putting things on the record, but the speeches will be made at TUC meetings up and down the country. The object of the exercise is to force the Government to introduce a guillotine motion so that hon. Members can go to TUC and to trade union meetings round the country and tell their comrades that the Government have made a disgraceful, vicious attack on the trade union movement and have not even allowed us the time to debate the Bill in the House. It will be said that they introduced the guillotine motion to cut the amount of time available for debate.
I do not criticise the Opposition, because in Opposition the Conservative Party did the same thing. The same stupid, idiotic charade is played out from Government to Government. During the Committee's sixth sitting I said that there should be a timetable when Bills start their passage through the House. I called not for a rigid but for a flexibile timetable. If a Committee then found that it needed a little longer on one clause than initially agreed, there would be sufficient flexibility within the timetable—a matter of two or three weeks—to spend a little more time on one clause and to shorten the time available to discuss another clause. That is the sensible way to conduct business.
The problem is that Oppositions have only the weapon of time.
Mr. Skinner: That is right.
Mr. Smith: When the Leader of the House was a member of the Procedure Committee we took evidence from the Chief Whips of both parties. Both of them remarked—without knowing that the other had said the same thing—that the only weapon that Oppositions had was that of time. That made a deep impression on me. The party political system operated in this House is to blame. There have already been references to the SDP and its vote on Second Reading. It is considered almost hilarious and certainly politically unwise for two members of the same party to vote differently. That is deemed nonsense and stupid.
This afternoon, the Social Democratic Party was taken to task by both Front Benches. However, it is precisely because hon. Members do not vote differently that the Opposition's only weapon is that of time. Hon. Members belonging to the party in office always vote for the Government unless they are sure that the Government will not be defeated if they do not vote for them.
Mr. Skinner rose——
Mr. Smith: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman because I know what he will say. He will say that he often

141
voted against the Labour Government. Of course he did, but not when he thought that they would be defeated. I have seen the hon. Gentleman sit here during a Division, counting how many Opposition Members abstained and how many went into the Lobby. He did that before he decided whether to vote against his Government.
Mr. Skinner: The record shows that on at least half a dozen occasions I voted against the Labour Government's policies. However, 1 voted in line with Labour Party policy, when, as a result, the Government were defeated on all those issues. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is wrong about the way in which I voted. I also voted a total of 154 times in that six-year period against the Government Whip. Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that the Scotland and Wales Bill was defeated in the House not because there were special arrangements or because a guillotine was introduced beforehand but partly because hon. Members—irrespective of party—who had often voted against Government policy decided to chuck the Bill into the dustbin?
Mr. Smith: The House was not prepared to go along with the guillotine motion. Because the Government knew that they could not succeed with a guillotine motion, they abandoned the Bill. [Interruption.] That is the truth. The hon. Member for Bolsover and other hon. Members did not talk out the Bill. The Government were well aware that a guillotine motion would not be accepted.
Mr. Skinner: We would have voted against it.
Mr. Smith: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman said that he had voted six times or 154 times against the Government. [Interruption.] However, the Labour Government were defeated only once on a vote of no confidence. Therefore, the hon. Member for Bolsover voted against his Government only when he was sure that they would not be defeated, or when he was sure that defeat would not result in them having to go to the country for a new mandate. [Interruption.] He is not the great champion of democracy that he claims to be.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must take his medicine as well as he gives it. He must listen when other hon. Members are speaking.
Mr. Skinner: I was only answering.
Mr. Smith: I give way to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker).
Mr. Bill Walker: I am not sure whether I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly. In the unlikely event of a Social Democratic/Liberal Government, will he retain the right to vote against that Government as he wishes, even if it brings them down?
Mr. Smith: Of course I reserve that right. Governments should not resign merely because they are defeated. However, they should resign when they are defeated on votes of confidence. If, as a result of defeat, the Government consider that confidence in them is at stake, they should be required to come to the House the next day and to seek a vote of confidence. If they lose that vote, they should resign. I do not take the view that, because a Government lose a Bill or a vote, they should automatically go to the country.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I wish to help the hon. Gentleman. He should have said that he and the Liberal Party brought
142
the Conservative Party to office. The Liberals joined the Labour Party in the pact, but then reneged and voted the Labour Party out. They got the Tories in at the general election.
Mr. Smith: The truth of the hon. Gentleman's statement depends on one's view of history. I could equally argue that the Liberal Party kept the Labour Government in power. However, I suspect that such discussion will not get us very far. However, I hope that I have at least given the Leader of the House a hint that there is the possibility of a good debate on that subject. I hope that he will not lose sight of that.
On Second Reading I voted in favour of the Bill and advised my colleagues to do the same. I made it clear that it was not the Bill that I would have introduced then. It is on record that I said that if the Liberal Party had introduced a Bill, it would have dealt with subjects such as employee participation, industrial democracy, profit-sharing and the legalisation of works councils.
I then went on to say that none the less we were not the Government, that the Conservatives were the Government and that this was their Bill. I hope that I shall always judge a Bill on its merit and not on the source from which it comes. Judging the Employment Bill on its merit. I said that I intended to vote for it. I am sorry to disappoint the Opposition Front Bench but I shall continue to support the Government on the Bill and I shall vote for it on Third Reading. What my colleagues do will be for them to decide but there is no question about what I shall do.
The Bill is as much concerned with individual liberty as with trade unionism. I am concerned about individual liberty. The closed shop is obnoxious and anything I can do to help cripple it is worth doing. No one—not even the Liberal Party Council or anyone else—will change my view on the closed shop. I shall continue to support the Bill. I think I can claim in modesty that I have supported it in Committee. [Interruption.] As I indicated earlier, it is a question of what view one takes of these things. There are those who see their leaders as bosses. There are others who see them as people to be influenced. The House may judge for itself as to which category I fall into. If hon. Members are in any doubt, my right hon. Friend I he Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) could tell them.
In regard to the motion before the House, since it is not a Bill that I would have been moving and since I vote for the Bill simply on merit, full stop, it is no part of my job to assist it procedurally through the House. In any case I do not like guillotine motions. Therefore, normally—[Interruption.] I am sorry that hon. Members find it difficult to understand. There is a great difference between a timetable motion that is introduced at the commencement of a Bill's passage and a guillotine motion. The object of the latter is to prevent discussion, whereas the object of a timetable motion is to enable discussion to take place rationally and properly over an agreed period.
This is not a motion to approve or disapprove of the Bill. It is a motion to assist the Government procedurally to get the Bill through the House. It is not my Bill; it is their Bill. It is their job, therefore, procedurally to gel it through the House. While they are getting it through I shall vote for the Bill, but I am not prepared to vote for a guillotine that is merely a procedural mechanism to get the Bill through. I shall therefore vote against the motion before the House.

143
I was genuinely surprised at the shortness of time that is being allowed for the remainder of the Bill. I was staggered when I saw that the Standing Committee is to report to the House by 29 April. I would have thought that it would have been the middle of May or the third or fourth week of that month. That is a secondary matter. It is not my principal reason for voting against the motion. It is a secondary reason and confirms my decision to vote against the motion.
4.44 pm
Mr. Don Dixon: One of the good things about the Bill taking so long in Standing Committee is that it gives not only Back Benchers but Ministers an opportunity to understand it. During the Committee stage we have had revelations from the various Ministers who are representing the Government. During all the time that has been spent on the Bill in Committee we have not discussed industrial relations, because the Bill has nothing to do with industrial relations.
I thank the Leader of the House for his comments about me in his opening remarks. I do not know whether he was trying to put the boot in by suggesting that I serve on Standing Committees. There are many other Members on the Standing Committee who have worked harder than I have on the Employment Bill.
The guillotine is unnecessary. If there has been delay it has been because of the attitude of the Government Front Bench. We have been trying to get questions answered, but we get different answers. The Leader of the House mentioned that we have spent 36¼ hours on clause 1 and schedule 1. This is because there was no prior consultation. We debated for so long and asked many questions because we wanted to find out the attitude of various organisations. At the first sitting of the Standing Committee my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) moved an amendment that clause 1 be taken after clause 18. Had the Government accepted that, it would have given us the chance to debate the important clauses that have been referred to by hon. Members.
Some of the provisions of the Bill will have fundamental repercussions on the trade union movement. When I talk about the trade union movement I mean trade unionists who go to work and hold a trade union card, and not the dozen general secretaries that some people refer to as the trade union movement. The Bill will hit trade unionists. That is why we are concerned that all clauses should be properly debated in Standing Committee.
No one knew about clause 1 and schedule 1 until the Bill was printed. The clause gives the Secretary of State for Employment not only retrospective power but retroactive discretion to pay out £2 million to those free riders who lost their jobs between 1974 and 1980 because they would not pay their union dues. The clause gives the Secretary of State for Employment the right to appoint assessors, but it also gives him the right not to take any notice of those assessors. There will be no tribunals to consider the cases of the individuals who lost their jobs through not paying their union contributions between those years. It means that one individual will have the right to pay out £2 million of taxpayers' money at a time when hundreds of thousands of people are being thrown out of work because of Government policy. That is why hon.
144
Members who serve on the Standing Committee were so concerned and debated the clause for so long. I hope that hon. Members will remember this when they talk about the length of time that has been taken on various clauses.
Clause 1 is completely unnecessary. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) said, it was the icing on the cake. This money is to be paid to people who were martyrs during the period from 1974 to the Employment Act 1980. This is why we spent so long, rightly so, on questioning the clause.
When my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) pressed the Minister to find out how they arrived at the sum of £2 million, we were eventually circulated with a photocopy of a newspaper article. The newspaper gave the figure of about 400 people, and a little mathematics showed that the compensation worked out at about £5,000 each. When further questions were asked, we learnt that, just as the official receiver appeared after the 1971 Act, a fellow called Professor Gennard was doing a great deal of research. Then we were told that about 325 people would qualify for the bonanza of £2 million, or £5,000 to £7,000 apiece, when the Secretary of State eventually received the retroactive discretion.
Further questions were asked, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster was told that the Ferrybridge Six were not included in the 325, so that reduced the number to 319. The need for that questioning is the reason why it took so long to deal with clause 1 and schedule 1. If the Government wanted progress on the Bill, they should have accepted my right hon. Friend's amendment at the first sitting to discuss clause 1 after clause 18, and then we should have had a debate on the important clauses to which hon. Members have referred.
For example, clause 10, on trade union labour only, is an important clause, bringing back lump labour on most construction sites. That is the sort of thing that Labour Members and trade unionists oppose. They will not have the clock turned back and have safety arrangements thrown out of the window with the reintroduction of lump labour. We should have dearly loved to debate the clause at length and ask the Government some important questions.
The £2 million that the Secretary of State will dole out under clause 1 will cost £250,000 to administer. In addition to being a Member of Parliament I am a local councillor. My council is suffering Government cuts, and the whole of local government is told to cut back on administration. We have to cut the numbers of home helps, dinner ladies and so on, but the Government can pay £250,000 to meet the administration costs of doling out £2 million to those who were free riders between 1974 and 1980. That is one of the reasons why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I oppose clause 1.
Another important clause is clause 15, which is also relevant to today's debate. An article in my local newspaper, the Evening Chronicle, of 16 April, under the heading
"Argentine spares ban",
stated:
"A consignment of spares for an Argentinian ship has been `frozen' by North-East marine engineering workers.
Men at the Killingworth factory of the British Shipbuilders company, K. & L. Marine Equipment, said they would not handle the components ordered for the repair of the vessel.
The spares were due to be flown out to the vessel from Newcastle Airport.

145
Mr. Frank Arthurs, an official of the Boilermakers Society, said: 'The lads were concerned about the order. We can't have spare parts going to Argentina to repair a ship which could be used as a supply ship against us."'
On Second Reading my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) said that the Bill would stop any action that trade unionists wished to take in support of the Solidarity movement in Poland. If the Bill were on the statute book those boilermakers who are trying to freeze parts that could be used in a ship employed against our Navy would be breaking the law. That is the sort of nonsense that appears in the Bill. It is the reason why my right hon. and hon. Friends have opposed it at every stage.
Mr. Tebbit: It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman would be a little more accurate. Such a strike would not break the law.
Mr. Dixon: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me how such a strike would not break the law if the Bill were on the statute book, in view of clause 15 with regard to disputes outside the United Kingdom?
Mr. Tebbit: I am only too delighted to do so, because that will help to clear up one or two matters that arise particularly because of the loose use of words, which has become commonplace. There is no law against such a strike, but political strikes are already unprotected. That is why the strike on the so-called day of action was an unprotected dispute.
Mr. Leighton: A political strike is clearly different, which is why the day of action was unlawful. On that occasion an injunction was issued against certain newspaper unions. They ignored it, and nothing was done about it. My hon. Friend is referring to something different—to a dispute originating from outside the United Kingdom.
Mr. Mikardo: Not a quarrel with the employer.
Mr. Leighton: No. The matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) is referring would fall foul of the provisions that the Secretary of State is introducing. They are two quite different matters.
Mr. Dixon: I am grateful for that intervention. I hope that the Secretary of State will bear in mind what has been said and give an explanation when he winds up.
Mr. Tebbit: I am desperately anxious to try to clear up the matter now. Political strikes, whether about matters at home or abroad, have never been protected. No proposal in my Bill would create a situation in which a striker was breaking the law. His actions might not be protected in law, but he would not be breaking the law. Unless the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends can understand the difference between the two they will have wasted their 94¼ hours in Committee.
Mr. Dixon: None of my right hon. and hon. Friends need any lessons from the right hon. Gentleman or any other Minister about understanding the Bill. As time goes on not only Back Benchers but Ministers in the Committee become confused. Ministers do not seem to understand the Bill either.
Mr. Mikardo: Perhaps one reason why the Secretary of State does not fully understand his own Bill, as he showed once or twice in Committee, is that he has spent only a tiny proportion of those 94¼ hours in the Committee.
Mr. Dixon: After listening to the Secretary of State's intervention I do not know whether that is an advantage or a disadvantage.
Clause 15 excludes disputes on matters occurring outside the United Kingdom. Who determines whether a dispute is political? Is it the Secretary of State, the courts or Lord Denning? Does a person have to secure a judicial judgment on whether his immediate reaction to events is lawful?
Throughout the debate so far the only examples from the Government Front Bench to justify the clauses that we have debated are the three railwaymen who went to Strasbourg, Joanna Harris from Sandwell and the live dinner ladies from Walsall. Every argument that has been put forward by the Government has appertained to those cases. The Government argue that these clauses appertain to those who have lost their jobs not only through the closed shop but through trade union activity, but no one has given an example of someone who has lost his job through trade union activity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) could give a case of someone who lost his job through trade union activities—that person is me. I lost my job in Hawthorn Leslie's shipyard because of trade union activities. The Secretary of State talks about secondary picketing. I could not get a job in that industry for almost six months. Employers do not need to dash around in cars and stand at the gates to stop anyone from going into various factories or shipyards. All they need to do is to telephone and say that in no circumstances should a factory or shipyard employ that man. That is victimisation.
Trying to prove victimisation or trying to prove that someone has lost his job because of trade union activities is almost impossible. It is a simple matter to prove that one has lost a job because a closed shop or a union membership agreement was in operation. However, trying to prove that a trade union member lost his job because of trade union activities is almost impossible. If there has been procrastination in Committee, and if it has stopped the Bill reaching the statute book for 24 hours, it has been worthwhile. We have been told by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) that he was surprised at the speed of the introduction of the guillotine motion. He also said that Labour Members had been travelling the country making speeches about the guillotine motion. The Government did not introduce the guillotine motion earlier because they did not want to do so before the Wembley conference of trade unions. If the Government were sincere in their allegation of procrastination they would have introduced the guillotine motion before that conference.
My hon. Friends and I have tried to get some answers and we have endeavoured to see that this legislation does not reach the statute book.
5.2 pm
Mr. Marcus Fox: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the way in which he introduced the timetable motion. As with my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice), his penitential mood was unnecessary. His reticence is perhaps one of his saving graces, but in this case justice is on his side. Those of us who have sat on the Government Benches in Committee can confirm that the charge of filibustering would not go amiss on this occasion. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther), who has

147
made a number of useful contributions, is way out when he talks of only 60 hours having been taken in Committee. It appears to me that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) has taken about 60 hours, never mind other members of the Committee.
Mr. Crowther: The hon. Member has misunderstood what I said. I was disputing the estimate of the Leader of the House that we had sat for only 60 hours. I was not suggesting that we had; I was saying that we had sat for much longer.
Mr. Fox: Perhaps my hearing is at fault. I understood the Leader of the House to say that the figure was 90 hours.
Mr. Mikardo rose——
Mr. Fox: The hon. Member must have patience.
During the long sittings it has been possible for one or two of us to take note of how the hours have been spent. The sittings motion and the order for consideration took four and a quarter hours. Clause 1 took 19¼ hours and schedule 1 took 17 hours, making 36¼ hours. Clause 2 took 37½ hours, clause 3 took 4¾ hours and clause 4 took 10¾ hours. This morning, clause 5 took one hour. That makes a total of almost 95 hours. I am glad that the hon. Member has not tried to query our figures.
Mr. Mikardo: I now know what the hon. Gentleman was doing during Committee. I realise now that the reason why he could not speak was that he was looking at his watch all the time. The hon. Member said that the term "filibustering" could be applied to what went on. What was said in those debates was either in order and relevant or it was not. If it was in order and relevant, the suggestion of filibustering is nonsense.
If what was said was out of order or irrelevant the hon. Gentleman is casting a grave aspersion on the competence of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes). I thought that she chaired the Committee brilliantly. Why does the hon. Member think that the Chairman permitted debate on matters which were irrelevant and out of order, and why did he not say so and challenge the hon. Lady at the time?
Mr. Fox: I shall deal in my own time with the point about what I was doing in Committee. I should be the last person to question the capability of the hon. Lady who chaired the Committee. In all fairness, I should say she had occasion to remind Labour Members to come to order. In my part of the country, Yorkshire, a lot of what was said would be called tedious repetition. I leave it at that.
Mr. Mikardo rose——
Mr. Fox: The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) said that the guillotine was not necessary, and that the Committee had made fast progress. I wish that he had been sitting on the Committee, because I am certain that if he had he would not have said that. We were grateful to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment with us on many occasions and we valued his contributions.
The right hon. Member for Deptford referred to delay and to national unity. He even said that the Bill would have a disastrous effect on the unity of the country. Labour Members should understand that many people believe that the unions have exactly that effect. We are having to
148
introduce such legislation to try to prevent the disharmony in industrial relations which has gone on for far too long. We do not need lectures from the right hon. Member for Deptford about uniting the country.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, with his wealth of experience on both sides of the House, is entirely right. The right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) may laugh, but that claim is true. My right hon. Friend is right to talk about excessive hours of sitting. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) is entirely right to oppose the closed shop root and branch. I agree with him on that. I have to agree with my Government, but I do not believe this to be the end of the story by any means. The hon. Member for Rochdale and I were present at a meeting called by the Transport and General Workers Union and the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers halfway through the Committee stage of the Bill. They did not want to talk to us before that meeting. They chose that moment to invite us and many of us went along to listen to them. It was a great shame that they were not prepared before we began the Committee stage to give us such an opportunity. That shows the lack of flexibility of the leadership of the trade union movement in their approach to the Bill.
I come now to the comment of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo). I was among the silent majority in Committee. He should be grateful to me for that.
Mr. Mikardo: I am.
Mr. Fox: There is virtue in silence. Had I intervened or had my Bill in Committee it would not have been the moderate measure before us today.
Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Gentleman is saying that the Secretary of State is a wet.
Mr. Fox: My right hon. Friend is not a wet, although he may not be as dry as I would like.
If the Bill is as divisive as the Opposition try to make out, why are their Benches not as full as they should be? One would assume that they would be packed.
My acquiescence in Committee is simply because the Bill contains the minimum necessary to carry out our manifesto commitments. The proposals are moderate. The Opposition have been unable to destroy the argument that the majority of people are behind our proposals.
The Opposition claim that they have a god-given right to speak for trade unionists. They have not. They have contacts in the trade union movement that I do not have, and they pay lip service to it. They know their paymasters. They have a working arrangement. But I object to the Opposition trying to tell me what rank and file trade unionists want. They are not the best people to speak for ordinary workers in, for instance, textiles and engineering.
The fact that we sit quietly does not mean that we are weak in our determination to change the balance of power. I have waited with bated breath for a hint from the Opposition that a little adjustment may be needed in the way that legislation favours the unions. They have said not a word about the balance needing to be rectified. They have not even said that abuses exist.
The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) mentioned dinner ladies in Walsall, the National Union of Railwaymen and Joanna Harris. There is nothing wrong

149
in mentioning individual cases. Does he really believe that they are the only people who have had grievances under existing legislation?
Mr. Leighton: Give us some more names.
Mr. Fox: Many thousands of people who never wanted to have been forced to join trade unions. They may not have had the courage or the opportunity to do what others have done.
Mr. Leighton: Name them!
Mr. Fox: My own Bradford metropolitan district council sought to introduce a closed shop. One or two of us were determined to show it up for what it was, and it had to back-pedal. I have 50 or 60 letters from constituents who were forced to join the union. With the help of the previous Secretary of State for Employment we convinced the council that it was not a clever step. The threat was not only that if people did not join they would lose their jobs. It went further. There was the threat that if they did not join there would be no promotion. That is a wonderful idea! There would be no transfers between departments and no question of promotion.
The hon. Member for Jarrow asked for examples. The examples given are just the tip of the iceberg.
Mr. Harold Walker: If the position is as the hon. Gentleman describes, why has he not supported our repeated pleas and demands in Committee for the thorough research of Professor Gennard to be made available? Last Sunday the Observer stated that the facts were
"well documented in the research of the Industrial Relations Unit at Warwick University and Professor John Gennard of Glasgow University. Gennard's work has proved an embarrassment to the Department of Employment which commissioned some of it, and Ministers have suppressed publication for the time being."
Why does the Department of Employment not do what we have repeatedly asked and make the research available, instead of suppressing it?
Mr. Fox: The right hon. Member for Doncaster has been a Front Bench spokesman on employment for the Government and for the Opposition longer than anyone. I remember being in the House when we debated the Industrial Relations Act 1971. The right hon. Gentleman cannot tell me that we need a professor from the London School of Economics, the Bishop of Lincoln or anyone else to tell us what the abuses are. The closed shop has been around for many years. I know about it from my experience of the system.
Mr. Tebbit: As my hon. Friend knows, my colleagues and I have repeatedly told the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) and his colleagues that in the professor's view his work is not yet ready for publication. It has not been suppressed by my Department.
I understand perfectly my hon. Friend's point, as we all do. Indeed, I am pursuing the case of one of my constituents who has been viciously persecuted by her public sector employer in exactly the manner that he describes.
Mr. Fox: My right hon. Friend has tried on a number of occasions to get through to the Opposition the fact that the studies are not complete. I am sure that when they are they will be further ammunition to support our proposed measures.
The timetable motion is necessary. We shall have six further sittings. Now that that is settled a number of us will
150
be happy to contribute to the debate. I look forward to my new clause on the political levy and opting in rather than opting out. I can see the excitement written on the faces of Opposition Members.
Without the timetable motion we should not have been able to discuss a number of important matters, such as the union labour-only requirement. The hon. Member for Jarrow turns the proposal on its head. He makes it seem as if it affects only the lump. Many small companies have not forced their workers to join a union. They are often excluded from tendering for work by Labour-controlled councils.
Mr. Dixon: I said that the proposal would encourage lump labour, which we have fought against for a long time. Safety regulations on building sites are enforced through trade union representation. Denying trade union representation will encourage employers not to carry out safety regulations.
Mr. Fox: The hon. Member for Jarrow knows that the lump is covered by other legislation. I take it as a slur on many companies which are not necessarily fully unionised when the hon. Gentleman suggests that they are careless about safety regulations. That is not true. Some are, of course, but I could claim that certain unions do not behave as responsibly as do other unions.
I see the union labour-only requirement as a protect ion racket. I make no apology for saying that. It is a means of recruiting to the union, and increasing its membership. That often seems to be a matter of greater interest to Opposition Members than the efficiency of the company which seeks to do the work. When companies are tendering for work in local authorities, surely the interests of ratepayers and citizens are best served when the best firm does the job in terms of price and quality. It should not matter two hoots whether the firm is 100 per cent. or 56 per cent. unionised.
I turn to the other clauses on which the timetable motion will allow debate. We should have an enjoyable debate we on trade union immunities. Under no circumstances do I believe that it is right that trade unions should have more protection than that enjoyed by individuals. Certainly, the legal position should be spelt out clearly. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have got the message from the new clauses that he should not rest on his laurels. Conservative Members do not believe that this is the end of the story. We shall support the Bill. There is no division on the Benches behind the Secretary of State in Committee, and he knows it. We welcome the Bill for what it does. As I said, it is not the complete story, but, in fairness and justice, I and my colleagues support the motion.
5.21 pm
Mr. Michael Martin: I have listened with interest to what has been said in the debate, particularly to what was said about the number of hours that we have spent in Committee. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) mentioned 80 hours and four clauses, and another hon. Gentleman mentioned 95 hours in total. I am told that that is a long time, and that to spend longer in Committee would be a waste of the time of the House and the Committee. In my opinion, 80 or 95 hours are nothing compared with the amount of hours that men and women in the trade union movement and in

151
management have spent in building up good industrial relations in this country. We are talking about years and years of devotion by both sides of industry in an endeavour to get good industrial relations.
It appals me that the Ministers who are the Government's spokesmen in Committee have a terrible lack of knowledge of industry. It is no fault of theirs that they have not earned a living by working in industry. No one blames them for that. None the less, it would be better from the Government's point of view if those speaking for the Government in Committee could at least demonstrate that they know something about industrial relations and industry. That is what worries me.
If the Bill were good for industrial relations, I am sure that the whole House would support it. However, it is not. It will create mistrust in industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) said today in Committee, when a person is given incentives and encouragement to create division between workers and management—high financial incentives, at that—there will be difficulties throughout industry.
The closed shop has been mentioned. It is all right for Tory Members to say that the closed shop is a terrible thing, but I wonder whether any of them have worked in a closed shop.
Mr. Bill Walker: Some of us have actually worked in closed shops and have been members of unions in closed shops.
Mr. Martin: The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) may be an exception to the rule. However, I should like to know how many Conservative Members have actually worked in closed shops—with the exception, of course, of the lawyers. I am talking about real closed shops—places where people earn a living.
Mr. Tebbit: I cannot speak for all my colleagues on this matter, but I have worked in a closed shop, and I found it a most unpleasant experience.
Mr. Martin: I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he found the closed shop a most unpleasant experience.
Mr. Mikardo: The right hon. Gentleman's union took a lot of advantage of it.
Mr. Martin: Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman's union did take a lot of advantage of it. He has had a great deal of mileage in the media, attacking closed shops, but before he became Minister he was certainly not in the forefront of the attack on closed shops. Did he attack closed shops to the extent that he is attacking them now? The right hon. Gentleman nods in agreement. I have been involved in the trade union movement since I left school, and I can say that there was no publicity about him in connection with the closed shop before he was a Minister. He was not in the forefront of the attack against closed shops.
Mr. Mikardo: I was a member of the trade union side of the national joint council for civil air transport, and I know a good deal about the closed shop to which the right hon. Gentleman belonged and the way in which his union used and manipulated it, cried on other unions' shoulders for aid when it was in difficulty, and offered no aid to others. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should keep quiet about his trade union experience.
Mr. Martin: I agree.
Mr. Tebbit: I do not want to take up the time of Back Benchers in the debate, but the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) has got it all wrong. There was not a closed shop in BALPA while I was an active member of that union, because I opposed it. I had to endure a closed shop in NATSOPA many years ago. So the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong again.
Mr. Martin: That is a matter that the Minister can take up with my hon. Friend, who is quite capable of dealing with it.
Long before legislation was introduced for closed shops, closed shops existed in industry and they worked well, to the advantage of the employers. I am a time-served sheet metal worker, and boilermakers have often been in dispute with the metal workers about the work that was being done in a particular shop. No employer wanted a dual union set-up if he could get all the boilermakers or sheet metal workers that suited him. He dealt with the same convener of shop stewards and the same shop stewards, and when he wanted to contact a full-time official he got a man that he knew and frequently respected in trade union negotiations. In my view, that is what industrial relations are about. Industrial relations are about both sides getting to know each other. If we put a wedge between management and trade unions by offering these incentives, we shall cause a great deal of distrust.
The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) mentioned closed shops in local government. We should clarify the position of local government. A closed shop is a shop where only one union operates, but in local government there are union membership agreements. In most cases they are multi-union agreements. As long as an individual is prepared to join a union that is a signatory to the national agreement, that is usually all that a local authority requires. That is not too much to ask for, because local government employees are covered by national agreements. For 24 hours a day, every day of the year, one union or another is negotiating at a national level on behalf of its members and everyone working in local government. It is not too much to ask someone who receives such coverage—much more than he would receive in private industry—to make the modest contribution for which the trade union asks. It is not a closed shop in the strictest sense of the word but a union membership agreement.
Mr. Bill Walker: How does the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) define the difference between conditions of employment and negotiations in local government and in national Government? In national Government it has never been deemed necessary for a civil servant to be a trade union member, but the machinery for agreeing wages and conditions is not dissimilar. I wonder how the hon. Gentleman can say in one breath that we should demand that all local government employees are trade union members but that national Government employees need not.
Mr. Martin: I was taking issue only with the point made about closed shops and local government. Anyone working for national Government should be in a trade union because the same facilities are made available to those working in the Civil Service. They are covered by national councils and full-time officials who are negotiating not only for their basic pay but for every

153
condition that they enjoy—shift allowances, overtime premiums and holiday payments. Local government employees, whether they are union members or not, do very well out of the negotiating and the work done by the trade union.
Early in the Committee proceedings I said that I believed that this Bill was a "chancer's charter". I highlighted the point that at least one person deliberately took up employment with Strathclyde regional council several months before it entered into a union membership agreement. That individual wished to take on Strathclyde regional council by making an issue of trade union membership agreements. Many would say that that person is entitled to his point of view, but he was an ex-National Front man who used all of his spare time to attack minority and ethnic groups. When he was finished with them he went on to tackle the trade unions. It is obnoxious that that individual, because of the retroactive legislation that has been introduced, will stand to gain much money just by making an application to the Secretary of State.
The irony is that many people, whether we agree with them or not—I do not agree with them but I do not dispute that their feelings are genuinely held—when Strathclyde regional council introduced the union membership, said that they would have nothing to do with trade unions and left the council. They lifted their books, as we say in the West of Scotland. There is no record showing why those individuals left their employment and there is no record of them leaving because of a union membership agreement. There is no way in which the Secretary of State can give them any compensation, yet the ex-National Front man can be compensated.
If someone is sacked because he refuses to join a trade union or because of trade union activities, he stands to gain up to a maximum of £30,000. However, if someone is sacked because his employer accuses him of theft—there is no more obnoxious reason for dismissal than that—and the accusation turns out to be false, there is no way in which that individual would receive anything like £30,000 from an industrial tribunal under the same legislation. In the tabulation that we made in Committee, the difference in compensation given to someone sacked who fell into that category as opposed to the non-trade unionist was about £12,000. If we are to have compensation, it should be based on loss and not on the fact that a person is sacked because of something that the Government do not like. The Government must consider this matter.
For the sake of good industrial relations, we should scrap this obnoxious piece of legislation and allow those who are involved in industry to get on with it. The Government should not be allowed to exploit the myth that we have bad industrial relations in every sector of industry.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is hoped that the winding-up speeches will begin at 6.5 pm. I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind.
5.37 pm
Mr. Tom Bradley: Like all opposition Members who have spoken in the debate, I object to the introduction of the timetable motion. The Leader of the House gave his estimate of the time that had been taken on the discussion of the various clauses and, incredibly, that seems to have led to some dispute even on
154
the Floor of the House. We cannot even get the figures correct. I content myself by saying that is seems like a lifetime, whatever the exact total may be.
I must confess at once that, in my judgment, some of the speeches that have been made in Committee have been inordinately long. I can well understand the Government introducing this motion, which, it has fairly been said, has been introduced in the past by Governments of different political complexions. I have no doubt that such a motion will be introduced again in the future.
That is why I am much attracted to the idea put forward by the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) and reiterated by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Simth) that we should have a timetable motion at the commencement of every Bill so that we can then proceed to a rational useful and structured discussion. I realise that that is a counsel of perfection, but I hope that the Leader of the House—whom I wish well in his new post—will apply his fertile mind to the matter, because he could make a mark on history if he introduced such a useful procedural arrangement.
We came near to something like that in the early stages of the Committee in a somewhat unofficial way. There was an outbreak of sanity from the official Opposition Benches early in the Committee proceedings, at column 188 of the sixth sitting on 9 March. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) went so far as to suggest in a moment of candour something that sounded like the need for a voluntary timetable. He was quickly crushed by the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) who acts as a gauleiter on those occasions. He said that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should not pursue that idea so feverishly so early in the proceedings.
However, the Minister of State was quick to see the usefulness of the point. Later that morning, he took up the suggestion and authorised his hon. Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) to hold early discussions with the official Opposition on that most useful idea with a view to making valuable progress in discussion of the Bill.
I am no longer privy to what goes on in the Labour Party. I never have been privy to what goes on in the Conservative Party. Therefore, I do not know what discussions subsequently took place, still less what was decided. I should like to know from the Secretary of State whether those discussions ever got off the ground. What became of them? Was there any further response from the Opposition Front Bench?
At the time, the suggestion was fairly, if somewhat tentatively, made by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West. For me, as someone who is outside the phoney two-party warfare, that became a test of sincerity. I was disappointed to hear no more it. However, I suspect that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West spoke out of turn. He was not only quickly corrected by the right hon. Member for Doncaster, but he was put in his place by more important and powerful figures that preside over the procedural attitudes struck by the official Opposition.
An incredible amount of time was taken on the early clauses in the Bill. Reference has been made to the 36¼ hours spent on clause 1. However, on that occasion there was the extenuating circumstance of the introduction of a surprise clause. No one had heard of it prior to the publication of the Bill. I believe that no consultations had

155
taken place between interested parties. Therefore, perhaps a reasonable excuse can be advanced for that amount of discussion.
Clause 2 took up a great deal of time. All that time-consuming discussion has been to the prejudice of other weighty matters to which we have still to come in the remainder of our debate in Committee. There are weighty matters such as union-only contracts, which have been referred to this evening. There is the troublesome and contentious matter of the definition of trade disputes. There is the question of trade union immunities. All that vital and sensitive area has still to come, with little time left as a result of the timetable motion.
In addition, a number of new clauses have been tabled. Some of them were tabled by me on the first day on which the Committee sat. They were tabled because some of us have an interest in the wider concept of trade union reform. We believe that the Bill is a paltry measure and will not improve industrial relations. Indeed, it may harm them. Many useful things could be done if we could apply our minds constructively to the purpose of trade union reform in the belief, which is one that we hold in the Social Democratic Party, that trade unions should not regard themselves as being above and beyond the law.
Therefore, as the Leader of the House suggested this afternoon, we should try to strike a balance between a trade union's obligations and responsibilities and the question of its immunity. All those matters remain outside the scope of the Bill. Therefore, we want to use the procedure of new clauses to give them an airing. The new clauses—naturally, I place great importance on those that I tabled—would make a contribution to improving an inadequate Bill.
Many other new clauses have been tabled in recent days by other right hon. and hon. Members on the Committee. Those clauses deal with the question of lay-offs, peaceful picketing, the handling of redundancies and so on. All those matters should be properly discussed by us in adequate time and in a properly balanced fashion. However, unfortunately, once again a controversial and contentious measure has been set against a background of artificiality, ritual abuse from the Labour movement and total misunderstanding among other sections of the community, which has created a bad atmosphere for us to conduct the debate and discussion that the nation needs on this question.
There have been references to interpretations of the Bill by many trade union leaders and others, who have expressed themselves in the media and elsewhere. All the people to whom I have spoken about the Bill have never read it. All that they see in the Bill are not the details and propositions that are put forward but the unacceptable face of the Secretary of State. Candidly, that is not good enough. It is not the way in which we should approach serious and what could be vital legislation.
Therefore, I regret very much that once again in the House we have reached a procedural impasse. The timetable that we are being asked to agree will prevent us from having any discussion—not just adequate discussion, but any discussion—of the new clauses that I have mentioned and of the other important matters to which many of us hoped to give an airing when we embarked on the measure. Therefore, for those reasons I have no
156
hesitation in associating myself with the official Opposition and resisting the timetable motion. I shall invite all my right hon. and hon. Friends to do likewise.
5.48 pm
Mr. John Ward: I am grateful to have the chance to intervene briefly in the debate.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is not given to flamboyant speeches, described the Bill as a modest measure in size and purpose. Some of us think that it is too modest. The proliferation of new clauses tabled by hon. Members, including me, will show how some of us think it could be a little less modest.
In fairness to my right hon. Friend, the House should know that he missed only a few Committee sittings. That was only when he was involved in Cabinet business. For those interested in statistics—some of us have plenty of time to keep them—he was in the Committee for considerably more than 68 hours. I enjoyed his company through the long watches of the night. It was not the Secretary of State who wanted to pack up early, but the Opposition.
We shall not be able to discuss many important matters because of the timetable motion. That has been due largely to the time that has been spent, not always profitably, on the earlier clauses. Of course everthing that was said was in order because my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Mrs. Fookes), who chaired the Committee, kept dragging back to the point under discussion certain hon. Members who seemed to have imported telephone directories. If the repetition was not tedious, it was certainly boring for those of us who were unable to join in.
Too much has been said this afternoon about the importance of the Bill to the trade union movement. Too little has been said about its importance to the country and, above all, its importance to industry. The two-way emphasis through which we are to get this country back on the road surely concerns both sides of industry, and it is precisely because both sides of industry are involved that the Bill is so important.
Moreover, I believe that a significant majority of trade unionists support the Bill's provisions. As the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) said, there are more than the dozen general secretaries who seem to be making the running at the moment.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox). I hope that we can assist the Secretary of State to improve the Bill. We cannot allow the Bill to be held up any longer. Trade unions cannot escape the country's needs any more than they can escape the needs of their rank and file.
I confess to being a subscribing member of that exclusive club, referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), who believe that we should have a timetable for all Standing Committee Bills from day one. Otherwise many important clauses will not be covered in Committee. I again commend to the Opposition the virtue that was observed in Committee by the Government that Whips do not speak, and hon. Members on the Committee will know precisely what I mean.
If the importance of the Bill needs further illustration, Professor Minford, professor of economics at Liverpool university, says that the substantial rise in trade union powers since 1960 has raised unemployment in this

157
country by about 1 million people. He says that this is largely caused by the monopoly created by closed shops and people trying to escape from closed shops. That is why it is essential to get this Bill on to the statute book with all speed.
I have many friends in the trade union movement, and I say to them that if trade union relations in the rest of the country were as good as they are in my constituency there would be no need for the Bill. I ask my friends in the trade union movement whether they really need intimidation and threats of job loss to achieve their just aims. I do not think they do. Neither the House nor the country believes that they do.
I welcome this sensible timetable motion that will enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to get the Bill on to the statute book with the speed that the electorate demands.
5.53 pm
Mr. Ian Mikardo: The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) was clearly not conscious of being inconsistent, if not contradicting himself, when on the one hand he complained of the length of time that the Opposition took in Committee and on the other said, totally incorrectly, that it was the Opposition who sought to bring a late sitting to an early close. I cannot, for reasons that you well know, Mr. Speaker, describe that as a lie, but, to quote the immortal words of Damon Runyon, it will do until a real lie comes along——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Whoever said that was not very clever. I think that the hon. Gentleman, who became a Member of the House when I did, can find a better word than that to express his feelings.
Mr. Mikardo: I can, Mr. Speaker. I can find all sorts of euphemisms to deal with the matter, but I shall not take up the time of the House.
Turning to the motion before us, it was ever thus that in the spring a Chief Whip's fancy always lightly turns to thoughts of a guillotine. Year after year, at this time of the year, when various species of fauna are engaged in a ritual dance in preparation for courtship and mating, we are subjected to an almost equally formalised rite, the object of which is to deny to hon. Members the opportunity to examine properly the legislation that the Government are bulldozing through the House.
For my part, in over 30 years in the House, I have never thought it worthwhile to take part in any of these exercises on either side of the argument. This is my maiden speech in a guillotine debate and I appeal for the indulgence that the House always shows to hon. Members who are breaking the ice for the first time. There is a special reason why today I am breaking the habit of a lifetime. There is something especially dangerous about this Bill going on to the statute book without being properly examined. The Bill does not stand by itself. It is the third stage in a process designed to weaken, and perhaps even destroy, the trade union movement in Great Britain.
The first stage was the creation of 3 million unemployed so as to reduce the number of trade unionists to weaken their morale and dilute their militancy. That having been done, the next stage was to push through the 1980 Act. That Act was not enough for the really bloodthirsty anti-trade unionists on the Government Back Benches, some of whom we have heard from this
158
afternoon. Nor was it enough for those more bloodthirsty anti-trade unionists who attend the Conservative Party conference each autumn. What was done in the 1980 Act by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) did not go far enough for those people. They just could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman, in common with the Tolpuddle Martyrs, believed it right that trade unions should exist and prosper. That is why he suffered the same fate as the Tolpuddle Martyrs of being sentenced to transportation from these shores—not, in his case, to meet his death in plantations in the West Indies, but to meet his political death in the gladiatorial arenas of Northern Ireland. That is why he has been replaced by one of the Prime Minister's strong-arm, highly dehydrated bully boys who can be relied upon to stand side by side with her on the bridge of any task force that she launches against the working class that both she and he hate and despise as much as they do.
One of the reasons why we should have time to debate the Bill fully is that the House needs to find out the Government's intentions over implementing it. Those intentions are obscure. In Committee on 30 March the Under-Secretary said that
"there will be a period of one or two years after enactment before these provisions will begin to bite".—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 30 March 1982; c. 811.]
However, when he was pressed to clarify that somewhat delphic utterance he went all coy and girlish and reserved his answer to the question. He has still not given that answer.
Without full and proper examination of the Bill, we shall enact it without knowing what action is to be taken or when that action will be taken. It may be that the Government want to stir up an emotional spasm of anti-trade union hysteria among their supporters while at the same time delaying the operation of the measure so as to avoid a winter of discontent and, perhaps, a long hot summer before the general election in which they could suffer electorally a great deal.
I fancy that the Secretary of State is already looking forward with appetite—perhaps a slavering appetite—to the wildly enthusiastic reception he expects when he addresses the Conservative Party conference on the Bill in the autumn—the enthusiastic response he expects to get from the well-heeled knights of the shires, the bristly ex-colonels, the flower-hatted matrons and the overambitious young hopefuls who will make up his audience on that occasion. My guess is that the right hon. Gentleman has already bought himslf a stop watch to time the length of the standing ovation that he hopes to get on that occasion.
Let me give the right hon. Gentleman a tip. If he wants to get a standing ovation to break the record for all standing ovations, all he has to do is introduce on Report a new clause to provide that any trade union leader in breach of it shall be hanged and that any steward in breach of it shall be flogged. By doing that, the right hon. Gentleman will succeed in one fell swoop in pandering to both the eighteenth century sadism and the nineteenth century class prejudice of the members of the militant tendency within his own party.
There is a real danger, as other hon. Members have said, that the Bill will damage our economy by precipitating, in exactly the same way as the 1971 Act, large-scale, widespread industrial confrontation. It is precisely because of that that the Bill is opposed not only

159
by the trade unions but by many important employers as well. It will be more than a crime—it will be a monstrous error—if the Bill is now bulldozed through the House.
6.1 pm
Mr. Gerry Neale: I do not feel inclined to comment too much on the speech of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), other than to say that before he made his maiden speech on a guillotine motion I imagine his difficulty was not that of deciding which aspect of the Bill to deal with but rather to which of his prejudices he should appeal.
Having heard from a number of hon. Members about the considerable number of hours that have been devoted to the Bill—now somewhere in the region of 95—there is no doubt that it is quite proper that we should bring the debate to some foreseeable end in the way proposed in the timetable motion.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on his appointment. I have great sympathy with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice), which were echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), about the introduction of a timetable motion at the start of proceedings on a Government Bill. I sincerely hope that the Leader of the House will reconsider this matter and come back to us, perhaps through one of the Committees, so that it can be looked into further.
While, for the first time to my knowledge, this matter is being discussed rather more openly in a debate on the Floor of the House, what has been expressed here has been expressed readily in the Corridors outside the Committee rooms, when Committees are sitting deep into the night, by hon. Members on both sides. Rather than spending an average of 20 hours on the first five clauses with the prospect of only two hours on each of the remaining clauses, a timetable motion introduced after Second Reading would ensure that we could spread that time far more suitably. There is much merit in that idea.
In the absence of the hon. Members for Rochdale and Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley), I must say that while the hon. Member for Rochdale may get a good reception among Liberal supporters in the West Country, and while without a shadow of doubt many of his comments in Committee about trade union reform will be greeted widely in the West Country, there has been concern about the nature of the alliance with the SDP. That concern has been inflamed by the comments made by the hon. Member for Leicester, East—not only on Second Reading and in Committee but today—who has shown markedly less commitment to obtaining the sort of trade union reform proposed by the Bill and which I welcome. I join those of my hon. Friends who clearly see it as a step towards further proposals that we should introduce.
As to the alliance, many people in the West Country and elsewhere are being misled into believing that they are supporting something that will bring about further sensible and practical reforms in industrial relations law when that is far from the truth.
I welcome the steps that my right hon. Friend is taking. I look forward to the Bill reaching the statute book. I hope that it will be part of a continuing programme to achieve a better situation in our industrial relations law.
6.6 pm
Mr. Eric G. Varley: In a relatively short time the House will be voting on the Government's guillotine motion. I apologise to my hon. Friends who are serving on the Committee and who have not been able to take part in the debate. By that time, Parliament will have spent—or rather, wasted—three hours going through what hon. Members have described as the ritual motions that are simply a preliminary to curtailing debate on a piece of legislation that will do positive damage to industrial relations.
I said on Second Reading on 8 February that the Opposition will
"fight the Bill at every stage and do the very best that we can to prevent it reaching the statute book." [Official Report, 8 February 1982; Vol. 17, c. 754.]
That is what we have been doing in the 95 hours of debate in Committee, and that is our right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) has already pointed out, nothing we have done in Committee has been out of order and everything has been conducted in accordance with the rules of debate.
We very much regret that this guillotine motion has been moved and that the House should have wasted three hours debating it. We should have been debating the 3 million unemployed, who in a fortnight's time will be queuing up to commemorate the third anniversary of the coming to power of a Government who campaigned during the election on the theme that unemployment was too high. We should have been debating the fact that the same Government have every intention of going into the next election with registered unemployment still around the 3 million mark. We should have been debating the fact that the Secretary of State for Employment has admitted that, while there has been a slight drop and dip under the 3 million registered unemployed level, it is only temporary. We should have been debating the fact that a year from now two teenagers out of every three will be on the dole.
The prediction of the new Leader of the House is coming true. I think that as Chief Secretary to the Treasury he was once so indiscreet as to say that the country would have to submit itself to two years of unmitigated hardship. His prediction was right on that occasion, and we should have been debating what the right hon. Gentleman has always said would happen.
Previously prosperous areas have become industrial wastelands, and I see nothing in the Bill that will help them. Areas that for years have suffered chronic unemployment are beginning to give up all hope of recovery. I see nothing in the Bill, which will now be speeded to the statute book, to help them. Yet the new Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Employment have frittered away the time of the House on a piece of legislation that will not create one new job, although it will create fruitful and lucrative employment for the legal profession. I have said on previous occasions that, whoever loses out when Conservative Governments introduce anti-trade union legislation, the lawyers always win, and they will win on this occasion.
In a sense the Government's decision to guillotine the Bill is not an attack on parliamentary decencies. Debating the Bill is so irrelevant to the genuine issues of industrial relations that it could be argued that democracy is better served by disposing of it summarily.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) and the hon.

161
Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) talked about voluntary timetables as though they would be possible for measures of the sort that we have been discussing. The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) implied the same.
The Government made it clear at the outset of the debates on the Bill that our discussions would be no more than a charade. They have asserted more than once that they are not prepared to accept any amendment. If we are to have voluntary timetables, there will have to be some flexibility. However, the Secretary of State and his two ministerial colleagues have resisted all amendments. We know that they will continue to do so until the end of the proceedings in Committee. They consider the Bill to be unamendable in every major sense. What sort of parliamentary process is it when the Government announce the result of the debate before the debate has taken place?
The offensiveness has been compounded by the reactions of some Ministers during our debates. One of my hon. Friends asserted that the Department of Employment's ministerial team is the most arrogant team that any Department has ever fielded. Junior employment Ministers, who have no talent in other respects and certainly no talent in industrial relations, seem to have set out to prove that by comparison with them the Secretary of State is quite a nice man.
The right hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), the Minister of State, goes around the country during weekends telling people that we intend to defy the law and that we are akin to those in the Militant Tendency. He does not have the courage to make assertions of that sort in Committee. As I have had occasion to remark in Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Waddington), the Under-Secretary of State, is God's gift to an Opposition in Committee. It is clear that he and his colleagues have no idea of how to get any proposed legislation through Committee and on to the Floor of the House.
There are other elements in Committee. I refer to the Liberals and the Social Democrats. In some quarters they are described as the alliance. I am glad that the hon. Members for Rochdale and Leicester, East have been well enough to take part in the debate. We have spent about 95 hours in Committee and when our sittings have continued until a very late hour they have become part-time members of the Committee. On occasion we have worried about the state of their health. It has been a great kindness to them that the debate has been held at a reasonably early hour.
On Second Reading the Social Democratic Party was all over the shop—I do not mean closed shop. In Committee the hon. Members for Rochdale and for Leicester, East have had a tendency to vote differently. I gather from what the hon. Member for Rochdale has said that that will happen until Third Reading. I gather also from what the hon. Members for Rochdale and Leicester, East have said today that they will vote with us, the Opposition, against the guillotine motion. The Leader of the House said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that he will be constantly tantalised in trying to discover how the Social Democrats will vote on Third Reading. They split three ways on Second Reading but with the leadership of the Social Democratic Party supporting the Tories I shall make a small wager that they will be united on Third Reading and will vote with the Opposition.
Mr. Skinner: That was the Hillhead vote.
Mr. Varley: My hon. Friend is probably right.
I note that the hon. Member for Leicester, East has returned to the Chamber. I am sorry that he missed some of the remarks that I made about him. I shall repeat them because he may wish to respond. I tell the hon. Gentleman that I have predicted that the Social Democratic Party will be united on Third Reading and will vote with the Opposition. If he wishes to intervene, I shall give way to him. As he does not wish to intervene, I assume that his colleagues are still undecided.
Mr. Bradley: The right hon. Gentleman will have to contain himself a little longer. Everything will be revealed in the fullness of time.
Mr. Varley: I am prepared to have a small wager that the Social Democratic Party will get all its Members into the same Lobby on Third Reading and that that will be the Opposition's Lobby.
When the Division takes place tonight the Government will win it easily. They will bundle the Bill out of Committee and smuggle it out of the House. They will get it on to the statute book but the fight against it will continue. The fight will continue when it becomes an Act. It will be conducted within the law by trade unionists, who know more about industrial relations than the Secretary of State and his cronies ever will. The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) once said that industrial relations are human relations. The right hon. Gentleman deviated from that principle and it fell to a Labour Government to put right his mistake. It will be our job to put right the mistakes embodied in this miserable Bill, and we shall do so.
Now that the Bill is being rushed to the statute book by means of the guillotine motion the Government have run out of excuses. No Conservative Member will be able to say that Britain's economic performance and trade union intransigence are responsible for our difficulties. Any failure in industrial relations will now be the Government's failure. They see the enactment of the Bill as their opportunity to deal with industrial relations problems definitively. Any provocations that arise will have been created deliberately by them through the proposed legislation that is before us. The Government will run out of diversions and scapegoats.
It will be interesting to learn from the Secretary of State when he intends to activate all the sections of the Act when the Bill becomes law. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow has said that in clause 18 there is some delayed action. I expect that the Secretary of State knows in his heart some of the dangers enshrined in the Bill and will want to delay the implementation of certain sections of the Act when the Bill reaches the statute book.
When the Secretary of State has this legislation on the statute book some stupid individual will want to use it. That is when we shall return to the Pentonville Five and all the other problems that we experienced with the Industrial Relations Act 1971. The focus will shift decisively and undeviatingly to the great crime that the Government have committed—the deliberate creation of mass unemployment, which they have left complacently to continue. The Bill concentrates on damaging industrial relations and as it is a token of the callous disregard for the misery of the 3 million unemployed we shall vote against the Government's guillotine motion.
6.20 pm
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Tebbit): First, it is my duty to congratulate the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) on his maiden guillotine speech. Perhaps it was not quite a maiden. I do not think that you, Mr. Speaker, would let me get away even with a euphemism for what it really was. It was certainly no maiden.
As ever, the hon. Gentleman's speech was grossly misleading and grossly offensive. Both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I deeply resent his absurdly untrue charges about our attitude towards the great mass of people in this country, and against the class of which I am most certainly a member, as anyone who works for a living may rightfully and proudly claim to be a member of the working classes of this country. The sooner the hon. Gentleman gets that ridiculous charge off his chest, the better.
Mr. Mikardo: It hurt, didn't it?
Mr. Tebbit: Yes, it did. The hon. Gentleman knows that it hurt because he knows my background and my feelings—and he knows that what he said was gratuitously offensive and downright untrue.
There is an element of ritual about the proceedings on any timetable motion. As the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) implied, if he did not actually say it, when the daffodils come up the guillotine comes down. I do not like guillotines. I make no pretence about that. I have never before had to use one to take a Bill through the House, although in the past two or three years I have taken some not entirely uncontroversial legislation through the House. I mention the Civil Aviation Bill and the Iron and Steel Bill, both of which were large and not uncontroversial measures.
I assure the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) that I did my best to see whether we could obtain an agreed timetable for this Bill. We approached the official Opposition and made it clear that we were always ready to discuss the matter with them. They were not interested in any form of agreed timetable, however, because they badly needed a guillotine so that they could exhibit their ghastly wounds to the Trades Union Congress. They will now be happy because they will be able to do that.
There is also the delightful fun that we can all have on these occasions in looking up what we and others, particularly our opposite numbers, said in previous timetable debates. To my great relief, so far as I could ascertain, I was never an enthusiastic maker of speeches against such motions. I confess, however, that I enjoyed re-reading the words of the Leader of the Opposition when he opened the famous 20 July 1976 debate on the Labour Government's quintuple guillotine. What heights of productivity were reached in those days—the record of five in one day has never been attained since. I cannot always indulge myself so easily by stealing the clothes of the right hon. Gentleman, but I am tempted to quote his words on that occasion, when he said:
"We see a Labour Government as having a right and a duty to legislate against any attempts to frustrate us in the end from exercising our rights of legislation, whether in this House or in another place—and, of course, it is a particular illustration of the malice, folly and absurdity into which right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition side have got themselves that when
164
we exercise those ancient rights it is cheating and when they exercise them it is freedom."—[Official Report, 20 July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 1543.]
Whatever our sartorial differences, I can certainly borrow almost all the right hon. Gentleman's words on that occasion. If one simply changed the word "Labour" to "Conservative", it would be a very good speech.
I do not intend to argue the merits of the Bill again. The majority of 106 on Second Reading and the public support shown by every independent opinion survey argue more cogently and powerfully than mere words today.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) spoke of the enormous, sad toll of unemployment. As that arises not least from the longstanding inefficiencies and defects in the way in which we employ labour in this country, legislation which sets out to remove some of the rigidities and absurdities of practices in the labour market clearly has a great bearing on how quickly we can recover and compete effectively in the world through the more effective use of our labour in our factories, in commerce and in local and national Government.
Mr. Skinner: That is what the Argentine generals say.
Mr. Tebbit: It is not only Argentine generals who say things like that, if indeed they do. It is also the Japanese, the Social Democrats in West Germany, the Socialists in France, whatever Government there happens to be in Italy, and many other countries throughout the world. They know that their prosperity depends upon the more efficient use of their labour. They know that the more efficiently labour can be used, the better it can be paid and the better the conditions that it can enjoy. If the hon. Gentleman does not accept that, he had better go back outside and learn a bit about industry again.
Mr. Harold Walker: It is interesting that the Secretary of State holds out Japan as an example of higher productivity due to different labour practices. Last November, I had the good fortune to visit Japan. At every major factory that I visited, I was informed that there was a closed shop. Furthermore, it is the employers who insist on there being a closed shop.
Mr. Tebbit: I assume that the right hon. Gentleman would wish to import not just that Japanese practice but all the other Japanese practices. He cannot just pick out one and leave the rest.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield complained that we did not accept many amendments. That may have been not least because they were almost all wrecking amendments. Nevertheless, we have accepted an amendment from the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow and another from the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer).
I have never claimed that the Bill will put right all our industrial relations problems. I have referred to it as a modest Bill, and it would be more than a modest ambition to solve all those problems. In any case, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that even in the perfect days before the 1980 Act there were occasional industrial relations problems. The winter of discontent is one example that I am sure he would not put down to the legislation passed by the Labour Government. Above all, of course, changes in this sphere will inevitably be slow because social as well as industrial changes are involved.
Despite the impression that one might have gained from parts of the debate today, during the 90 or more hours in

165
Committee we had some very interesting debates—all, of course, within the due limits of order, although the bounds of order sometimes seem to grow more elastic as the hour grows later. At times, the debate was not merely interesting but downright entertaining. Sometimes, indeed, it yielded unexpected bonuses. I shall not embarrass the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) by recalling one of the unexpected bonuses that it revealed to the authorities of the House, because we can all fall into that trap. Indeed, I checked carefully to make sure that I had not fallen into the same trap.
Mr. Mikardo: The right hon. Gentleman said that all of the debates in Committee which he described with such relish were within the rules of order and debate. A little earlier, however, he said that we had moved and spent time debating wrecking amendments. A wrecking amendment is outside the rules of order, and to suggest that such an amendment was accepted for debate is a strong criticism of the Chairman.
Mr. Tebbit: As the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, a wrecking amendment is out or order. If they are not wrecking amendments, however, they do very nicely as substitutes until the real wrecking amendment comes along.
It is clear that a number of right hon. and hon. Members still misunderstand the position on political strikes, so perhaps I may put that right. Purely political strikes have never had immunity from the law. A good example was the case in 1977 of BBC v. Hearn when the technicians' union tried to prevent the transmission of the FA cup final to South Africa. The courts found that such action did not have immunity—and that was under the previous Government's Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974—because there was no trade dispute. It was a political action for a political purpose. It was outside the limits of immunity then and it would be outside the limits of immunity in future.
Mr. Dixon: Whether the dispute to which I referred would be outside political motives would have to be determined in court, by the law of the land. Whether someone who has taken what they consider patriotic action at this time—that is the boilermakers on the Tyne and the export order to Argentina—would be breaking the law would have to be determined by the court.
Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) persists in using this quaint expression about "breaking the law". I shall not waste the time of the House by correcting him again, but the position is exactly the same today as it was in 1977 under an Act of the hon. Gentleman's Government. If he could make a firm effort to grasp that fact it would help our proceedings.
Mr. Harold Walker: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says but there is one difference. At present, in the situation described by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), if the workers enter into an industrial dispute their union will still have its funds protected. However, once the Bill is enacted the party that has incurred damages can sue the union and can sue against the funds of the union. That is the difference.
Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman is right. He was content with the position where an individual could be
166
sued and his funds put at risk, but he is not content with the position where the union's funds could be at risk for precisely the same action. That is the problem.
In introducing the motion, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House inadvertently understated the case, as has been pointed out most generously by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther). We have spent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) made plain in an excellent speech, some 94½ hours on the Bill. Yet we have not made 94½ hours worth of progress. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley also drew attention to the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Opposition to oppose the motion. When he spoke there were 11 Labour Members present, two Liberals, one SDP and 13 Government supporters. Even on this great emotional issue of the guillotine, on this great emotional day described as a big scene, a big deal and an important Bill, the Opposition could not get their supporters in to back them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley was, as ever, brief and to the point. He reminded me of a passage in Ecclesiastes, Chapter 5 verses 2 and 3, to which he always lives up:
"Be not rash with thy mouth, … let thy words be few.… a fool's voice is known by multitude of words."
I hope that that will be remembered during the remainder of our proceedings.
The hon. Member for Jarrow gave a scarcely recognisable account of the debates on clause 1. He has been, as my hon. Friend implied, a Stakhanovite for the Opposition. He reminded me of Lincoln's remark about a fellow lawyer:
"He can compress the most words into the smallest idea of any man I ever met."
If hon. Members read the Official Report for the Standing Committee's eighth sitting, afternoon, part I, column 250, they will find a representative example of the hon. Gentleman's incisive debating style. In one speech he was called to order six times by the Chair for irrelevance and repetition. I do not want to waste the time of the House by reading sections of that speech. It was what has been described as a telephone directory of names of companies. He spent minutes at a time merely reading out a list of names of public companies. How that advanced us I do not know, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman does.
Mr. Dixon: The companies to which I was referring in that debate were the companies that the Minister had consulted on the other parts of the Bill. The point that I was making was that these companies had not been consulted about clause 1, or schedule 1. With regard to repetition, it was used by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Waddington) about the five dinner ladies from Walsall.
Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Member for Jarrow has made my point on the subject of verbosity. It was not necessary for the argument, or to make the point, to list a great long list of names published in the documents available to all Members of the Committee. That was not untypical of a great deal of what was said.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) said that the Bill would drive a wedge between employers and trades unions. This is not so. What is resented by the Opposition, I am afraid, is that we have exposed the fact that all too often it is the trades unions

167
which have driven wedges between employers and employees, and between worker and worker. Think how often recently we have seen strike-thirsty union leaders rejected by shop floor workers. [Interruption.] Labour Members may groan but they know on how many occasions recently there have been strike calls by union leaders that have been rejected by the shop floor workers. It is one of the significant events.
As so often happens, on these occasions, a number of hon. Members——
Mr. Bob Cryer: Why introduce legislation if the shop floor workers are so sensible?
Mr. Tebbit: Yes, the shop floor workers are sensible and I hope that the trade unions will give them every opportunity to show how sensible they are by giving them secret postal ballots to elect senior officials and executives of the union. I hope that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) will give his support for that in the way that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street gave his support for it. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street is a supporter of unions taking Government money for that purpose too. He was a signatory of an early-day motion that implored the previous Labour Government to make available money for secret ballots for trade unions.
Mr. Radice: Yes, but I am not in favour of compulsory ballots.
Mr. Tebbit: But the hon. Gentleman is clearly in favour of the unions taking the money that is available to conduct those secret postal ballots because that is what he asked his Government to do. They did not, but this Government are.
As so often happens a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House—most noticeably in the excellent speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) and my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Mr. Ward) and Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) and the hon. Members for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) and Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley)—said that there should be a better way than this of guillotining business. But time is the Opposition's main weapon for resisting the Government of the day's inevitably voracious appetite for legislation. What a pity that my Ten-Minute Bill on the limitation of legislation never made progress.
It is important that the House should never become a complete pushover for legislation-hungry Governments. Nothing can entirely safeguard Parliament against itself, but at least the tactic of obstruction within reason, which can be overcome by the use of the guillotine used with decency, common sense and reason, has a long and honourable history of protecting both the Government's programme and the rights of the Opposition to oppose it.
It was right that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) reminded us that the Scotland and Wales Bill for devolution foundered on that rock of parliamentary time. As the hon. Member for Rochdale reminded us, the Government of the day could not command a majority for a timetable motion on that Bill. It is at least arguable that had the House formed the habit and set the precedent—and the House is bound to a considerable extent by its precedents—that Bills were timetabled as a matter of course then the Scotland and Wales Bill would have
168
started out with a timetable and that timetable might well have expired before the full implications of the Bill had become apparent. That is why we do things this way. That is why I confidently ask my right hon. and hon. Friends and, indeed, members of the minority parties to join us in the Lobby to get this guillotine through and to get this most important Bill on the statute book as soon as possible.
Question put:
The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 237.

Division No. 123]

[6.39 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Dunn,Robert(Dartford)

Aitken,Jonathan

Durant,Tony

Alexander, Richard

Dykes, Hugh

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Ancram,Michael

Eggar,Tim

Arnold, Tom

Elliott,SirWilliam

Aspinwall,Jack

Emery, Sir Peter

Atkins, RtHonH.(S'thorne)

Eyre,Reginald

Atkins,Robert(PrestonN)

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Baker,Kenneth(St.M'bone,)

Fairgrieve,SirRussell

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Faith, MrsSheila

Banks, Robert

Farr,John

Beaumont-Dark,Anthony

Fell,SirAnthony

Bendall,Vivian

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Benyon,Thomas(A 'don)

Finsberg,Geoffrey

Benyon, W.(Buckingham)

Fisher,SirNigel

Best, Keith

Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb gh N)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Fletcher-Cooke,SirCharles

Biffen,Rt Hon John

Forman,Nigel

Blackburn,John

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Blaker,Peter

Fox, Marcus

Body,Richard

Fry, Peter

Bonsor,SirNicholas

Gardiner,George(Reigate)

Boscawen,HonRobert

Gardner, Edward (SFylde)

Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

Garel-Jones,Tristan

Bowden,Andrew

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Boyson,DrRhodes

Glyn, DrAlan

Braine,SirBernard

Goodhart,SirPhilip

Bright,Graham

Goodlad,Alastair

Brinton,Tim

Gow, Ian

Brittan,Rt. Hon. Leon

Grant, Anthony (HarrowC)

Brooke, Hon Peter

Gray,Hamish

Brotherton,Michael

Greenway, Harry

Brown, Michael(Brig&Sc'n)

Grieve, Percy

Browne,John (Winchester)

Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)

Bryan, Sir Paul

Grist, Ian

Buck,Antony

Grylls,Michael

Budgen,Nick

Gummer,JohnSelwyn

Bulmer,Esmond

Hamilton, HonA.

Burden,SirFrederick

Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)

Butcher,John

Hampson,Dr Keith

Butler, Hon Adam

Hannam,John

Cadbury,Jocelyn

Haselhurst,Alan

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Hastings,Stephen

Carlisle,Kenneth(Lincoln)

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Hayhoe, Barney

Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Chapman,Sydney

Heddle,John

Churchill,W.S.

Henderson,Barry

Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)

Heseltine, RtHon Michael

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Hicks,Robert

Clarke,Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Cockeram,Eric

Hill,James

Colvin,Michael

Hogg,HonDouglas(Gr'fh'm,)

Cope,John

Holland, Philip(Carlton)

Cormack,Patrick

Hooson,Tom

Corrie,John

Hordern, Peter

Costain,SirAlbert

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Cranborne,Viscount

Howell, Rt Hon D.(G'ldfd)

Critchley,Julian

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Crouch,David

Hurti,John(Ravensbourne)

Dean, Paul (NorthSomerset)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Dickens,Geoffrey

lrving,Charles(Cheltenham)

Douglas-Hamilton,LordJ.

Jessel,Toby

Dover,Denshore

JohnsonSmith,Geoffrey

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Jopling,RtHonMichael

169

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Kaberry,SirDonald

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Kershaw,SirAnthony

Rhodes James, Robert

Kimball, SirMarcus

Rhys Williams,SirBrandon

King, Rt Hon Tom

Ridley,HonNicholas

Kitson,SirTimothy

Ridsdale,SirJulian

Knight, MrsJill

Rifkind,Malcolm

Knox, David

Rippon,RtHonGeoffrey

Lamont, Norman

Roberts, M.(Cardiff NW)

Lang, Ian

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Langford-Holt.SirJohn

Rossi,Hugh

Latham,Michael

Rost, Peter

Lawrence, Ivan

Royle,SirAnthony

Lawson,Rt Hon Nigel

Sainsbury,HonTimothy

Lee,John

St.John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

LeMarchant,Spencer

Scott,Nicholas

Lennox-Boyd,HonMark

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Shaw,Micbae(Scarborough)

Lewis,Kenneth (Rutland)

Shelton,William(Streatham)

Lloyd, Ian (Havant& W'loo)

Shepherd,Colin (Hereford)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Shepherd,Richard

Loveridge,John

Shersby,Michael

Luce, Richard

Silvester,Fred

Lyell,Nicholas

Sims, Roger

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Macmillan,RtHonM.

Speed, Keith

McNair-Wilson,M.(N'bury)

Spence,John

McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Madel, David

Sproat,Iain

Major,John

Squire,Robin

Marland,Paul

Stanbrook,Ivor

Marlow,Antony

Stanley,John

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Steen,Anthony

Marten, Rt Hon Neil

Stevens,Martin

Mates,Michael

Stewart,A.(ERenfrewshire)

Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Mawby, Ray

Stokes,John

Mawhinney,DrBrian

StradlingThomas,J.

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Tapsell, Peter

Mayhew, Patrick

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Mellor,David

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Miller,Hal(B'grove)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mills,Iain(Meriden)

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Mills, Peter (West Devon)

Thompson,Donald

Miscampbell,Norman

Thorne, Neil(IlfordSouth)

Moate, Roger

Thornton,Malcolm

Monro,SirHector

Townend,John (Bridlington)

Montgomery,Fergus

Trippier,David

Moore,John

Trotter,Neville

Morgan,Geraint

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)

Vaughan,DrGerard

Morrison, HonC. (Devizes)

Viggers, Peter

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Waddington,David

Mudd, David

Wakeham,John

Murphy,Christopher

Waldegrave,HonWilliam

Myles, David

Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

Neale,Gerrard

Walker, B. (Perth)

Needham,Richard

Wall,SirPatrick

Nelson,Anthony

Waller, Gary

Neubert,Michael

Walters,Dennis

Newton,Tony

Ward, John

Normanton,Tom

Warren, Kenneth

Nott, Rt Hon John

Watson,John

Onslow,Cranley

Wells, Bowen

Oppenheim, Rt Hon MrsS.

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Osborn,John

Wheeler,John

Page, Richard (SW Herts)

Whitelaw,RtHonWilliam

Parris, Matthew

Whitney,Raymond

Patten,Christopher(Bath)

Wickenden,Keith

Pattie,Geoffrey

Wiggin,Jerry

Pawsey, James

Williams, D.(Montgomery)

Percival,SirIan

Winterton,Nicholas

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Wolfson,Mark

Pink, R.Bonner

Young, SirGeorge(Acton)

Pollock, Alexander

Younger, Rt Hon George

Porter, Barry

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Tellers for the Ayes:

Price, SirDavid (Eastleigh)

Mr. Anthony Berry and Mr. Carol Mather.

Prior, Rt Hon James

Proctor, K. Harvey

170

NOES

Adams, Allen

Freud, Clement

Allaun, Frank

Garrett, John (NorwichS)

Alton, David

Ginsburg, David

Anderson, Donald

Golding, John

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Graham, Ted

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Grant, George(Morpeth)

Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Barnett,Guy (Greenwich)

Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Beith, A. J.

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Bennett.Andrew(St'kp'tN)

Haynes, Frank

Bidwell,Sydney

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Booth, RtHonAlbert

Holland, S. (L 'b 'th, Vauxh'll)

Boothroyd,MissBetty

HomeRobertson,John

Bottomley, RtHonA.(M'bro)

Homewood,William

Bradley,Tom

Hooley,Frank

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Horam,John

Brocklebank-Fowler.C.

Howell, Rt Hon D.

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Howells.Geraint

Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)

Hoyle,Douglas

Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)

Huckfield,Les

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Hughes, Mark(Durham)

Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

Hughes, Robert (AberdeenN)

Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n&P)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Campbell,Ian

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hilihead)

Canavan, Dennis

John, Brynmor

Carmichaelm, Neil

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Cartwright, John

Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh' dda)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Cohen, Stanley

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Coleman, Donald

Kilfedder, JamesA.

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Conlan, Bernard

Kinnock, Neil

Cowans, Harry

Lambie, David

Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)

Lamborn, Harry

Crawshaw, Richard

Lamond, James

Crowther, Stan

Leadbitter, Ted

Cryer, Bob

Leighton, Ronald

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Lestor, Miss Joan

Cunningham, G. (IslingtonS)

Lewis, Arthur (N'ham N W)

Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Dalyell,Tam

Litherland, Robert

Davidson,Arthur

Lofthouse,Geoffrey

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Lyon.Alexander(York)

Davis, Clinton (HackneyC)

Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)

Davis, Terry (B 'ham, Stechf'd)

McCartney,Hugh

Deakins, Eric

McCusker, H.

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

McDonald,DrOonagh

Dewar,Donald

McGuire,Michae(Ince)

Dixon,Donald

McKay,Allen (Penistone)

Dormand,Jack

McKelvey,William

Douglas,Dick

MacKenzie, RtHonGregor

Dubs,Alfred

McNally,Thomas

Duffy, A. E. P.

McNamara, Kevin

Dunlop,John

McTaggart,Robert

Dunn, James A.

McWilliam,John

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Magee, Bryan

Eadie,Alex

Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS)

East ham, Ken

Martin, M(G gowS 'burn)

Ellis,H.(NE D'bysh're)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Ellis.Tom (Wrexham)

Maxton,John

English,Michael

Maynard, Miss Joan

Ennals, Rt Hon David

Mellish,Rt Hon Robert

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Mikardo,Ian

Evans, John (Newton)

Millan,Rt Hon Bruce

Faulds,Andrew

Miller, Dr M. S. (EKilbride)

Field, Frank

Mitchell,Austin(Grimsby)

Fitch,Alan

Mitchell, R.C. (Soton Itchen)

Flannery,Martin

Molyneaux,James

Fletcher,Ted (Darlington)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

Ford, Ben

Morris, RtHonJ. (Aberavon)

Forrester,John

Morton,George

Foster, Derek

Moyle,Rt Hon Roland

Foulkes,George

Mulley,RtHonFrederick

Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)

Newens,Stanley

171

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Spearing,Nigel

Ogden,Eric

Spriggs, Leslie

O'Halloran,Michael

Stallard,A.W.

O'Neill,Martin

Steel, Rt Hon David

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Palmer,Arthur

Stoddart,David

Parker,John

Stott, Roger

Parry, Robert

Strang,Gavin

Penhaligon, David

Straw, Jack

Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)

Summerskill,HonDrShirley

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Thomas,Dafydd (Merioneth)

Race, Reg

Thomas, Mike (NewcastleE)

Radice,Giles

Thomas, DrR.(Carmarthen)

Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

Thorne, Stan (PrestonSouth)

Richardson,Jo

Tilley,John

Roberts,Albert(Normanton,)

Tinn, James

Roberts,Allan (Bootle)

Torney,Tom

Roberts, Ernest (HackneyN)

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Roberts,Gwilym (Cannock)

Wainwright,E.(DearneV)

Robertson,George

Wainwright,R.(Colne V)

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Walker, RtHon H.(D'caster)

Rodgers,RtHonWilliam

Watkins,David

Rooker, J. W.

Weetch, Ken

Roper,John

Wellbeloved,James

Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Welsh,Michael

Ross,Wm. (Londonderry)

White, Frank R.

Rowlands,Ted

White, J. (G'gowPollok)

Ryman,John

Whitlock,William

Sandelson,Neville

Willey, RtHon Frederick

Sever, John

Wilson, Gordon (DundeeE)

Sheerman,Barry

Wilson, William (C'trySE)

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Winnick,David

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Woodall,Alec

Short, Mrs Renée

Woolmer,Kenneth

Silkin, RtHonJ. (Deptford)

Wrigglesworth,Ian

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Wright,Sheila

Silverman,Julius

Skinner,Dennis

Tellers for the Noes:

Smith,Cyril (Rochdale)

Dr. Edmund Marshall and Mr. James Hamilton.

Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

Soley,Clive

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:
Committee
1. — (1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 29th April 1982.
(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 29th April may continue until Eleven p.m., whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 30th April 1982.
Report and Third Reading
2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Seven o'clock on the second of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
(3) The resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 43 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.
Procedure in Standing Committee
3. —(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.
Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
Dilatory Motions
6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
Extra time on first allotted day
7.—(1) On the first allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
(3) If the first allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.
Private business
8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.
Conclusion of proceedings
9. — (1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9

173
(Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
Supplemental orders
10. — (1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
Saving
11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or

(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day

Re-committal
12. — (1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
Interpretation
13. In this Order—
"allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
"the Bill" means the Employment Bill;
"Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
"Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Satellite and Cable Broadcasting
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thompson.]
6.53 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): The House will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I made a statement on 4 March about direct broadcasting by satellite. On 19 March my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the publication of the report on cable systems by the information technology advisory panel. On 22 March I announced that an independent inquiry under the chairmanship of Lord Hunt of Tanworth was to consider the broadcasting aspects of the possible expansion of cable.
In my statement on 4 March I said that the Government intended to find time for an early debate on DBS. I believe that the House will welcome this opportunity to discuss both DBS and cable. Not all of the issues they raise are identical. Nor is it true that one could not work without the other. However, some of the issues they raise, particularly their implications for broadcasting in this country, are the same, and it is clear that DBS and cable could each benefit from the development of the other.
As a Government we believe that it is vital that our industries should be in a position to reap the benefits that new technology can bring and on which the future economic health of our country will in part depend. The pace of change, particularly in the field of telecomrnunications and broadcasting technology, has increased greatly over the past few years, and it is already clear that the measured procedures of two and three year inquiries to consider the use to which new broadcasting outlets should be put need to be adapted and modified if the opportunities which are offered are not to be missed.
I propose to concentrate my remarks this evening on the broadcasting policy aspects of DBS and cable. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology will, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, towards the end of the debate, want to say more about the industrial side.
I think that it would be right for me at this point to remind the House of the essential features--recently endorsed by Parliament—of our broadcasting arrangements. These form the background against which the possibilities which DBS and cable offer need to be considered. The principal feature of our existing broadcasting services is their public service character. This stems partly from the fact that broadcasting needs radio frequencies and these are a limited resource. We in this country have sought to use the frequencies available for broadcasting to secure that the public at large, including so far as possible those living in the more remote areas, receive services which cater for a wide variety of needs and interests.
A central feature of public service broadcasting is that it has been entrusted, not to particular interest groups, but to public authorities which are accountable to Parliament for their trusteeship of the public interest.
The broadcasting authorities have the responsibility for providing programming of wide range and high quality. They are required to maintain certain programme standards concerning matters such as good taste, political impartiality and the treatment of violence.

175
I am well aware of the view that is held in some quarters that the prospect of an abundance of broadcasting outlets will sweep away the need for regulation in these areas. However, the justification for a number of these rules derives not simply from the scarcity of broadcasting frequencies but from the powerful nature of the medium—from the fact that broadcasting has the unique capacity to address millions of people in their homes simultaneously and in the most direct way in vision and sound. Therefore, I would suggest that there are some ground rules that Parliament has devised or approved for broadcasting which do not automatically fall with an increase in the number of broadcasting outlets.
I have sought briefly to describe the essential features of our existing broadcasting arrangements, partly as background for our consideration of DBS and cable and partly because we have a duty to ensure that public service broadcasting is safeguarded for the future. The nature of public service broadcasting, both in terms of content and geographical coverage, has been established over many years. For many years to come a large proportion of the population is likely to continue to rely on these services for much of their entertainment, information and education. If, by our decisions, we diminish their range and quality we shall harm the interests of very large numbers of people. That consideration has been very much in my mind in relation to DBS and cable and it is one of the reasons why we set up the Hunt inquiry.
It would be possible, of course, to say that the risks to the existing order are too great and that many of the developments that new technology renders possible are for this reason undesirable. That is not the Government's approach. Down that road lies not only economic and industrial stagnation but stagnation in terms of broadcasting. Broadcasting has never stood still. The services we now enjoy are the product of years of change, development and evolution. Indeed, by the end of this year new services on the fourth television channel service will have begun and I have little doubt but that they will enrich broadcasting in this country in much the same way as commercial television and more recently local radio have done. I would suggest, however, that that enrichment was not inevitable: it has been achieved in part because of the care that Parliament has taken in providing the right framework for the development of broadcasting. New developments always raise difficult questions. Our task must surely be to face those questions and to come up with durable answers that will provide a solid foundation for the exploration of new opportunities.
I turn now to DBS and there are two preliminary points that I should like to make. First, DBS offers us only a limited number of extra television channels. They have been allocated under an internationally agreed plan and this country has five at its disposal. Secondly, the question how far one country's satellite services will be received in other countries is more complicated than is sometimes suggested. Inevitably, our near neighbours will be able to receive signals from our satellite and people in some parts of England will be able to receive foreign DBS services. Reception from authorised foreign broadcasting stations would be lawful in this country under the terms of the existing television licence. But for technical reasons the receiving equipment would have to be somewhat more
176
sophisticated and more expensive than the basic equipment needed for receiving the United Kingdom service.
Thus, although the possibility exists, it seems doubtful whether large numbers of people will go to the trouble of being able to receive foreign stations, at least in the early days. A number of European neighbours are concerned about the effect that foreign services, particularly those financed by advertising, might have on their own broadcasting arrangements. Discussions are in progress within the Council of Europe and my Department is represented on a working group that is examining the scope for international agreement on such matters as programme standards and advertising.
DBS does raise new issues. But there are many similarities between DBS and traditional broadcasting. It is because of these that the Government concluded that any British satellite channels should be subject to essentially the same sort of supervisory framework as our existing services and the same requirements on programme standards.
We have, moreover, decided that the BBC should be responsible for operating the first two channels and it might be helpful to the House if I set out in rather more detail than I was able to on 4 March why we reached that conclusion.
The first imperative has been to get ahead as quickly as possible so that our industries can take the best advantage from the expertise that they have already developed in the satellite communications field. That means that contracts need to be signed for the satellite package over the next few months so that a service can be in operation in about 1986. This country is very likely to have a fully operational DBS service well in advance of our European neighbours.
The Government have made it clear all along, however, that they are not prepared to underwrite the cost of the satellite system. Therefore, the broadcasting organisation wishing to negotiate capacity on a satellite with the provider of the hardware has to be in a position to discuss terms and enter into commitments without further delay. The BBC's charter and licence and agreement already give it the necessary power to do so, subject to my consent. It has, moreover, given a good deal of thought to the prospect of satellite broadcasting and has been developing detailed proposals for some time.
I believe that there has been widespread support for our decision to allow the BBC to go ahead with DBS, but I know that some still wonder why we did not at the same time decide to authorise a commercial DBS channel. Let me repeat what I said on 4 March. The Government attach importance to involvement of the private sector in DBS. There are five satellite channels at our disposal and while it would not be practicable to start with fewer than two, we are certainly prepared to move up from two as and when the demand justifies it. At this stage, however, only the BBC is in a position to enter into the formal commitment that is needed if a start with DBS is to be made.
I promised the House in my statement that I would be as forthcoming as possible about the financial arrangements for the BBC's two satellite channels. Figures can, I am afraid, be only very approximate, partly because we are talking about a service that will not be in operation for another four years, and partly because while commercial negotiations are taking place the parties naturally wish

177
certain information to remain confidential. For the BBC there will be two costs to meet—first, the annual rental for each of the two satellite channels and, secondly, the costs of the programme material that they broadcast.
The Home Office study suggested last year that the annual leasing cost per channel might be between £10 and £16 million at 1980 prices depending on the size and specification of the satellite. That estimate still seems to be valid. The study also considered that programming costs could be anything between £10 million a year for a channel that relied entirely on existing material to £100 million for a channel comparable in content with BBC 1 or ITV. Since rights payments are related to the size of the audience, the costs will of course be reduced while the satellite audience is building up.
The BBC believes that its subscription service can be entirely self-financing within about four years and that, thereafter, it will make a profit, which will eventually benefit the licence fee payer. It may need to borrow to cover the start-up costs. The "window on the world" service will be financed out of the licence fee revenue, which might be boosted by a special supplemental licence fee in much the same way as a special rate now applies to colour. The BBC's DBS proposals were not part of its application to me for the recent licence fee increase and the new services will not be in operation until some time after the end of this licence fee period.
There is one further matter that I should like to touch on briefly before I turn to the subject of cable. This concerns the technical transmission standards for DBS which my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) and Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) and the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Wilson) raised after my statement on 4 March. The BBC and IBA have developed proposals for taking the opportunity which DBS offers of achieving higher quality pictures and sound. The BBC's proposal is for an enhanced version of the PAL system used for existing colour transmissions while the IBA has developed a new system called multiplexed analogue components. Work on satellite transmission standards is going on in the European Broadcasting Union and we shall obviously need to take that into account. We shall also need to act in the best interests of the British electronics industry and of the viewing public. Before the Government reach any final decisions on the standards to be adopted for our first two channels we shall wish to have the benefit of independent, expert assessment of both the BBC and the IBA proposals.
I have devoted the greater part of my speech to satellite broadcasting. For many people, the choice for the foreseeable future will be between having their own receiving equipment and not getting the service at all. But there is no doubt that DBS services will have a better chance of securing a fast growth in the size of their audience if they are also available by cable. This point was made by the information technology advisory panel in its recent report on cable systems. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear the Government's determination to secure the advantages that cable technology can bring to this country.
Before the Government can take final decisions there are a number of matters that need further consideration, some of which are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. I am thinking here of questions such as the telecommunications policy aspects of cable, for
178
cable can, of course, provide a variety of telecommunications services as well as services analagous with broadcasting services as we know them. These are areas that the Government are now examining. It is widely acknowledged, however, that cable will not grow in this country unless companies are able to provide a wide range of entertainment services. Various other services, such as teleshopping and telebanking, become possible once the cable is there, but the key to the lock is some modification of the existing rules governing what cable operators may distribute to the public.
It was because we recognised that such a modification would be needed that I decided as long ago as November 1980 to authorise a number of pilot schemes of subscription television by cable. Part of the purpose of these schemes was to enable us to determine the appropriate regulatory framework within which cable might develop. We have recognised, however, that the two-year time scale for these schemes was too long and it was for this reason that I decided to establish an inquiry into the broadcasting aspects of the possible expansion of cable.
I am delighted that we have managed to secure the help of Lord Hunt of Tanworth, Sir Maurice Hodgson and Professor Ring to conduct this inquiry. They have a lot to do in a short time, but they have already started work and a copy of the consultative document which they issued on 7 April has been placed in the Library of the House.
The inquiry is anxious to receive views from a wide range of sources and I hope that all those who take an interest in broadcasting matters will take the opportunity to submit comments to it. The inquiry's consultative document sets out a number of particular questions which it has already identified as among the most important. I should like to mention some of these, not because I intend to deal with them now, but because they show, I think, just how fundamental the issues are.
First, should there be special rules because of the local monopoly that a cable operator might, in effect, have? Secondly, how should cable television be financed and in particular should advertising be permitted? Thirdly, what rules should apply on good taste, decency, due impartiality, the portrayal of sex and violence and so on? Fourthly, how could the rules be supervised and enforced? Fifthly, should political and religious groups be allowed to run channels? Sixthly, what should the relationship be between the cable industry and the press and the film industries?
I believe that we shall have, in the light of the Hunt inquiry's report, to come up with the durable answers to these basic questions if investors are to have the confidence they need to put large sums of money into new cable.
Finally, I should like to return to the fundamental issue I have already mentioned concerning the future relationship between cable television and traditional broadcasting. Whereas DBS offers a few more national services, cable could provide a multiplicity of channels over local networks. No one has yet suggested that it will be possible to reach anything like the 99 per cent. of the population who can now recieve television. I believe that we have a duty to the majority of people in this country who are going to continue to rely on BBC and IBA services for the foreseeable future. They are entitled to expect that

179
the range of quality of those services should not be diminished by cable services siphoning off the best sport, the best films and the best entertainment.
With the BBC's satellite subscription service I am confident that the general interests of the licence fee payer will remain paramount. In the last resort the BBC is accountable to this House for what it does. With cable there are, as yet, no natural safeguards and no natural mechanisms of accountability and we shall need to consider in the light of the Hunt inquiry's report what safeguards and mechanisms of supervision and accountability there should be.
I have tried this evening to set out the background to the broadcasting policy questions which the new technologies of direct broadcasting by satellite and cable raise. The Government's approach to these matters is a positive one. As a country we cannot afford to miss the opportunities which these technologies offer. Equally we cannot afford to ignore the policy questions that the new technology raises, particularly in relation to broadcasting. These questions deserve full consideration in their own right. Moreover, as I have indicated, if we fail to provide durable answers to them we shall fail to provide the solid foundation which is needed for the opportunities to be seized. I commend this approach, and the policies that the Government are pursuing in this exciting field, to the House.
7.18 pm
Dr. Shirley Summerskill: This debate provides a welcome opportunity to discuss satellite and cable broadcasting. Because of the immeasurable influence and immense power exercised by television and the fact that it can determine the way people look at the world, these developments must be subjected to constant and vigilant review by the House. Unlike our previous broadcasting debates, in this case the Home Office is not the only Government Department involved. In fact, according to a recent report by the Cabinet Office on the impact of cable systems, broadcasting will come to be of secondary importance to information technology. The report says:
"The initial attraction for home subscribers will be the extra television entertainment channels. However, the main role of cable systems eventually will be the delivery of many information, financial and other services to the home."
The Minister of State who will wind up the debate for the Department of Industry personifies those who preach with almost missionary zeal and enthusiasm that computers and cables can bring only a new, better and richer life for us all. They see their task as one of informing the ignorant and converting the disbelievers.
One of the more controversial and endearing characteristics of the Home Office is that it never allows itself to be carried away by anything. It sees every issue as a matter for quiet, calm deliberation, which is one reason why it should continue to have the prime responsibility within Government for broadcasting matters. The other reason is that broadcasting is and should continue to be primarily an art, not a science or an industry, although it relies on science and industry for its practical implementation.
The Home Secretary has drawn attention to several important implications of these new, revolutionary forms
180
of broadcasting. He referred to the cost of the satellite proposals. I hope that when he has further information and estimates from the BBC about the impact upon the individual licence fee payer he will make this information known to the House, because the BBC complains that it is chronically short of funds and asks for the licence fee to be put up even higher than it is now. This is an important factor in assessing the cost of the satellite proposals.
The report of the Government's advisory panel on cable is less impressive than the report on satellite from the Home Office. The six men on the panel all hold top positions in technology. They are natural disciples of the cable cause. Only 20 organisations submitted their views. Although the IBA is listed as one of them, I am authorised by its chairman to say that its views were not asked for nor were they submitted. The same applies to the views of the Post Office Engineering Union.
The arguments in the report are mainly commercial and industrial, and its conclusions are dogmatic. The message is that there are huge profits to be made, that there are jobs to be created, and that there must be no delay. The report says that planning for new cable services should start no later than 1983, and preferably earlier. Nobody wants this country to lose on this technology, but we should not rush like lemmings towards it. We should not be railroaded into agreeing to a development programme of £25,000 million, involving more than 30 new televison channels. So Lord Hunt's commission of inquiry is to be welcomed. It will allow consideration of the social consequences and implications of cable broadcasting, the needs, wishes and interests of the public and the effects upon broadcasting standards.
As we wait for channel 4 there is no great evidence of enormous public demand for more and more television. I have not received one letter asking for more television. But new channels can bring with them certain advantages. We can expect a greater freedom of choice and we hope that on each channel minority interests will be catered for. I think, for example, of adult education, local programmes and programmes for the ethnic minorities. There will be the opportunity for a more comprehensive, balanced and less superficial coverage of news and current affairs, and, in the longer term, the isolated and developing areas of the Third world would benefit from a global communications network involving cable and satellite.
In the more immediate future there is a prospect in this country, not of universality but of our being divided into two nations—the half of the population in the larger urban areas having access to cable and the other half in the rural areas being permanently deprived of it, whether they wish to pay or not. The BBC has predicted that only 60 per cent. of the population will ever be covered by cable, because it will not be an economic proposition for the whole country.
Mr. John Browne: Should we decline to proceed on the basis that not everybody will have the benefit of cable at once? If that reasoning had been applied to the introduction of gas and the telephone we should still be using oil lamps and the carrier pigeon. Because not everyone can have cable at once, are we to lose the greatest industrial and technological opportunity of the century?
Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman is putting words into my mouth. I did not say that we should not

181
proceed with cable. I am simply pointing out some of the repercussions of this development, which is what we are here to debate.
There could be another division into two nations, a division of the BBC's licence holders. For the first time inequality in public service viewing will be created. There will be BBC licence holders who can afford the extra money for the satellite subscription service and those who cannot, so not every BBC programme will be available to everybody, as the charter says it should be. That division would be less important if we could be assured that it would not lead to a first-class and a second-class service, with the basic services available to everybody being run down in favour of special services available to a minority.
Lord Hunt's committee will ask whether there should be advertisements on the new channels. If there are, there could be an unprecedented advertising boom. A profusion of channels financed by commercial interests could lead to a serious weakening of public service broadcasting. There is great concern that this should not be allowed to happen.
I am sure that I speak for all my right hon. and hon. Friends when I say that the BBC must continue to be the United Kingdom's major broadcasting authority. Unrestricted, uncontrolled competition from a powerful commercial element would present a serious threat to the quality and range of both the BBC's and the IBA's existing services.
To what extent should the new space age television be regulated, and by what type of body? At one extreme of the argument we have the de-regulators. Mr. Peter Jay,head of the IBA's breakfast television franchise, has said:
"Theoretically there could be as many programmes as there are viewers. Every politician, busybody and self-appointed cultural and moral nanny who wants to lay down what other people may and may not communicate to one another will wish to combat this."
Presumably he is in favour of a free-for-all. One cannot compare, as some do, television programmes and channels to the proliferation of newspapers and magazines which are allowed to come and go uncontrolled. Television is a far more powerful, more intrusive form of communication available at the touch of a button and with a huge influence on the viewers, especially children.
Thirty or more channels of entertainment and information are not simply a small extension of the present system. The new services should maintain the high standards, both technically and in content, that we have come to expect from our existing broadcasting system. There must be a proper programme balance and a wide range in subject matter. It follows that in order to achieve those objectives all satellite and cable broadcasting will need to be subject to some system of public control—that is, by a regulatory authority, and in my view preferably a new separate public body.
The cable operators and programme providers have suggested voluntary self-regulation, but an internal code of conduct or gentleman's agreement would be inadequate as a substitute for an authority with public accountability. The public should be responsible for broadcasting, and they must have confidence in it. Therefore, the cable operators should not be given complete control over the programme services, which is what they are asking for.
There is no advantage in increasing the quantity of programmes available if in the process the general standard and quality deteriorate. This is a matter of
182
concern to all those who want to see preserved the traditions and high reputation of our broadcasting services, which are superior to those in any other country.
Programmes from satellite and cable should as far as possible conform to decency and good taste. They should not encourage violence or crime or lead to disorder. There is increasing research evidence from this country and abroad that social behaviour can be influenced by what has been seen on television.
Every effort should be made to preserve impartiality and political balance in the presentation of news and in the treatment of controversial matters. Advertisements should also be subject to control in the same way as advertisements on independent television are at the moment.
The Home Secretary referred to international agreements on standards, and I was encouraged by what he said. But, on 4 March, in reply to a question from his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) he said:
"If we were to wait for the various matters concerning joint European standards to be drawn up, we might very easily miss industrial opportunities. "—[Official Report, 4 March 1981; Vol. 19, c. 419.]
I realise that since 4 March he has had the benefit of a great deal of Home Office advice on this matter. I hope now that he will be less precipitous.
I gained the impression from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks that he now supports the very careful efforts that are being made to join in a contract of European standards for broadcasting which has been drawn up by the Council of Europe and the European Parliament, both of which are aware of the significance of cable and satellite television. As well as live soccer from Brazil and live circus from Moscow we are promised foreign feature films and plays. This means that an important cultural, linguistic and educational link will be forged between different countries and between viewers in different countries which can be to the good but, if it is riot carefully watched, could be for the bad. So I was glad to hear what the Home Secretary said on that point.
Mr. Michael English: I am riot clear what my hon. Friend meant by her last remarks. Did she mean that the French should scrap their television system, which is different from the systems in the rest of Europe, or did she mean that we should have a common European standard, reconciling the French with the rest of Europe?
Dr. Summerskill: My hon. Friend is referring to technicalities. I was referring to the cultural invasion that will occur when programmes from European and other countries are freely available in Britain for the first time. As I said, this could be a good or a bad thing. It is clear that general standards should be arrived at, if not throughout the world, at least in Europe. Both the Council of Europe and the European Parliament are working on this point.
Mr. English: Tell the French.
Dr. Summerskill: The question with which we are faced is not whether we accept the challenge of satellite and cable broadcasting. I believe that every hon. Member would answer "Yes" to that. The vitally important question is when and how do we proceed. We should not allow ourselves to be stampeded into ill-considered action

183
by vocal and impatient industrialists, even if one of their motives is to provide more jobs. It would be appropriate to let "festina lente" be our motto. The new era of broadcasting can be phased in and the pace of its development controlled. Its quantity and quality can be carefully regulated by a public body in the public interest.
Our main concern should be to preserve the creative freedom of the programme makers, but this must be balanced with the sensibilities and needs of the viewing audience. Above all, we must ensure that all those involved in these new powerful developments of satellite and cable maintain the highest standards of British broadcasting.
7.34 pm
Sir Paul Bryan: I declare an interest as a director of Granada Television. It is from the standpoint of commercially financed broadcasting that I should like to start my speech on cable television.
For the Government, one of the main attractions of the proposed cable programme is that it can be financed from private sources. Whatever developments may emerge over the years when the cable service covers the whole country, it is clear—the Home Secretary has just told us—that its early financial fortunes will depend on entertainment programmes of more or less the type that are now broadcast over our three existing channels.
The ITV companies must know more about commercial broadcasting than do other organisations. Yet, so far, they do not appear to have to been brought in on the discussions on the future of cable television. The report by the information technology advisory board panel is a valuable and informative document, but it is a report by those concerned with cable and not broadcasting people. I very much hoped, when the other members of the Hunt committee were nominated, that we would see a name with an independent television background. That was not to be.
Independent television has great commercial and entertainment experience, but more important in solving the more significant problems of cable vision is its experience, together with the IBA, in the control of broadcasting. The Government have launched into the cable venture with admirable speed, in contrast to past Governments who could be justifiably criticised by the industry for the way in which they dragged their feet. This time, it could be said that the Government are well out in front of the industry. It is true to say that those in broadcasting are far from sure about what is happening. Having assumed after long discussions—we had the Annan committee and the broadcasting legislation—that the future of broadcasting had been settled for the next 20 years, we are now offered an immediate prospect of a revolution in broadcasting on our television screens.
The Home Secretary put six basic questions before the House. They showed that the most important problem to be solved is control. In his recent Fleming memorial speech, Paul Fox of Yorkshire Television said:
"In the final analysis, it seems to me that the words of Mr. Whitelaw are the decisive ones. 'While broadcasters should be independent of Government in the day to day conduct of their business, the Broadcasting Authority should continue to be responsible for the content of programmes, for ensuring that the
184
services are conducted in the general public interest and are in accordance with the requirements and objectives which Parliament places on each authority.'"
Mr. Fox continued:
"That is the way we have always done it in the United Kingdom, with the authorities answerable to Parliament and Parliament answerable to the electorate. While there have been hiccups and shortfalls, it has worked out by and large. The question is, will it continue to work in the age of satellites and cable?"
My answer would be "No". Under our present system the IBA has the power to bestow on a company the favour of a franchise. It follows that the company is in no position to object to fairly tight regulations. The IBA can call in a company's programmes for approval or stricture. It can tell a company what proportion of its programmes should be local or educational. It can require a company to change its board or even to change the shareholders.
Controls of this strictness would certainly not attract investors to the cable system. Yet thousands of millions of pounds must be attracted to the system if the Government's cable plans are to take off. Such restrictions would be physically impossible because, as I understand, we are expecting hundreds of cable companies. In America they have thousands. Detailed control is out of the question.
The cable television industry, as the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) said, advocates self-regulation under its own code of standards. That is the exact opposite of the IBA system, and would be unworkable for different reasons. The code hopefully states:
"We will not transmit anything obscene or in bad taste, and we will use careful judgment over the transmission of unduly violent or sexy material."
That would severely limit the number of films.
The Hunt committee has the incredibly difficult task to find a workable control system. It has only six months to come up with suggestions. Time is not the biggest difficulty. If it had three years like the Annan committee, the problem would still be as hard to solve.
The committee's position is made no easier by the pride that most of us take in our broadcasting standards. Complain as we may that there are days when there is nothing on the box that we wish to see, most people in Britain are rightly convinced that we have the best broadcasting in the world. I believe that the Americans would agree.
A requirement to ensure that people on cable can have at least as good a choice as they enjoy now is that the cable system should carry all ITV and BBC channels. Existing cable companies, with their limited number of channels, might find that a burden, but once they have modernised cables with about 30 channels it is perfectly possible. That might not hold good when we have not only the four present ITV and BBC channels but four more coming in off satellite. That might produce a different problem.
The allocation of franchises, which we make a great toil of even under the present system, would have to be unlike anything so far attempted by the IBA. Most of us would favour small rather than large cable companies, which would mean the licensing of many scores of companies. I hope that the committee will come down in favour of the programme contractor being responsible for both cable transmission and the programme. To split the responsibility of a station between a common carrier and the programme contractor adds a further complication to an already complicated problem.

185
That leads me to ask the Minister of State for enlightenment on his idea of the relations between cable television and the telephone system. The broad band information network based on cable television can transmit electronic information in two directions but it will not carry ordinary telephone services. British Telecom's telephone wires will be able to offer many of the new services offered by cable but not a moving picture.
But the two systems cannot ignore each other. There is no need to dig up the road twice. Will British Telecom be the ally or competitor of cable? Will it be required to provide trunk routes for cable? Trunk routes are largely unnecessary in America where the cable companies are mostly served by satellite. Will British Telecom seek cable television franchises itself, providing programmes as well as cables? All those questions are pertinent for those thinking of going into the industry.
Far the best picture of the television revolution that is coming to Great Britain is the Bow Group paper written by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart). He highlights, as no one else has done, the vast range of people and interests that will be affected by cable, all of whom should have a say in the formulation of its control and structure. The present broadcasting authorities—the BBC, IBA and cable companies—must be consulted, but then there are the television rental companies ——
Mr. Alex Eadie: The hon. Gentleman's discourse is interesting, but he casually referred to streets being dug up. I know that he is interested in the environment and he was at one time concerned about subsidence. We have so far dealt with programme content and which companies should run the system. People must also be concerned about the environment. One argument against combined heat and power is that the installation will tear up the streets. Will the hon. Gentleman address himself to the problem of the environment? Our sewers are collapsing. Will they be looked after?
Sir Paul Bryan: I readily concede that there are enormous environmental implications. The longer that one studies the problem the more one is convinced that we could talk well into the night and still not cover all the implications. We must give a great deal of thought to environmental considerations.
I was listing the other people who are very much concerned in the matter. The television rental companies, which were so much responsible for the phenomenal speed at which colour television spread in Britain, will almost certainly have a role in satellite and cable reception. In America local government has a key position in the allocation of franchises. Should it have a role here?
What about the effect of cable on local papers, local radio and ITV advertising? My advice to the Government is to be wary of protecting commercial interests against the impact of cable. We made the mistake of protecting local papers against local radio by insisting on their being granted a large shareholding in local radio. In the event, that was quite unnecessary. In America television advertising has been unaffected by advertising on cable.
The Bow Group paper to which I referred gives a striking account of what cable can do for the benefit of the arts, ballet and sport. The voices of all those interests must be heard.
The wide and almost endless implications of a cable revolution mean that the Hunt committee and the
186
Government will have to go through a lot of discussion with a lot of people before it takes off. I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that all those implications also mean that yet another authority will have to be set up to supervise cable. On that authority the BBC, the IBA and the television companies should be represented, but the people who must not be forgotten, as the Home Secretary reminded us, are those in large areas which for many years will not be covered by cable. Nothing would cause greater grievance than a split between people who can and who cannot see, say, the Cup Final, Wimbledon or other programmes that they are used to having on general distribution.
Finally, there is a good deal of puzzlement in the broadcasting world not only about the shape of things to come but about the timing and the progression of the various stages in the cable build-up. The Hunt report will be published in September. What happens then? What scale of legislation will be required? When does the Minister expect it to pass through the House?
I congratulate the Government on the cable venture and wish them well.
7.49 pm
Mr. John Golding: Following the speech of the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) and seeing my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) reminds me how many years I have been speaking on this subject on behalf of the Post Office Engineering Union, of which I am an assistant secretary.
I first raised the importance of avoiding the expensive duplication of cabling in the Easter Adjournment debate of 1970, and in the debates on local radio in the early 1970s I developed the theme to which I return this evening—the need for the provision under the control of British Telecommunications of an integrated digital, two-way telecommunications network, capable not only of carrying TV, radio and telephone signals, but also of providing capacity for the information technology explosion. If my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) refers to the Minister as a disciple, I think that I should be known as old man Moses.
That integrated network has not been provided, and that is extremely regrettable. It is clear that the development of information technology could be impeded because of the lack of such a network. The ITAP report, the orange book, came as a bitter disappointment. Because of the partiality of its authors and the lack of homework and consultation which preceded it, it is a major letdown. It is simply a rationalisation on the part of those who want to make money out of the private exploitation of an area which should be developed for the public good.
Of course, there needs to be recabling in Britain. It is obvious that the private relay companies, by skimping, on provision years ago, cannot meet known demands, never mind the needs of the future. Having provided, in some instances, for only four wires, aerials will have to be provided for some customers to receive the six TV programmes which will become available, two of them from the satellite. Satellite communication, even leaving aside the private companies, will make recabling highly desirable. It will be far better to receive signals from satellites by a dish aerial on a telephone exchange and to distribute the programmes locally by cable to individual homes, than to force customers to meet the expense of

187
having individual dish aerials. Satellite broadcasting and the growth in the number of TV channels generally demand the development of broad band cable. The experience of citizens band radio has taught us once again what a scarce resource the air waves are. Broad band cable can help to clear the air.
However, we need our cabling not only to provide a wider range of broadcasting services. Broad band cable, as the hon. Member for Howden said, can also be used for telephony. British Telecommunications must modernise and is modernising the distribution network to improve the quality and range of services which it can provide. It needs not only to modernise the network for improved telephony, including viewphone, but to make it capable of playing its part in the information technology explosion. Here we are talking, for example, about electronic mail, shopping, banking and meter reading. There is no doubt about the need to recable Britain. The question for me is "How?" It must be done by a single, two-way digital, optical fibre, broad band cable along BT ducts and other wayleaves.
Do not let us fall into the trap of doing this job piecemeal, under pressure to patch up Rediffusion and Visionhire. We do not want a botched job. Why put down copper cable which does not meet future requirements and which will need to be ripped out again? Why engage in expensive duplication? Why put more than one cable to a house? If we do not need separate cables, why provide them?
The orange book has failed to think in national terms. It misses the warning that I gave in 1970 against allowing the ownership of the physical system to be put into the same hands as that of broadcasters. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North is here, as he was in the early 1970s, to develop the case for freedom of broadcasting.
In trying to keep British Telecommunications out of the picture, the ITAP report has come forward with proposals for massive waste. If this job is to be done properly, under British control and ownership, for goodness sake let us keep the Americans and Japanese out. If it is to be done on a national scale and not just as a cream-skimming exercise in the big cities, if it is to be done without waste, it must be done under the control of BT. British Telecommunications has the experience of planning both national and local networks. It does not need to apply for wayleaves. It already possesses valuable public assets, ducts, cabinets and poles. It also possesses an excellent well-trained, skilled and qualified staff. They include outstanding planning teams, well used to working with local authorities and clerks of works. They will be badly needed if this job is to be done as smoothly as possible throughout the land.
British Telecommunications also has an outstanding record in the development of cable technology, and it is a world leader in this field. The work done by the research and development people at Martlesham has a fine international reputation. The ITAP report, in failing to acknowledge that, in falling into the trap of being prepared to under-exploit that technology, is committing the perennial British crime of wilfully neglecting British inventiveness. Had other countries the advantage of Martlesham's work, they would have exploited it even more. They would not be talking of laying an obsolescent
188
copper cable system, knowing that it would have to be ripped out again. In the interests of Britain, we cannot leave this job to be done purely for the benefit of private profit. It must be done by BT, in partnership with British companies, with BT having the major role, which obviously must include provision and maintenance of the physical network.
There is no time this evening for me to deal adequately with financing. However, I must make two points. First, the Post Office Engineering Union is utterly opposed to the sale of any of BT's assets. Secondly, we believe that BT cabling should be financed from borrowing which should be regarded as outside the public sector borrowing requirement.
I conclude my remarks by appealing to the Government to think in broader national terms than has their handpicked prejudiced panel about recabling Britain. Recabling is badly needed, but it should be done in the best possible way.
7.58 pm
Mr. Tim Brinton: As I have listened to this interesting debate, I have reflected, as a Member who voted enthusiastically against the televising of Parliament, that once we got multi-channel cable television, I would vote for that very thing, because it would have a place in that system.
I shall not follow the somewhat technical speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). Rather, I shall come directly to my main argument. So far, every speech in the debate, which has been interesting and sometimes exciting, has mentioned cable television in the same breath as broadcasting as we know it today. Right hon. and hon. Members have pointed to the differences, but they look at the matter from the point of view of broadcasting in the Reithian sense and everything that has developed since then. I submit that once we are in the cable television age the difference will be as great as, for instance, between the live theatre and cinema theatre or the cinema theatre and television. Therefore, we must examine much more thoroughly the implications of what cable television will offer to Britain, how it will offer it and how it should be regulated.
The assumption that what we have offered in the past on television screens will be repeated in the cable exercise is wrong. The BBC and ITV stations will for some time have their place on the cable mechanisms in people's homes, but quite soon there will be so many other developments, apart from the inevitable entertainment channels which will be required to make the process viable, and so many other uses—videophones, conference facilities, shopping and banking—that the emphasis of broadcasting as we know it will fade into the background.
Broadcasting will continue to be transmitted by satellite into the ether and received by licence holders. Just as, when colour television came in, the black and white set remained—many of us still have the old black and white set—cable broadcasting will not cause a division in terms of a diminished audience for broadcast television and thereby deprive the 40 per cent. of the population which it is estimated will not receive cable television for a long time. I cannot go down the BBC road and say "never", because progress is so fast in such processes that "never" is too strong a word to use.
If I make that submission, I wonder whether the sort of regulation that we have presupposed in television as we

189
know it is in any way suitable for the cable exercise. A different system of regulation is self-imposed in the film industry and works quite satisfactorily. There is a different system for the theatre called the law of the land. There is a law against obscene telephone calls, so there must be a law against obscenity on cable television, but why cannot a process such as the law of the land be developed to simplify matters?
The hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) said that we do not wish to be stampeded into something that we might regret. Of course that is true, but there is great urgency in this matter. If we do not hurry the technology will leave Britain and the Americans, the Canadians and many other people might sweep in and do it for us. Our firms will not be in a position to plan and meet their orders. I plead with the House not to delay for the sake of the ponderous way in which we have legislated for regulation in broadcasting. We must become streamlined and efficient and ensure that the law of the land is upheld, but we must allow maximum freedom of operation to the cable operators.
The opportunities that this will give to local television news are huge. One contender for IBA franchise in the South of England had a main plan that was 10 years ahead of its time when it emerged two years ago. The idea was to sub-divide into small community television news areas. It could not have been done economically under the present system, but it is the sort of thing that we can do with cable television, right down to parish pump news. Many people are crying out for that. It would be a great help if we could keep the operation simple and leave it to the local authorities to look after the system. We should allow the free market and the cable operator to plan programmes with the same freedom that we give the cinema or the theatre. What is so offensive about that?
It is sad that we could not take our courage in both hands and put up the satellite that carried five channels at the beginning. That satellite must be launched very soon—perhaps much sooner than some people realise—so that we can have genuine competition on satellite programmes. As an old BBC man, I am pleased that the BBC now has the opportunity that it wanted so much, but as an old ITV employee I am sorry that it seems that that network was not quite as alive to the opportunities as it might have been.
Let us have free competition in this age of multi-channel television. Let us also think of another word for cable television. It is not television and it is certainly not broadcasting. Above all, let us create the new technology and the jobs that come with it and become alive and excited again about the future.
8.6 pm
Mr. Philip Whitehead: I follow the line of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton) in welcoming the debate and the way in which the Home Secretary, with other weighty matters on his mind today, introduced it. I am less enthusiastic about some of the things that have been said by those who would welcome with open arms all of the new technology simply because it is new or because it provides an entrepreneurial impetus for some sections of British industry. I accept that that is important, but other matters should be laid before the House today.
I am one of those who regret the contrast between the two documents that are the working papers of this debate.
190
The study on DBS is a considerably important paper on which the Home Office should be congratulated. However, the ITAP report, or orange paper, is an essentially shoddy document because nowhere does it examine the considerations of the spread of cable television in this country that go beyond the purely commercial. I hope to show that there are considerations that go beyond the purely commercial. There is the question of the uses to which we put the new technology as well as the question of whether we welcome it.
As the hon. Member for Gravesend said, we are already on the edge of the breakdown of the mass audience, the limited off-air systems and, probably, of the considerable constraint and regulation that went with them. The signpost now inevitably points down the road of deregulation. However, the pace at which we go is still an important question. The restraints that we can insert, when constraint must be abandoned, are important.
Anyone who has bought a video recorder and who is suddenly aware of the video culture, which relates not so much to the recording of programmes off air but to the buying in shops of video films, will know where the market is and how the existing system of off-air broadcasting stands to be broken down. When my children go to the local video store to hire a film for an hour they are, although they do not know it, striking a death blow at the British cinema industry. They are also showing, with their preferences and their purchases, exactly how the main thrust of cable and satellite broadcasting may go.
I shall consider how the systems have developed in the United States of America, which is perhaps the best analogy for us. It is true that penetration by cable systems is more extended in Belgium than in America, but Belgium is a special case because it is open to many different cultures and languages and is bilingual itself. In the United States of America we can see how the pattern of both satellite and cable broadcasting has developed and we can draw some conclusions from it.
In Britain and in other smaller European countries, we have the prospect not merely of greatly increasing the amount of national broadcasting services available to us, not merely of the two services that will come from the BBC, three possible additional ones and perhaps another five from Ireland, which will be easily viewed over much of the United Kingdom, but the possibility that some of the European services will be seen in this country, as the Home Secretary said. We may think that that is a matter of no importance. The English language is dominant in Europe. The mid-Atlantic Anglo-Saxon culture in electronic entertainment is so dominant that we do not have to face the threats and real fears faced by the Norwegians and the Swedes. However, it has not been mentioned so far in the debate that an experiment is already proceeding with a commercial satellite, which has already been launched and is in operation. Its programmes will be seen soon in this country.
I should like to ask the Home Secretary about the regulation of satellite broadcasting. How close are we, through the Council of Europe or any other international agency, to an agreement about the degree to which those satellite services operating in the footprint of one country and extending to another shall be deemed to be within the regulatory powers of the second country? There is the use of advertising. One country may wish to have satellite services that operate by some form of additional subscription. In another country an advertiser may wish to

191
have services that are shown and marketed in the second country. There have been legal cases in Belgium relating to the services on cable between Luxembourg and Belgian cable television which have led to a judgment in the courts. Something will have to be worked out quickly with regard to satellites. I should like to hear from the Government more than we have about progress towards an international convention on those matters.
Mr. John H. Osborn: There was a debate in the Council of Europe on that matter last September arising from a report in the science and technology committee of the Council of Europe by Mr. Langslet, a Norwegian. That debate was about legal aspects of those matters, and has been referred to Ministers in the Council of Europe. As a Member of Parliament and as a member of the Council of Europe, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a much greater need for urgency in resolving the differences between the various countries.
Mr. Whitehead: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As a former member of the Council of Europe, I know of the concern that the Norwegians have, as a small country of about 4 million people, that their language and culture might be submerged in future by dominant satellite progammes coming from another source, with all the resources that are available to it. I hope that we shall hear more from the Government on that point.
With regard to satellite broadcasting, there has been a decision to give to the BBC the two initial services. There is some force in what the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) said about that decision. I accept that the Annan committee, of which I was a member, recommended that the BBC should have charge of satellite broadcasting. That was the right initial decision. The national broadcasting system should initiate this great experiment.
However, I have one qualm. It seems that once one allows the BBC to have one of its two services on the satellite financed by a subscription service, one is a part of the way towards first and second-class viewing. It is one of the great glories of the public service broadcasting system that the little old lady on the top of Snowdon—if she exists—and the metropolitan viewer sitting in the middle of a lavishly provided viewing area that has a high profile for advertising and is easily penetrated by every form of electronic communication receive the same service. That may no longer be so in the future with the dual system of satellite broadcasting. The satellite services, if we consider the parallel example of the United States, have tended to look most of all for their initial penetration to the box office. They have wanted to go for the big exclusive services and for the international boxing match. They have probably already signed up for the next Olympic Games. They will go for the first runs of the major feature films.
If most of those services are siphoned off to a satellite system, even if it is in the ultimately respectable and worthy hands of the BBC, there will be first and second-class broadcasting. Therefore, I am much more in favour of allowing the BBC to charge a supplementary licence fee for the receiver rather than charging for one set of services available to one set of viewers as against the second-class services that might be available to another set of viewers.
192
Some right hon. and hon. Members have been slightly starry-eyed about cable television. The hon. Member for Gravesend referred to the little local services that will put out all the newsy and worthy women's institute sort of programmes, which would be the life blood of the localities. The reality is not like that.
I support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill). I remember the debates in the early 1970s about the need for a common carrier. One of the distressing aspects of the report is that nowhere does it accept the argument, which should have been one of the six arguments put forward by the Home Secretary, that there should be a single common carrier. The Home Secretary did not refer to that. We should consider it seriously.
If we are to embark on the expenditure of £2·5 billion, we will want to wire up the country properly with the best fibre optic system. If we do that, there should not be a random growth as in the United States, however strongly certain commercial interests will press for that. They are already entrenched. They can pray in aid the increase in employment that would follow if they were allowed to go ahead by themselves. However far the investment eventually takes us down the road of deregulation and to the global village, we should use a single common carrier system and divorce that common carrier from the purveyors of programming and other services as far as possible. That would go part of the way towards meeting the question of regulation.
The report says that the industry will be able to set up an effective means of self-regulation after the manner of the advertising or newspaper industries. I am not happy about the self-regulation of the newspaper industry. Extensive criticism has been made of the way in which self-regulation has worked in that industry. There have been three Royal Commissions of inquiry in the past 30 years. At the moment there is considerable public criticism of that degree of self-regulation.
The United States examples are the most developed. To borrow a phrase of J. K. Galbraith, trust in the hidden hand can be replaced by the hidden handshake. That is one of the problems of allowing the market to deal with the system by itself.
I am in favour of a regulatory agency. There will have to be one, whether or not it is linked with the common carrier. I agree with the hon. Member for Howden on that point. I also agree that it will have to see that the grandiose proposals and promises that are made by the cable operators are carried into effect when various systems are licensed.
I draw the attention of the House to a long article earlier this year in The Listener by Brian Winston, entitled "America's cable caper". Mr. Winston looks at the reality of services in the United States as against the promises. He was able to show that whereas many people believe that the United States is now festooned with hundred channel systems offering two-way capacity and allowing one to do everything from checking a bank statement to changing the baby's nappy by TV, in fact no such systems exist anywhere in the United States. The major profitable services in that country come from the popular box office services to which I have already referred. They are the services pulling in the money.
Those who are in favour of deregulation should note that those systems rely largely not on ordinary movies but on what are euphemistically called adult movies. If one

193
wants round the clock soft pornography it can be obtained on these systems in the United States. It is interesting to note that space on one of the satellites is shared between Playboy magazine and the National Christian network. I am not sure what common interest on this common carrier is shared by them.
Turning to the alleged local services—the local access services—mentioned by the hon. Member for Gravesend, the reality in the United States is that as regards information they are often no more than a revolving cable drum which shows how many planes are late at the local airport. To refer again to Mr. Winston's article, there are access programmes that include the Ugly George Show, where an interviewer roams the streets dressed in a silver suit asking ladies to take off their clothes, a nude chat show, and an endless parade of egomaniacs doing party turns and excruciating interiews. We saw some of those shows in the small hours on the night of the last American presidential election when Granada Television ran three hours of them.
One might feel that the Ugly George Show or its equivalent—the Ugly Willie show, or whatever one wants in this country—would be a great asset for British television, but I doubt it.
Mr. Brinton: I accept that cable television is in its early days, even in the United States. However, can the hon. Gentleman project his mind forward a decade to see this local development more seriously than he does now? I believe that it could be.
Mr. Whitehead: I accept that is a possibility. However, it is now 34 years since the first aerial was run up in the holy city and a good 15 years since the first multi-channel system with all the promises involved—we met some of the people from Columbus and Dayton and other places who were installing them—were first introduced in the United States. Although there is a demand for some of these services, I am not sure that they have the worthy objectives or that they result in the end product suggested by the hon. Gentleman. The implication for a long time to come is that the entertainment considerations will dominate, to refer again to the report on cable systems.
If entertainment considerations dominate, they will be mass entertainment considerations and it will not matter whether there are 3, 23 or 103 channels. There is the danger that British viewers who at the moment have a good system of broadcasting—not perhaps the best in the world, but a good system—will be locked into the phoney non-choice of a number of channels that constrict their choice by simply replaying the fetish of the day over and over again. Hon. Members who have read E. M. Forster's story "The Machine Stops" will remember what happened in that story. The people who had been locked into the video city eventually found that watching what they liked, piped through to their apartment, was more interesting than the real world. They failed to talk to each other. That is one of the problems of the global village. People might not talk to each other any more. I want to connect one with another in our society. I am not sure that uncritically embracing the new technology will do that.
8.25 pm
Mr. Michael Marshall: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). He made an interesting and well-informed
194
speech. However, I could not help feeling that as he pointed to the path of deregulation he appeared to be appalled at the prospect. Perhaps his American examples would not automatically be transferred to this country. I accept there is a possibility, but we start from a certain basic standard of quality and if we consider the way that the two systems compare today there is some hope for us.
The hon. Gentleman did the House a service in addressing his mind to some of the immediate realities. Indeed, I am in that slightly aggrieved situation of seeing one or two of my own bull points disappearing fast. For example, his remarks on video were absolutely right.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) is about to enjoy a well-earned break and leave the Chamber, because I want to be critical of her later. The hon. Member for Derby, North presented a much more realistic view than the somewhat Roundhead approach expressed by the hon. Lady. In suggesting that video was already establishing the market norm the hon. Gentleman was absolutely right. If we add the decision on DBS, within a short time—by 1986—people in this country will have a choice of six channels and four years later another three channels. As the hon. Gentleman also rightly said, with the five Irish channels and, I would add, the possibilities of Luxembourg with access to DBS, the viewer will have freedom of choice of a wide range of programmes and material, quite apart from what might happen on cable. Inevitably, people will seek to use those systems—the footprint in Europe—to transmit programmes to this country. No one has yet mentioned that simultaneous translation means that the whole economic basis of much of this broadcasting will be to spread its footprint as widely as possible.
In looking at one or two of the realities and in seeing how we should go down the road of deregulation—which I firmly support—we must take account of the continuing quantum leap forward in technology. Those of us who try to follow these matters may speak with care and attention but recent history shows that one is facing a constant acceleration in the growth of new technology. For example, until recently it was said that direct broadcasting by satellite was not viable. But as the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) will be aware more than most, the very viability of this broadcasting has itself been assisted by the intermix of the business and telephone service which will be part of the Halley 1 United Satellites development, in which I declare an interest. That mixed payload is of great importance in showing how the technology and economics are changing at a remarkable pace. It is confidently predicted that we shall soon see the small dish, that we may even have a plate in the wall. If it comes to that development, the low cost adoption of DBS will follow through the whole country and therefore bring with it the range of programming that will follow.
That must set the framework when we talk about cable. We must, therefore, assume a wide range of programme material, some of which we have no hope of controlling, whether we like it or not. Just as in the case of sound broadcasting and independent radio, so we must assume that the move will be towards freedom.
If we were not to take into account the realities of the situation, we would still be arguing about whether the BBC should have been given this opportunity. Had the BBC not been given this opportunity, we would have been considerably behind in the competitive situation that we

195
face with the emergence of the TV Sat from the French-German consortia. It was, therefore, a wise move to give the go-ahead. I certainly welcome the prospect of ITV taking an interest in this and I believe that that will be possible by 1990 in view of extra channel capacity.
I revert to the interests of both the consumer and industry, in which I have a joint interest. As to the consumer, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that unfulfilled demand will be met. I was a little surprised that the hon. Member for Halifax set store on the fact that she had not received any letters about feature films personally. She was well answered by her hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North. The video explosion shows exactly what current demands are.
In addition to the film side, there has been the sale of about 500,000 video recorders. It is, therefore, wise to remember that there is a tremendous capacity, either by hiring or purchase, to get deep into the heart of the home entertainment industry.
There are also opportunities in respect of interactive television. There is the opportunity to move away from what has been called passive television viewing to active television viewing. That is of the greatest importance. It is not just a question of demand for a sports channel, feature films or specialist interests. It is also of the greatest social importance that there are now opportunities to see the way ahead for the alarm call, fire prevention and so on, which will have enormous implications for our social infrastructure. Whatever the move towards some kind of regulatory restraint, one would hope that that aspect will be assured of its development. I strongly support the move towards deregulation, but I recognise that important social consequences and opportunities open up, particularly with cable.
We perhaps tend to take a somewhat insular view about the opportunities that will be available for our own people. Obviously, I welcome the opportunities not just for the viewer but also for our technicians, performers, writers and so on. I declare an interest as a part-time writer for television, but I am managing only one programme or series a year and I do not suppose that that will rock the entire system.
The opportunities are considerable. I do not agree with those who try to suggest that creaming off will be a one-way process. For example, it has been suggested that the prestige, or high budget, programme will be diluted. I think that it will work the other way. I think that the high budget programme, be it for entertainment, drama or whatever, will probably be used in the first instance on a subscription channel, but surely the logical progression is to make it available on the general channel to get more overall coverage. One expects that to be the approach of the BBC on DBS before reverting to general broadcasting.
The industrial prospects are indeed glittering prizes. Some hon. Members should not pooh-pooh these, because for many years we have been looking for real, long-term, new industrial openings. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology has played a notable part in advocating the rewiring of the country. Those of us who support him do so because we genuinely believe that the opportunities are for real, long-term jobs on a massive scale. I am sure that my hon. Friend will say something about that when he replies.
196
If we are to exploit that situation, it is not just a matter of broadcasting opportunity. It means achieving real skills in this technology that are transferable in the world at large. I advise British Aerospace on the space side of its activities. I know that it is fully confident that within the new consortia, United Satellites, the technology is now fully available to exploit systems through the European footprint and to provide, via the business channel side, a possible link with the United States. That is, perhaps, an even more glittering prize, which I am sure the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme would warmly welcome.
If we relate that to the way in which our capability on satellites has at one fell swoop been strongly increased by the domestic building programme, relate it to the United Kingdom defence satellite and other domestic developments, and relate that to Britain's lead in communication satellites, with L-Sat which incorporates the television service for Italy, we can reasonably hope in the next few years to go into world markets and play an increasing role in selling our technology. I see great opportunities for the sale of British skills and the arts of our television programme producers. This entire British package is an immensely exciting opportunity.
Mr. Bowen Wells: My hon. Friend has mentioned the expansion of our ability to produce satellites. Does he recognise that in Stevenage the sale of satellites has increased five times each year compounded? This represents a major diversion from defence spending to the civilian use of our expertise and technology, which is a prize we should not give away.
Mr. Marshall: I know of my hon. Friend's constituency interest in ensuring that this should be a continuing process. He intimates that, so far as British Aerospace is concerned, there has been the opportunity to take up within space development many of the shifts from traditional defence capability where engineering skills are transferable. From my constituency's viewpoint, the Marconi interest in payload, which is leading to the recruitment of engineers and so on for that company, is to be welcomed as an offset against some of the changes in defence budgeting.
I do not intend to detain the House long in a most interesting and important debate because many hon. Members wish to speak. The House has a specially important role to play in the future and continuity of this development. It can be said of successive Governments that there has been a lack of continuity in policy and thinking about these matters. It is slightly depressing to hear from the hon. Member for Halifax that there shall be no more cakes and ale in her Cromwellian relish. When we have a great opportunity, we should move in a consistent way. The vagaries of Government life being what they are, I do not suggest that that is an immediate or major concern. However, in trying to ensure that there is consistency in the way in which we approach matters such as deregulation and the way in which we encourage what is undoubtedly a major industrial opportunity, the House has a big part to play. Therefore, I conclude by touching upon one or two impediments, which I hope the House will help remove and use its judgment to see ways through.
There are those who try to turn every major industrial opportunity in this country into a cry for protection, saying

197
that we may be swamped by imports. I do not believe that. As I said earlier, this country has a very strong technological base. Its software undoubtedly leads the world. If, to that, we increasingly harness the kind of hardware that stems not just from satellite broadcasting but from cable and a whole range of interactive television, we shall open up considerable opportunities. It may well be a two-way trade, but we should regard it in that light and not in a defensive way.
Similarly, in view of the opportunities before us, if one of our worries is programmes and material imported to this country, we should recognise that as a two-way process with which, with our track record and proven ability, we can cope. British film making and British television programming, which are recognised world-wide, will be given far greater opportunities when the viewing of British television or film products becomes more widely available through the kind of international links of which I have spoken.
The hon. Member for Halifax, who spoke for the Opposition, gave something of a plug for the Home Office and its traditional attitudes. I recognise her past service in that Department. However, it is wise to remember that the Home Office has not always been in the vanguard of progress. It was the Home Office in the 1920s which opposed the extension of BBC broadcasts overseas because they would interfere with ships' distress signals. I hope that in these more enlightened times those who urge the case for deregulation will ensure that we do not become caught up with technical discussions that are constantly overtaken by events.
A great opportunity has opened up before us. I am heartened to find that there are so many in the House, including my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who see it in those terms. We may yet live to see the day when this debate will be regarded as something of a major milestone.
8.41 pm
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: I agree with much that the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) has said. I welcome the Government's decision to go ahead with DBS and, I hope, to proceed with the laying of a new cable network for the entire country. I give that welcome from an industrial point of view. I hope that it will lead to the development of new technologies, new wealth and new employment.
Direct broadcasting by satellite and cable television are inextricably linked. It appears that one will use the other and provide services for the entire community. The services that the new cable system could provide lie not only on the entertainment side, on which we have tended to concentrate during the debate, but, much more importantly, will go to the core of our industrial and commercial life in future. I hope that it will lead to a multi-channel interactive network which may be used for business, industrial and commercial purposes as well as for entertainment.
We are talking about an opportunity that should be grasped with both hands. I do not say that it should be grasped uncritically. We should not throw off all the shackles and go for it hell for leather. None the less, it should be grasped with both hands and welcomed. I am pleased that the Government have proceeded. I share the feelings about the Home Office expressed by previous
198
speakers. In the past, if one wanted to kill a proposal it was necessary only to send it to the dustbin of Whitehall in the knowledge that it would rest there for many years.
Many areas of our public life which need reform are the responsibility of the Home Office. The Home Office has not acted with alacrity in the past. However, I am pleased that the Home Secretary and his ministerial colleagues have been able to press ahead with CB radio. A great battle had gone on for many years. I am pleased also that they are now pressing ahead with direct broadcasting by satellite.
The future that direct broadcasting by satellite will provide is difficult to predict at this stage. Immediately ahead the two channels will come under the control of the BBC. I do not expect that that will cause great difficulty. The control of the BBC is clearly laid down in its charter and the BBC has long experience in providing current services.
The introduction of this service may also have an important impact on the finances of the BBC—a point which has not so far been mentioned. If, as the Home Secretary suggested, the service becomes profitable after four years, if it continues to be successful and if the BBC obtains a further channel out of the five that will become available, this may provide a major new source of revenue which will make the BBC less reliant on the licence fee.
There seemed to be some doubt in the Home Secretary's opening speech as to whether a supplementary licence fee, as had been previously mentioned, was a firm proposition at this stage. I believe that at times the BElC's independence has been severely threatened as a result of its reliance on the licence fee, so an alternative source of revenue would be most welcome. It would also help to overcome some of the anomalies arising out of the licence system, which we have debated many times in the past.
If we are to have a new cable system throughout the country, which I greatly favour, who will lay and control the cable network? This raises the question of the whole future role of British Telecom. I generally agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) about the good sense of using the facilities, the experience and the systems—the wayleaves and the cable network—that British Telecom already has available, and not duplicating them unnecessarily, but that must depend to a large extent on how British Telecom develops. At present, a number of large questions hang over its future—not least, in recent weeks, that of whether private capital is to be introduced not just in the form of Buzby bonds but through a far more substantial inflow of private funds—that is, a form of BP solution for that organisation. That and the development of the Mercury cable system now being planned raise substantial questions about who will be responsible for the various cable networks in this country.
Again, there has been talk in the press about the establishment of a communications commission. which I assume would be similar to the Federal Communications Commission in the United States, to regulate the various bodies responsible for the cable network and the transmission network in this country. I am pleased to see that the Minister for Industry and Information Technology is to reply to the debate. I hope that he will continent on the role of British Telecom and of the new Mercury consortium, as well as on the possibility of other contractors being responsible for laying and running the

199
cable network for cable television. If we are to have a whole new network of cablevision available, I believe that this will transform television services in this country.
I shall deal briefly with regulation of standards, although it is not principally my area. I do not wish to see any decline in the standards of broadcasting services in this country, but I think that we must look ahead to a time when a multitude of television services will be possible. I see neither the possibility of nor the necessity for the kind of close regulation of that system which exists for the present channels. The present system of regulation was established when television was a new medium, which was perhaps rather feared by many people, and when it was far more of a monopoly—that is the important point—than will be the case in the future.
However, if cable companies are to have a monopoly in their areas and if we are to get the whole of the cable network off to a good start, I am sure that we should consider carefully the necessity of having a regulatory body, at least in the initial stages. I would go for the minimum necessary to sustain standards. But we must ensure that it does not in any way kill initiative and restrict the development of these services. There is the demand in the country for them. They provide tremendous opportunities not only for entertainment but for communications in many parts of the community.
Cable television provides an opportunity for new industries and developing technologies. This country has a great lead and it is one that we should maintain and develop for the benefit of the whole community. It is even more important for jobs and prosperity and for the manufacturers of cable and the equipment that will be added to the system such as receivers and other equipment, when the cable network is laid. I welcome what the Government have done so far. I hope that they will press ahead. I welcome the developments. They are for the benefit of the community and will help employment and industry.
8.52 pm
Sir Philip Goodhart: I welcome the constructive tone of the speech by the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth). I share his views about control, to which I shall return later.
In the past three years I note, with some surprise, that we spent more time in the House discussing the use of the Welsh language on channel 4 than on the development of DBS and cable and the introduction of the new methods of communication that can have an immense impact on the lives of many people in this country within the next decade.
Therefore, I do not find it surprising that we should be having our first important debate on the DBS and cable on a day that is dominated by the Falkland Islands dispute and when the debate has in its turn been pushed back three hours by the necessity for the timetable motion on the Employment Bill. It is a pity, because while I applaud the speed with which the Government have appointed Lord Hunt and other advisers there is, I am sure, a limit to the scale of decision that can be left to these advisers.
Let us examine for a moment the central issue of franchise areas and control. In this country commercial television licences have been allocated by a central body and local authorities have had little or no control over what
200
was happening in their areas. In America, effective control over the nearly 5,000 cable networks that exist has been shared between the Federal Communications Commission and the local cities, towns and counties of America. In recent years under both Democratic and Republican Governments the federal role has been diminished and the local one enhanced.
Mr. John Spence: In the United States the general law also helps, because of the ability to bring private prosecutions in the event of infringement of the general law. That must be mentioned in addition to the other agencies of control. It is a line that we could develop in this country as well.
Sir Philip Goodhart: I would welcome, if I was a lawyer, the vast litigation that has developed in the United States during the last 10 years involving cable companies. I am not sure that it has been wholly helpful in the development of cable systems. I suspect that the role of the local authorities in cable television in this country will be much greater than we expect. The impact on local democracy can be important. The relationship between central and local control of the development of cable is worth a day's debate itself in Parliament. It is not an issue that can be decided by Lord Hunt and his advisers alone.
Every hon. Member in this debate has alluded to central control. This is basically a political question on which advisers can make interesting comments but where a decision has to be taken by hon. Members. We insist on a high degree of party political balance from the BBC and ITV, especially at election times. Ought there to be similar rules for cable television? Surely not—but can we dispense at this stage with rules of political balance altogether?
There is also the question of religion. Religious broadcasting has been tightly controlled on the BBC and ITV. With cable television, we can have in our living rooms every Sunday and, indeed, every day of the week the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope, Billy Graham, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), the Moonies and, for that matter, the Ayatollah Khomeini. American experience suggests that religious television has an enormous impact. Do we mind if the American experience of no controls is duplicated here?
Another question is that of pornography. Mary Whitehouse is well aware that soft pornography has been a feature of many cable systems in America. I suspect that fear of Mrs. Whitehouse's wrath has, in the last few years, had an even more delaying effect on the Home Office's approach to cable television than might otherwise have been the case. The hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) argued the need for European standards on these matters. I am not sure how one can produce European standards in this sphere. Does one, after long international debate, decide that between the hours of six and nine it is proper for a female to appear on the screen with one bosom uncloaked, but that two would be too many? It is exceedingly difficult to produce relevant European standards in this field. I suspect that efforts to produce such detailed controls will result in absurdity.
Then there is the question of ownership. Do we care if the Americans own cable systems in Britain? Do we care if the Arabs, Australians or even Argentines own them? We do not care if American, Arab, Australian or Argentine books, magazines or newspapers come into Britain. In

201
other words, should we now treat cable television as another form of traditional television which is tightly controlled, or should we look upon it as a different form of publishing, where we take pride in the fact that there is almost total freedom in the production of newspapers, magazines and books?
I am sure that the Government will want to consult the House freely on this point before making up their mind. I happen to believe that there is a case for some control at the moment, but that that case will grow weaker as the potential for wide competition becomes a reality.
It is plain that the introduction of multi-channel television will give a new twist to the increasingly urgent problem of copyright. Tapes and video tapes have already produced problems for the music and film producing industries. The legal complexities of copyright problems arising from cable television are likely to keep all the lawyers who come to the British Bar in the next 10 years fully employed. The American Government have given cable networks special copyright protection which is now being challenged in Congress. What do the Government intend to do about this problem, which is of substantial importance in the development of this new industry?
I support the new urgency which the Secretary of State for the Home Department has brought to this issue. I am delighted to hear that the Government are now treating the matter urgently. I hope that this will only be the first of many debates that we shall have in the House on this subject in the coming months.
9.4 pm
Mr. Clement Freud: I agree with much that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) said, especially about the need for deregulation. I hope that this debate is intended to lend impetus in Britain to a branch of technology that is the fastest growing industry in the United States of America.
The industry is capital-intensive rather than labour-intensive, yet it employs 35,000 people directly and another 70,000 in related services. One of the major companies in America increased profits over 10 years by 3,650 per cent; it has a projected revenue of $3·6 billion this year_ The prediction shows that by the end of the decade 30 million more households will be linked by cable, which is 30 million more than the 28 million who can currently receive cable television.
The Japanese Government actually allocate a substantial sum—a specific percentage of gross national product—to growth industries of the future. I suppose that there are Ministers who would argue that we do the same here, in that unemployment is our growth industry. However, the Japanese invested heavily in telecommunications in the last decade, while we talked. While one deplores the years of wasted opportunity—for which we are all to blame—let us welcome the current resolve to make all speed.
Let us welcome the fact that in the Minister—who is my London Member of Parliament—we have an expert among a majority of journeymen. Some eight years ago I argued about the foolishness of giving responsibility for broadcasting to the Home Office. I suggested then that the Milk Marketing Board was just as capable and as proper an authority to look after broadcasting, and I want to resume that theme tonight.
The Home Office was given responsibility for broadcasting to safeguard programme standards—what in
202
Halifax Latin might be called "in loco nanny". Although that may be important, the Home Office is actually the last place in Whitehall from which a bright vision of the future is likely to emerge. The Home Office's job has always been to stop rather than to create. It is a negative Department. It is anti crime, anti illegal immigration —it is currently anti all immigration—anti CB radio on wavelengths that give decent reception, and it brings a negative approach to information technology. I hope that the most earnest consideration will be given to transferring all responsibility for broadcasting to the Department of Industry, which is forward looking. I am convinced that if the Department of Industry had had responsibility, we would now be a few years further ahead and would be looking towards the American example from a position of pride rather than envy.
I should like the Minister to give practical thought to two areas. Like the hon. Member for Beckenham, I turn to the subject of copyright. Since the days of Caxton we have led the world in protecting the inventor, artist, writer and musician. The easier we make it for people to receive programmes, the greater will be the abuse of copyright. I am not so much concerned about single copies made among friends for their own use on films or cassettes, although that leads to the loss of vast royalties for those who have risked their capital and lent their skill. The serious villains are those who poach, publish and sell and do immense harm to a hard-pressed industry. It is a theft of creativity, no less; it is just that.
In their latest survey, the independent management accountants, Ernst and Whinney, estimate that the loss to rights owners amounts to about 35 per cent. of the retail price of a lost sale. Last year sales amounted to £283 million and the loss to rights owners as a result of the in-home taping of programmes was therefore £99 million.
Secondly, I turn to the environmental problem and to the sheer size and ugliness of the dishes. One is bemused at technocrats who find ways of sending men to the moon and of putting huge laboratories into space, but who are still unable to create a bottle of milk that can be opened and closed with any hope of success in not getting milk on one's Chelsea boot. Let an aesthetically acceptable dish aerial be their priority. Something must be done to stop the countryside becoming uglier than is absolutely necessary. I know that aerial dishes can be put into the roof rather than on top of the roof, but might there not be an argument for planning permission for exposed dishes?
The siren voice of the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) who seeks to set up yet another authority is the last point to which I wish to refer. We have too many authorities. If we set up yet another, even if we say that it is only for the beginning, to guide us into the future, I do not think that we will ever get rid of it.
I welcome the debate. I welcome the presence of the Minister, and I wish him godspeed and success.
9.11 pm
Mr. Julian Critchley: I feel that I should come to the aid of the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) who has been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) as a Cromwellian figure. This is clearly not so. I have always looked upon her as the spirit of Merry England. She has been prepared to look at the whole cable lobby as if it were a gift horse. There is a great deal to be said for looking at it in that way.

203
This debate is in the nature of a hors d'oeuvre before the debate that we shall have after the publication of the report of Lord Hunt's committee. If there are as few Members in the House for that debate as on this occasion, it will only prove that an aperitif followed by an aperient is no substitute for a good meal. I am an agnostic on cable television as on much else. Before I leave the hon. Member for Halifax, may I say that she is one of the few girls in this place who has a sense of humour? She ought to be cherished for that reason.
We should ask one or two questions about the cable lobby. I suspect that the cost of cable television will be much closer to £5,000 million than some of the more optimistic and modest figures that are put forward. It will also take much longer to build and construct than its advocates pretend. At the end of the day 40 per cent. of our viewers will be disfranchised.
There is also the problem of feature films and sports programmes. Are we to face a future in which rich Americans deny the British working man free access to his sport, remembering that it is only football that is capable of moving the British? It is no good for my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), the "knight from the suburbs", to suggest in his pamphlet, published by the Bow Group, that the Sports Council, which I believe consists of former rugby footballers, will be in a position to adjudicate between all these competing interests.
Surely all one has to do for DBS is to buy a dish. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) is wrong in suggesting that they are so large. I am told that they are 1½ feet square and it might be possible to place the dish in one's garden. Once a subscription has been paid and the dish is bought, the service would be available throughout the United Kingdom not just for the 40 per cent. who would pay for the cable.
The final and most important point is the problem of regulation. This is the shorthand term for the debate between Hobbes and Locke. I should explain to members of the Whips Office who are present that these are not cricketers nor golfers but philosophers. They stand for two completely different viewpoints as to political philosophy.
It is always difficult for a Conservative to decide whether he is in favour of Hobbes or Locke, but in this instance I prefer the Hobbesian view of the State and the importance of the State's being in a position to safeguard standards and therefore to safeguard society as a whole from the jungle effect of Lockean philosophy. Were I asked to choose between Mrs. Mary Whitehouse and Sir Larry Lamb I would choose Mary Whitehouse.
Therefore, I think that in the last analysis what we shall need is a CBA—a cable broadcasting authority—which will dispose and expose the operators within cable, that will license them, so that the programmes that they are licensed to show are decent, truthful, honest, unbiased and reasonable. In those circumstances we can lie back and enjoy the inevitability of rape by the cable operators.
9.15 pm
Mr. John Spence: I am greatly facilitated in making my brief contribution by the speech of my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Howden
204
(Sir P. Bryan), who rightly drew attention to the fact that the commercial companies had not been consulted about cable. I find that extraordinary.
I wish to emphasise the scale of the operation that will be involved if we wish to continue with anything like licensing and surveillance in the form now exercised by the IBA in its detailed control and franchise allocation. The detail into which it would have to go in the cable operation would be beyond its scope, and there must be diversification.
In the early stages of commercial television we provided protective barriers in favour of local financial interests, such as the press. Although I was in favour of that at the time, I had certain reservations. Looking back on our experience over the years, I believe that it was unnecessary. I now believe that local financial interests would not wish to be protected in the way that they first thought necessary in the early days of independent television and advertising.
There have been many interesting speeches in the debate. One of the most interesting observations was made by the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), who said with great feeling that the Home Office never got excited about anything. I have not had many dealings with the Home Office, but in those that I have had it has not got excited about anything, and I wonder whether it is capable of getting excited about the future of cable and satellite broadcasting.
We have spent a great deal of time discussing standards. It is right and proper that we should, but we do ourselves a disservice in making them the centre of gravity, when we have very good equipment for overseeing and looking after them. All that we need is the will to see that the future developments in cable and satellite are knitted into our existing structures. I realise how important supervision of standards and surveillance over them are but we can overdo the matter.
I prefer to turn to the development of the new technologies and what it will mean for the country, job opportunities, industry and the projection of ourselves abroad, for we shall be able to exert influence abroad, too, as never before. The pace of development within these new technologies has been almost breathtaking.
About eight years ago, in Canada, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Philips of Holland were tendering for the cabling of the city of Fort Lauderdale—quite a large city—and were offering a comprehensive cable service by open tender. I believe that they were successful. They had reached the stage where they were internationally in the top slot but there were half a dozen others which were equally internationally in the top slot. That is important. In Britain, we have not even started thinking about it.
About five years ago, in Canada, I met officials of the state broadcasting company in Alberta who told me that they welcomed satellite broadcasting and that they hoped that it would come forward quickly. They said that satellite broadcasting would open up a much greater dimension for the ethnic minorities, because information, entertainment and specialist programmes could be provided at a level and on a scale that the state could not afford to provide. If we are to catch up on the new technologies to the full, we must take certain steps. First, we must recognise that we are starting internationally—perhaps not in relation to Europe—somewhat behind the mark. I would leave the Home Office with its present responsibilities in relation to

205
the BBC and the IBA transmissions. I would make no change there at all. On the other hand, I would hope to see the new developments in the cable and satellite areas becoming the responsibility of the Department of Trade with, of course, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade in charge. The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) wished to see them under the responsibility of the Department of Industry. I agree with him that they should be under a Department other than the Home Office.
The Department of Trade would be responsible for the allocation of frequencies and for the conduct of negotiations on the allocation of frequencies both nationally and internationally. That is important in connection with the satellites. My hon. Friend would also be the sponsoring Minister for a new self-funding authority. I realise that there is antagonism towards any new authority but this would be a self-funding authority which, by way of descriptive illustration, I would call the satellite and cable development authority. My emphasis would be on the development of the technology as distinct from other matters which have been raised in the debate. The Department of Trade would also be responsible for licensing.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) made a plea for British Telecommunications, for British industry and for the advancement of cable technology. I agree with that. I am trying to show how one can find a way of doing so. I could find only two faults in the hon. Gentleman's presentation of the technical case in favour of British Telecommunications. First, he is regarding the present state of knowledge about the means of transmission—whether by cable or fibre optics—as the end of the road. But if we are going to cable nationally, the obligation on us is to ensure that we are doing so in a definite form rather than in a multiple form where there is the possibility of change. If it is done nationally we must get it right first time and for good.
We are using one method here, another there and a repeat method elsewhere. We are bringing in technique, knowledge and experience from outside and applying it to our country. I prefer that to a national canal or railway system, all 4 ft 8¼ in, all tied to one standard.
If my hon. Friend is prepared to undertake the great responsibility of his Department sponsoring the cable and satellite development authority, it would open the way to bring in private capital, private entrepreneurs and private and diverse knowledge, which is extremely important. Knowledge and experience are as important as money. Technical sources must be tapped for innovation and future development.
Armed with the equipment and the departmental force, my hon. Friend should lay down at least three main objectives. I am dealing mainly with the technology and its development. The first would be as widespread a liberalisation in the broadcasting centres as possible. It should not be limited to a national scheme. The second would be to encourage development by increasing the catchment area for enterprising organisations to participate. As I said, Fort Lauderdale, as a major city, was able to invite tenders from a range of people who were capable of putting in bids. I should like to see the same here.
I agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme that to do the operation on a national basis could
206
take a long time and many people would have to do without the system. We should do it on a fractionaliied basis.
The third objective should be to adopt a structure to create job opportunities in communications. Proportionally, four times as many people are employed in communications in Canada and the United States as in this country. Reduced and corrected for population, for every 100,000 people employed in communications in Britain, 400,000 are employed over there. That is a staggering figure. Communications is an enormously important job generator. The career structures are attractive. For instance, the university of St. Louis gives an excellent communications degree. Graduates can travel throughout the world and are not limited to journalism, television or radio. They can follow a range of activities, such as industrial relations. I hope that we give people the same opportunities.
None of the proposals would affect standards. If there is a risk that they will, our existing equipment to control standards is capable of coping. I ask my hon. Friend to consider them.
9.28 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I do not want to go too deeply into the new sport, not of Cabinet-making, which is a perennial one, but of shuffling ministerial responsibilities, which is generally frivolous and less interesting.
It is time that someone cast not a crumb of comfort but a modicum of kindness to the Home Office, which has, believe it or not, had a lot to do with what we are discussing and the pace of the development. It should, perhaps, receive an even greater tribute. We have willingly shared the difficulties and responsibilities in the past in the House. We shall have to face others in the future. The Home Office has pointed them out. One organisation or Minister may put what some people might describe as road blocks in the way. Others may say that they are pointing to the practicalities and trying to maintain in an era of new and exciting technology some of the best traditions of the past.
Frankly, if we chucked all broadcasting out of the Home Office and put it into the hands of any old Department—for instance, Trade or Industry—I bet that one thing would happen. The experts who are used to dealing with some of the social and moral problems involved in broadcasting who are now at the Home Office would move en masse to the new Department.
The type of broadcasting that we have depends on which Department has overall control. In the end, it depends on us here in the House of Commons, arid especially on the will and guts of Ministers. Fortunately, in my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology we have two Ministers who have managed to combine successfully the skills of two Departments. In facing the problems of modern technology, there are bound to be some frustrations for those who regard broadcasting as eminently an exercise in technology. To a large extent, it is. That is what is thrilling about it. That is why it is more than an art form. That is one reason why it has attracted so many people of skill. However, essentially, it is an expression of human values, and technology extends our ability to use our discretion and discrimination. As such, it provides the public with

207
sources of education, information and entertainment. Technology plays its part in all that, because it has extended the art form.
However, if I had to make a choice, I would not leave broadcasting to the technologists. Every Government need, within their broad embrace of legislation, a Department that acts as a kind of moral or legislative conscience of the nation. In my view, we are much more likely to find that in the Department that has to exercise its skills over a wide area of Government responsibility, the Home Office, than in a specialist Department. Having said that, I recognise the skills that are brought to bear by my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology.
Mr. Golding: Is it not logical to leave human values to the Home Office and technology to the Department of Industry?
Mr. Johnson-Smith: Yes, but technology in broadcasting involves the arts and technology. If history is anything to judge by, if we are right to claim that broadcasting in this country has achieved some pretty high standards, we should not then chuck out the system which has generated them.
I do not say that there are no problems in the advancement of information technology. There are the problems associated with cable television. The cable industry, I know, feels particularly hard done by. The cable companies have been remarkably patient. They feel that they have been held back too much by the Home Office, which has insufficiently appreciated the technology aspects of their craft. That is why they look towards the Department of Industry.
I believe that what I have said is fair, and we should not rush too easily into changing responsibilities in the hope of achieving a great new millenium, opening up new and exciting prospects, and achieving higher standards than we have ever achieved before.
I have gone much further down the road than I intended, but I thought that it was time to check one or two of the more fanciful propositions that have been put forward, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Spence), to move responsibility to the Department of Trade.
I wish to declare an interest in that I am a non-executive director of London Weekend Holdings Ltd., the group which contains London Weekend Television. It is absolutely right that speaker after speaker on both sides has urged the Government to maintain the dynamism that they have shown in recent months. Here I shall part company with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) who, as an agnostic, I thought came down too firmly on the side of Hobbes, when he asked for more protection, nasty and brutish though it may be. If we are to maintain dynamism we must not be over-protective. Some funny questions are asked in the ITAP report—enough to make me wonder whether we can ever get over the hump. For example, it asks:
"What classes of persons or firms should be allowed to (a) operate cable systems, (b) supply programmes? Should overseas companies be permitted?"
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) gave short shrift to that question. If people wish to enter Britain and publish books or make films, why
208
should they not be allowed to provide material for cable companies or even operate a cable company? We are not talking about a large monopoly, although that question is also raised in the report. The report asks:
"What should be the policy towards monopoly or quasi-monopoly situations—would it matter if, say one firm operated (or provided programmes for) half the cable systems in the country?"
I believe that it would matter because we would not have sufficient competition. It misjudges the application of this technology, which is not to set up large companies but to make diversity more possible. That means more opportunities for more companies. I hope that those questions, if they have not already been answered, will be put to the Hunt committee and subsequently thrashed out so that we can have another go at them. Some questions can be answered simply, but where there is likely to be difficulty we should have the Government's view after the Hunt committee has dealt with it.
As the new technology—I may not carry every hon. Member with me on this—ushers in a new era for broadcasting and for the television services, which will have a much more important and radical effect on our lives, we cannot run away from the fact that what has been achieved is of a high standard. We must be able to give to the existing broadcasting companies—the BBC and the independent companies—a chance to adapt to new conditions. That will not come naturally. The House must set some guidelines. The development of our broadcasting services during the past 30 years has been an achievement of which we are justifiably proud.
I do not believe for one moment that the public will be at all impressed if the new technology destroys our best standards and reduces choice, as can and does happen in the United States of America. Many of us have visited American cities where they boast of five, 10 or more channels, but when one analyses the choice they do not have five or 10 different sorts of programmes. As often as not there are three murder stories, three cowboy stories and three or more chat programmes. That is not a genuine choice.
That does not mean that our broadcasting institutions are perfect and that there is no room for fresh competition and new ideas in providing visual entertainment and new sources. Of course there is. Although I may be critical of the lack of choice in America, there is a need for more variety here. Minority interests are not catered for. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) and I share a so-called minority interest which, curiously enough, is shared by the largest number of sportsmen in Britain. I refer to those who rejoice in angling, but when we examine the media for a presentation of the fascinations, the art, the technique, the emotional and physical problems and all the rigours associated with angling, what do we find? It is a desert.
Mr. Golding: Would not Thomas Hobbes have insisted on angling programmes?
Mr. Johnson-Smith: I know that, when the hon. Gentleman gets his rod and dangles the fly in the river, the life of any fish is nasty, brutish and very short.
There is a need for more variety, and, compared with the written word and the output of magazines and books, the viewer is badly off. We must take some of the wraps off broadcasting. It should be no longer regarded as a

209
scarce commodity, jealously guarded and rationed by Government because the air waves were once the limiting factor. Broadcasting by cable becomes a form of electronic publishing. With our video tapes, recorders, multi-channel satellites and cable systems, it would be folly for us to enclose the development with too many questions with supposedly definitive answers, and committee after committee and debate after debate ending in legislation that stultifies development.
The task for the Government and for the Hunt committee will be to reconcile the need to create a climate that will encourage the investment that we seek, which should be private investment, and greater diversity, with the preservation of the experience that has done so much for broadcasting. For cable that will mean a regulatory mechanism. It may be a cable authority such as that favoured by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot. The IBA, with its long experience, might be a suitable organisation.
With that task of reconciliation in mind, I shall make the following points. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will not hand out monopolies to cable authorities in the big conurbations. Least of all would I advocate British Telecom as the sole carrier. British Telecom is only just about to get off its backside because it has been threatened with competition as a consequence of legislation. It is one of the stultifying factors of British life that we think that a big national corporation should do that. I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton when he said that, side by side with rejecting any concept of a national carrier, we should not think in terms of a unified system. All sorts of different technologies are flying around. If a cable operator wants to operate one, let it do so provided that it seeks to maintain certain minimum standards. There are many sorts of proposals that one can consider seriously and that would work. Otherwise, we shall get stuck in the rut and have a system that will be out of date in five or 10 years' time. We shall not want to alter it, as that would cost too much money. There should be room for more than one electronic bookshop.
The information technology advisory panel recommended that cable should not be expected to carry BBC and ITV services. I hope that the Government will examine that suggestion again carefully. The old-fashioned cable system carries only four channels. Visionhire and Rediffusion use that system. I recognise the burden of carrying the existing services of ITV and BBC. What is unattrative is that immediately the four channels will be filled. Therefore, there is no chance of anything new there.
It is unfair that those who already receive BBC and ITV programmes on cable should be deprived without something being done to help them. At any rate, new cable systems capable of carrying 30 or more channels should carry existing broadcasting services, as in the United States.
People may think that there is special pleading here, but I think not. There is a need to maintain the financial strenght of existing ITV companies. The development of satellite cable systems, whether financed partially or wholly by advertising revenue, will fragment the audiences of commercial television companies. Therefore, their financial strength will be undermined. As we move through the transitional stage, that means that there would be a number of consequences.
The Government should be prepared to reconsider the size and level of the levy. Greater freedom should be given
210
to the ITV companies to make decisions as they move further into this area and get closer to the end of their existing franchise. During the transition period some may decide to pull out of broadcasting and become independent production companies. Others may prefer to move into cable systems or share in satellite services. I hope that no barriers will be put in their way so that they, too, may have the confidence to make long-term plans.
None of us want any hasty or ill-conceived decisions. Some problems will be solved only by practical experience and not by a law made in the House. We should not demand that the Government should solve all the problems for us. If we do, we shall lose valuable time and probably get the wrong answers. Those in broadcasting are simply asking that the Government should set out a framework, and should do so soon, so that all those involved can get on with the job. After all—I believe that this is appreciated on both sides of the House—they have, on the whole, earned our trust.
9.45 pm
Mr. John H. Osborn: We have looked at new concepts in communications in this fascinating debate. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) that this is a momentous debate. It has tended to concentrate on cable TV and direct broadcasting by satellite, but we must embrace the whole concept of information technology—that is, the communication of bits per second in both directions. All this needs bold action by Government and industry.
In my view, this is an area where, in contrast to what my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith) has just said, administrative decisions by Government and industry must be sensitive to what is technically and technologically possible.
At the outset, I should make my view clear. I welcomed the Home Secretary's statement on 4 March, just as I have welcomed his elaboration of it today. I welcome the industrial aspects that have been outlined by my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology, particularly to the Parliamentary arid Scientific Committee, which is aware of the technical problems that he must face.
Some hon. Members have referred to direct broadcasting by satellite. When talking to others, I have found the Home Office study an excellent background document, and it has had a good input from engineers in the BBC and IBA. There is reference to the European dimension, which is an aspect that I shall cover.
More recently, we have had the second report, "Cable Systems", by the information technology advisory panel, which makes some strong recommendations with which some hon. Members disagree, but on page 51 it stresses the need for a technical working group. In a way, that is as important as Lord Hunt's committee. My second point will therefore be about what is technically possible and desirable. Perhaps we need an office of technological assessment.
Normally I do not speak in debates on the media and broadcasting. My interest in this debate was partly influenced by the fact that during the war I was in the Royal Corps of Signals. Technology has changed dramatically in the 40 years since then, but some of the basic principles remain the same. For example, I set up a radio-telephone link between Nigeria and the Gold Coast.

211
The technology was not difficult, but efforts to persuade senior officers how to use it presented more problems. That could be true of making best use of the technology now available.
My other interests are an extension of my interest in Blue Streak and Black Knight, which were debated in the House and in Committees about 20 years ago. If NASA's shuttle programme of today is relevant in terms of launching satellites tomorrow, so is the work of the European Space Agency. As a member of the Science and Technology Committee of the Council of Europe, I have attended recent meetings with the European State Agency and Arianespace. Some years ago, I even went to Kourou in French Guiana, where Ariane is being launched.
There have been immense technological developments in the past two decades. Eurovision, using conventional ground links, whether microwave or coaxial, is commonplace. It could be the programme "It's a Knockout", the Eurovision Song Contest, football or ski racing that attract people. But why has the Eurovision concept of programmes of common interest to European countries using existing technology had such a limited appeal? Will direct broadcasting by satellite or even cable television using fibre optics make any difference, or are there other constraints? Perhaps Lord Hunt's committee will look into that.
On 4 March my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said:
"The Government now see a need for early decisions if the industrial opportunities which DBS offers this country are to be grasped in good time".
I pressed my hon. Friend about adequate standards and compatibility and he replied:
"If we were to wait for the various matters concerning joint European standard to be drawn up, we might easily miss industrial opportunities."—[Official Report, 4 March 1982; Vol. 19, c. 414–19.]
Few people are aware of the problems of compatibility that have to be met for a Eurovision programme. The interface between different national networks demands a reconciliation of different types of signal of different standards. The microcircuit and the microchip make it easier and cheaper, but such interfaces cause attenuation. There are two PAL standards and there is SECAM, let alone NTSC. In border areas such as Strasbourg, the Saar and Luxembourg a television receiver has to have a small conversion unit to switch from German PAL to SECAM and vice versa.
There are two distinct problems with DBS. The first is the joining of national networks. The second lies with providing facilities for an individual receiver to pick up programmes from other systems. This will arise possibly out of DBS.
I do not want to be drawn into the subject raised by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), but I took note of the letter from Ian Rowland-Hill that appeared in The Times this weekend about putting the pirates under restraint. This involves the producers and authors of programmes, including feature films, being remunerated for the artistic works that they have created. Video cassettes, the video recorder, cable television and now direct broadcasting by satellite will for the rest of the century, if not beyond, inevitably have to exist in a jungle of competition.
212
In the Council of Europe there was a report and draft recommendation on the legal issues raised by cable television and direct satellite broadcasts. The draftsman of the report was Mr. Stoffelen. The chairman of the committee was my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve). The debate took place last September. Although the Science and Technology Committee of the Council of Europe had given a report earlier—document 896/1980—the technology and the application of new technologies was found to be changing so rapidly that I initiated a resolution—document 4799. One paragraph stated:
"Concerned that the work of international bodies—
the Council of Europe, the European Community, the European Space Agency, the European Broadcasting Union and the International Telecommunications Unit—
should reflect the aspirations of European citizens for improved services and access to the programmes of each other's countries."
We have been discussing that issue to a certain extent in this debate. The recommendation that appeared in paragraph 7 was
"That the Committee of Ministers, in its future work on the mass media, give priority to the establishment of technical standards for interchangeability of services and for improved reception of European programmes at minimum cost."
That is why independently and through the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee I have been in touch with engineering research teams over the past six months. These have been in the BBC, British Telecom, the European Space Agency and Arianespace. I hope to have a meeting with the European Broadcasting Union.
The House should be aware that, just as in the European Parliament and the Council of Europe, there is a need to ascertain which of the new technologies should be kept under review. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has referred to that need. It is vital that a Select Committee—perhaps the Select Committee on Science and Technology in another place—should ascertain what is possible and how it is being used so that a debate such as this may be better informed. Of course, we cannot grumble at and criticise the Government for the lack of documents.
New technologies, including information technology—the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts has touched on this in a recent report on the British Library—will in the first instance be subsidised. At the end of the day, however, the consumer will want value for money. That is all-important. Subsidy of innovation can leave a legacy of over-provision, as has been the postwar experience with railways, railroads and perhaps even air traffic facilities.
Cable systems and DBS provide competing alternatives, but if the ground rules—or rather the air rules—are not worked out, first nationally and secondly internationally, the viewer and listener will not receive value for money. Far too little thought has been given to this, not just nationally but internationally.
The consumer will relate the cost of the video recorder, the stereo system or the multi-purpose television set to the cost of food, a meal out, a car or a holiday. There is rising consumer resistance. The outcry against the £50 television licence and the demand for cheaper licences for pensioners have been but examples of this. The BBC is probably less conscious of these criteria than is the IBA.
It is necessary to ensure the best balance between cable television and DBS because of the need for technology compatibility and adequate standards. Much as I welcome

213
the pressure of market forces—this has been raised in the debate—this matter cannot be left to market forces alone. Self-regulation is important, it exists and it must be encouraged to continue, but the Government must ultimately hold the ring.
Direct broadcasting by satellite will, or could, improve radio as well as television reception. It could provide the opportunity for sound to be transferred to the digital system rather than the modulated system that we now know. It could provide for stereo sound which would greatly add to the television viewer's pleasure.
The Home Secretary referred to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) and to Mr. Basil de Ferranti, who was a Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Aviation and is now a member of the European Parliament. The European Parliament as well as the Council of Europe is concerned with these matters, and it is interesting that we met the Home Secretary together. We referred to the possibility of MAC, which overcomes some incompatibility problems, but I do not believe that existing sets could be converted to it yet. Much has been done at Kingswood Warren by the BBC. Existing PAL transmissions are within a 5·5 Mhz band. width allowed by terrestrial broadcast channels. The planned satellite links will have a 27 Mhz band width and are intended to take a conventional composite video signal with associated sound signals. The frequency on a carrier would be about 12 Ghz. This can be shown to cut out interference and could provide six sound channels, especially if the extended PAL system is adopted.
All this means that standards must be developed between operators and users. Great Britain must make up its own mind on what is proposed. I very much hope that this will be looked at by technological working groups.
There was the Geneva world broadcasting satellite administrative radio conference in 1977, as mentioned in the Government publication. The United Kingdom was allocated an orbital position for DBS satellites with frequencies for five television channels. Throughout Europe, there are four orbital positions. As the frequencies used will be close to microwave link frequencies, I should have thought that the prospect of interference-free reception from satellites in an orbit other than that allocated to the country in question would be somewhat chancey. The Home Secretary referred to this, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology will elaborate on it. It is all to do with footprints and overlap.
Therefore, I visualise that the 1986 service will be for the United Kingdom only and I do not visualise a European dimension. My impression of what will happen rather contrasts with some other impressions, including some that we gained at media committees. There is talk of a play going out in an original language and six dubbed languages, but that will not be in 1986.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the Adjournment of the House may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Twelve o'clock.—[Mr. Budgen.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Budgen.]
Mr. John Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I feel that I must object to the suspension of the rule. The object of the House of Commons in
214
initiating a debate is to have a debate. I have in my hand a list of those hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), my hon. Friends the Members for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) and, until a few moments ago. for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith) are the only hon. Members who have spoken but have had the good manners to stay and listen to what is a technical and highly specialist debate. We all——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The hon. Member was present and saw that: the motion was passed.
Mr. Wells: My point of order concerns a matter of principle. The Ten o'clock rule will be suspended on many future occasions, just as it has been tonight, and I shah not object to the suspension. What I object to is the growing ill manners of colleagues on both sides of the House. There are only two hon. Members on the Labour Benches present and, as it happens, tonight they have impeccable manners. There are only two hon. Members on the Conservative side who have the same good manners——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not a point of order for me. The manners of the House have been impeccable throughout.
Mr. Osborn: DBS and fibre optics will allow wider band width transmission, reduce interference between sound luminance and chrominance signals, could permit digital sound, stereo sound for TV if this is agreed, and, as far as the Home Secretary's proposals are concerned, reception would primarily be a United Kingdom affair. I welcome the fact that TV subscription will be a possibility.
The concept of DBS must, however, be separated from distribution channels between national networks, as I have already pointed out. They could continue to use microwave links, with adaptors at the interface but distribution by satellite would enjoy the advantages of wider band width and could improve reception. These links will be through satellites that already exist for international data, business and commercial links set up through Intelsat and Comsat, of which the United Kingdom is a member. I imagine that within Europe the ECS and OTS satellites will be used for this. Distribution still depends on ground stations in which British Telecom has vast experience.
I am interested in the fact that the consortium, whether it is "Britsat", "Unisat" or whatever it is called, will use British Telecom as the equivalent of Intelsat, or even Eutelsat, for providing and specifying Britain's first satellite. A start is being made, on the one hand, with fibre optics and cable communications, whether British Telecom or Mercury, while, on the other hand, DBS provides opportunities.
The options for the future must be examined. These include better definition, 925, 1025 or even 1250 lines, the larger screen, perhaps 2 by 1½ metres, and the use of higher frequencies, perhaps 40 Ghz. I welcome the fact that 405 line is being phased out, which gives the opportunity for new standards. I am all for Great Britain getting off the mark by 1986. It is important, however, to develop standards that are compatible with those adopted by other countries, especially in Europe. Compatibility at low cost is a priority. I hope that the vision of Ministers will be such that the dramatic improvements now possible

215
will be phased in throughout the rest of this century—perhaps in the first instance an extended PAL or MAC; in the second, the pre or post processing of mainly luminance signals to give a better picture, and, lastly, high definition standards and bigger screen. All are possible. I hope that they will be examined by the Government and the House.
10.6 pm
Mr. John Browne: I find this debate fascinating. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and especially my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology. They have seen the opportunities and have started to seize them.
I am particularly glad to hear of the scrapping of the pilot cable TV schemes. They offered too few channels. Their geographical areas and the populations they served were too small to have produced anything but failure. They would have put back by two or three years the takeoff of the industry in this country.
Videotex or the information technology industry provides this country with an enormous opportunity for high technology exports in hardware and software. This means highly paid jobs. It will have a major social impact on the country, provided we get the matter right. The impact will be felt in areas such as teaching and learning, in office work, in commuting into major cities and in shopping. The future will be greatly influenced by the subject we are discussing, especially by cable. It provides an opportunity to revamp our outdated telephone system and to bring it into a leading position in the world.
Videotex consists of two main parts. First, there is the entertainments side. This is, however, only a part of this vast potential industry. It is perhaps only a small and minor part. The biggest impact will be in information processing. This is the area that can provide, if correctly handled, the major revenue earnings of the whole system.
The key to videotex is cable, particularly interactive cable. I found the report to which reference has been made excellent. It dealt with the technologies involved and correctly highlighted, but avoided giving opinions about, the political issues. Those issues are for hon. Members and for the Government. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton) about regulation and the different attitudes we should take for the regulation of cable which I term as narrow casting as opposed to air broadcasting. I urge the Government to bear this point in mind.
This brings me to control. I support the calls made in the debate for the maintenance of standards of technology. Environmental problems will increase. Aerials such as dish aerials will present a problem in major cities. I support the calls for standards of taste, particularly in satellite broadcasting. Political bias, pornography, violence and the general balance of programmes must be carefully controlled when there is a broadcast monopoly. A broadcast monopoly should be controlled. However, cable is not broadcasting. It is narrow casting. It offers the individual a vast number of alternatives. It offers an opportunity for the same freedom in television that we now enjoy in books and magazines. There is little need for the control of cable television. Certainly, there is little need for there to be more control than we now have over books and magazines.
216
Huge opportunities lie ahead, but we still hear calls for control—always control. Why should not people be free to enjoy their own selection of the opportunities with which they are being presented in the privacy of their own homes by means of cable television?
Our experience of State control is one of almost never-ending financial disaster, missed opportunities, massive import substitutions and lost jobs here at home. I support calls for standards, but I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to resist calls for old-fashioned controls over cable. I repeat, cable is not broadcasting, but narrow casting. It is like books and magazines. Why prevent this new individual freedom that is now being granted? Why reduce the wide investment in, and enjoyment of, cable?
I support the Government's policy of offering initial protection to British companies in order to prevent a repeat of what happened in the video cassette and video recorder business, where we now spend about £500 million a year as consumers, most of which goes to Japan because British industry was not competitive. I am reluctant to say it, but I believe that in this instance protection is justified. After 30 years of relative industrial decay there is an excuse for the Government to protect industry in the short term.
However, I am utterly opposed to protection against cable television. I agree that we must consider the position of the BBC and of the independent television operators who have recently been refranchised. I suggest that we abolish the levy that these independent television operators now pay. This should help to give them an opportunity to adapt to the huge new world that is breaking upon us in terms of television.
A vast amount of money is required. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) that the current estimates may be low. Cable will be expensive. It is a free enterprise investment as opposed to a political investment. Investors will therefore be looking for financial returns. At present, operators in the information technology business look to the entertainment industry in the hope that it will finance the laying of this cable. Meanwhile, the people in the entertainment industry look to those in the information technology business and hope that they will finance the laying of cable.
The Government must determine whence the investment will come and how it will be attracted. I believe that potential investors need to see the market more clearly, especially that part of the market which is influenced or even controlled by the Government.
There is also a need to make Government strategy absolutely clear to potential operators. I refer to licensing policy, types of franchise, the role of British Telecom, and the policy on the formation of consortia within the industry and to joint ventures. I also refer to such questions as whether it is possible or justifiable for obsolete Polaris rockets to be used by the private sector as launch vehicles for satellites. I agree with most of the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about direct broadcast systems.
Cable is a key information delivery system. We must think of the future and of world markets. We must aim to become world leaders in cable or videotex. There are major opportunities for jobs in exporting high technology hardware and software. We must think new and we must think big. We must not go for the horseless carriage, that is, adapting the old horse carriage by taking the horse out of the shafts and merely replacing it with an engine.

217
We must go for a new, modern, world-leading system. I suggest that our cable system should aim to be of the highest standard single cable. We should not worry whether or not it is nation-wide. We did not worry about that with gas or the introduction of the telephone. There is too much concern with treating the whole country the same when it is not the same. Some people enjoy the advantages and disadvantages of living in remote or semi-remote country areas while others take on the advantages or disadvantages of living in highly-populated urban areas. We should not restrict the explosion of such a huge potential industry because we want to see only a nationwide use.
We must allow the market to dictate investment. I agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) that we should go for the digital system. I also suggest fibre optics on the truck lines. That is very important. We must ensure that, above all, the system is interactive and that cable carries freely the BBC, the independent stations, the police, fire and ambulance services and possibly other Government services. That is a legitimate demand to make on the cable operators.
We must go for modern switching gear and especially for broad band width in the cable. We should therefore go for 108 channels and not merely for 30 or 60 channels. Narrow band width is only today's concept. We must think of the future. It would be awful to have to rip the whole system out and to replace it to accept future growth. We must look to the future and to growth. In the past our calculations for road and airport use and even for the use of video recorders and cassettes have turned out to be gigantic under-estimates of the market. That lesson must be learnt by the Government. They should go for the 108-Channel system.
We must offer sophisticated switching gear and broad band to suit the differing needs. For example, the telephone system needs a lot of switching gear, but not much band width. Information technology does not need much of either. Television, however, needs very little switching gear, but a lot of band width. Therefore, we must concentrate on offering the most modern and efficient systems of switching gear and band width to allow flexibility, which in turn will encourage profits and growth.
Cable consists of two main operations. First, it consists of the laying and maintenance of cable. Secondly, it consists of the use and operation of the cable systems.
There are many powerful and diverse vested interests, including those of major corporations. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend, that the industry is new. It most certainly is. Therefore, we should look at it in a new way.
I make no apology for saying again that cable television is narrow casting which is very different from broadcasting. Therefore, the Government should resist pressure to apply old rules to this new industry. They should resist pressure for control when there is an opportunity of freedom for the individual to watch what he or she likes. They should resist pressure for a quango as a regulatory agency.
Why not allow free enterprise not only to pay for the installation of cable television but to operate and regulate it? Self-regulation has been successful in the past——
Mr. John Garrett: Where?
Mr. Browne: I can cite two examples—the Stock Exchange and Lloyd's, both highly competitive in world markets, and both highly successful and of great benefit to the country in general. Of course, they have been brought up to date. We have had new rules from the House for the Stock Exchange. We are just about to have new rules for Lloyd's. I do not object to that. They should be brought up to date, but they are basically self-regulatory free enterprise bodies and they are highly successful.
Mr. Spence: And the banking system.
Mr. Browne: My hon. Friend mentions also the banking system.
Videotex is the greatest new opportunity our country is likely to see for the rest of the century in terms of earnings. The Government should not lessen the unique opportunity by over-regulation. Experience strongly suggests that the Government should aim not at control but at influence. There should be influence by means of licence rather than control by means of a quango and over-regulation.
First, the Government should establish a set of strict but simple licensing rules. Secondly, they should license a single industry consortium, including British Telecom, to co-ordinate cable laying, in the same way as was done for the gas distribution pipeline system when we transferred from wet to dry gas from the North Sea, and to co-ordinate the activities of the local cable operating companies. Thirdly, this company should be allowed to take a minority shareholding interest in the local operating companies, just as local authorities may wish to do. This would mean that a money-earning and informed think tank would co-ordinate the growth of the industry.
Finally, as I said before, the videotex industry provides a unique opportunity for us as a nation. It could be a major step in helping us in the technological revolution and therefore increasing our ability to enjoy the fruits of a high standard of living.
I agree with most of what the Government have said about their intentions with regard to direct broadcasting, but I urge them to recognise that cable is the major opportunity and that it is a completely new medium. Therefore it needs a new approach to regulation and to finance. I urge the Government to look at the world market and to go for quality, for flexibility and for profitability. This will mean a careful balance by the Government between speed and planning.
I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends. I wish them good luck in this difficult but exciting task.
10.25 pm
Mr. Richard Page: I do not intend to speak for long, because many of my points have already been covered.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) on producing his excellent booklet with such superb timing, just before the debate. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology for his enthusiastic support for information technology. I am sure that without that support and his efforts we should not be in the position that we are in today. When they look back through history, the House and the country will see that they owe him a great deal for all his work. I am glad that the debate Is taking place today, but it should have taken place earlier—and not simply a year or two ago.

219
That brings me to my first point—that we have an almost desperate race against time. The Annan report came out only about five years ago. We can assume that it was a fair consensus of public opinion at the time, but if we study it again we shall find that it makes an ostrich with its head in the sand appear far-sighted. I do not wish to be disparaging about the report. I make that comment purely because I believe that the speed of change has still to be appreciated by many sectors of our industry.
The United States provides some startling figures and amazing comparisons. It is the leader in information technology and the utilisation of satellite broadcasting. Six years ago 1 million people in the United States were pay television subscribers. The figure is now over 13 million. The revenues from pay television in 1976 were about £20 million. That figure has now increased by fiftyfold. Four years ago only two television companies in the United States had satellite reception. Now such companies are dotted over the United States. That growth has created an estimated 200,000 jobs, in addition to all the other jobs that have come from the manufacture of dish aerials. That opportunity is available to this country, if we are prepared to grasp it now and not leave it too long.
I have laboured these points about the speed of change in the United States because they should ring alarm bells. If we slacken our newfound pace, the other EEC countries and the Scandinavian countries will pass us. As each country pushes forward with its development of satellite broadcasting, the footprints of satellite broadcasting will become a trifle careless where they tread. With the ability to transmit in whatever language is desired, to suit the country where a film is being received, it will be only a matter of time before advertisers—the people who will provide the necessary money—in the EEC and Scandinavia move further into promoting Euro—products with Euro-coverage, Euro-marketing and Euro-labelling.
The implications are clear. If we are first into the field, we can take advantage of that advertising revenue. If we are last, it will go elsewhere. Then we shall become consumers and not creators of information technology. Therefore, I welcome the moves made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to expand cable television and move on. It is the number of subscribers, who will provide the money, that will influence where we go.
Being first in the field will give the added advantage that we shall be in a better position to supply equipment and sets, and with them jobs in this country. We should do well to remember that the Japanese are a little short on research but very long on product development. As they have designated information technology as the area that will provide wealth and job creation for them over the next decade, I ask the House to remember that we have lost the battle for making video machines. Let us not lose the battle for providing the cable televisions, the cable equipment and all the satellite broadcasting equipment that could be made here and distributed from this country.
220
I turn to the question of control and the quality of control. Many hon. Members have voiced their views and their concerns on this matter. Again, time is not on our side. As the footprints of satellite broadcasting spread and overlap, and with voice transmission ability, households in the United Kingdom will be able soon to receive programmes from many countries. Therefore, I welcome the move mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary towards talks within the EEC to agree on the qualities and standards of decency that will be transmitted through satellite broadcasting.
However, I am concerned about the time lost in consultation, and the lack of cohesion between the various departments involved. I wonder whether this whole area will become too big for our present arrangements to stand the potential development strain. I am worried about whether British Telecom can be part of a regulating organisation and also compete effectively in the market place. To that must be added the role of the Department of Industry which will allocate licences for supply equipment and provide the telecommunications services. We must also examine the role of the Home Office in providing and allocating the frequencies and controlling the cable companies. I can see problems arising with local authorities over the handing out of franchises. We must also examine the role of the IBA, as it will be affected now within the EEC. There is also the question of finance, and whether money should come from licences or from revenue.
For all those reasons, I ask whether there will be too many organisations involved in this rapidly expanding area. I am not one for setting up new departments and new organisations, but will this development be too big? We could take a glance at the United States and see what has been done there with the Federal Communication Commission. That could be a solution for regulating the industry.
If we are tempted to delay over control for too long, our ability to find the correct solution will not be enhanced. Delay will make matters more difficult.
I recall the problems that we experienced with citizens band radio. The Government found themselves faced with many thousands of users with illegal sets on illegal frequencies. The Government were able to deal with that because it was an internal problem. But delays over satellite broadcasting where people are in receipt of broadcasts from abroad will be a much more difficult problem to solve.
I hope that thought will be given either to a new organisation or to a closer co-ordination of present controlling bodies and their methods of operation. I welcome what the Home Secretary said about control and quality. I hope that the Hunt committee will heed what I have said on this subject.
We have an exciting opportunity for development. It offers a major area of employment and wealth creation. I ask that we ensure that we do not lose out to foreign competition by delay.
10.34 pm
Mr. Gary Waller: I welcome the importance attached by the Government to this subject. It is recognised by the Prime Minister's appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), bearing in mind his considerable knowledge and experience.
The Government's recognition of the importance and urgency of the matter contrasts firmly with the extreme caution exhibited by the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill). It is that kind of extreme caution that has held up our progress in the 1970s and left us in several respects far behind many other countries.
The critical factor of urgency is referred to in the document on cable systems. It is recognised by most commentators. I have read of only one person who took a different view. Mr. Peter Fiddick stated in The Guardian:
"The truth is that the majority of people in this country will not cry out for these things in this century."
There was never a great demand for any of the technical innovations of the past, yet before long people found it difficult to imagine how they had lived without them.
Most technical innovations require public expenditure, but for cable television the funding can come entirely from the private sector. The developments will generate considerable taxation revenue, provided that we give them their head. As many hon. Members have said, we must allow the market to govern the spread of the new technologies. Unless we do that, we cannot hope for the progress that is essential.
In referring to the report by the Cabinet Office committee Mr. Fiddick states that it was
"part of an attempt to railroad us into a major decision before we can reflect on its full social implications; and that the broad interests of the British consumer are not in the cable advocates' minds."
If that is so, the advocates of cable will not succeed, but all the signs are that they are responding to what is clearly a potential demand. We must consider carefully the social implications, but they must not hold back essential progress.
The Government must get the framework right. I agree that we should aim for the minimum necessary control. I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne). We cannot leave the matter entirely to self-regulation. Cable will become important, and the Government cannot stand aside.
I agree that in the immediate future entertainment will be the mainstay of the industry. At the top of the list will be sport and films. Potential damage to the cinema industry has been referred to. We cannot ignore that. But in the United States the total market for the film industry has been greatly expanded by video developments. The number of films made each year has greatly increased. Although we have had video in Britain for a much shorter time, the speed with which it has grown in popularity has been greater than in the United States. To some extent, the popularity of films seen in the home can lend impetus to the cinema industry. The industry need not be destroyed, but it has to respond sympathetically and with speed.
Nevertheless, I support those hon. Members who say that the real advance will come with the creation of more specialised services. This qualitative change is extremely significant. If we catered for minority interests, which are
222
essentially local interests, it would be a greater advance than anything that can be achieved in the immediate future in conventional television services. It might lead to a revival of interest in local government. We have all complained for many years about lack of interest in local government, but have found few ways to put the matter right. People could see their local government representatives taking part in decisions on local matters. We know that people are interested in local matters because in this country more local newspapers are read than national papers. If that interest could be mirrored on television by seeing local representatives, it would lead to an increase in interest in local government. There might also be an electoral response.
Amenity societies could attract more members. There would perhaps be a greater interest in individual Members of Parliament. That would be a healthy development. We might perhaps move further towards the situation 'hat exists in the United States, where people vote more for individual Members of Parliament than for parties. It is a development that we should not regret in any way.
If the provision of local services could encourage the sense of community which has been lost during the recent years, it would be another advantage.
The report refers to the paradox whereby popularity would initially accrue to the widening of television services, much along the lines to which we have been used in the past, whereas ultimately the trend would be towards more sophisticated and interactive services. That would have greater long-term significance. The difficulty is to determine the time scale. Many of these developments are foreseeable. They will happen some time. The difficulty—a critical matter on the financial side—is to know the time scale over which they will happen.
However, we can foresee the time when many of the people who are interested in buying a house will insist on seeing in their own homes a video tape of potential purchases before drawing up a short list of houses that they wish to view.
The experiment that Tesco has been carrying out in Gateshead will point the way towards new shopping developments. Housewives will choose goods from their kitchens or from their lounge armchairs, and then pick up the goods from the supermarket. This will simplify and perhaps make more enjoyable what many housewives regard as a chore.
Obvious advances can be achieved in the security industry. There is also, incidentally, the effect on medical services. We shall not, of course, replace doctors and nurses, but their jobs could be made more efficient and productive if, for instance, a person at home in the middle of the night could decide from access to medical knowledge whether it was necessary to call out the doctor. I would be the first to point to the obvious dangers in that. There are other dangers with data protection, and I hope that the Home Office will give considerable priority to bringing forward the early legislation that is needed to bring us into line with other countries.
Other issues must be considered at some time. The report on cable systems referred briefly to two-way communication between home and office. As transport costs rise and energy increasingly becomes in short supply, more and more people may wish to work in their homes. That demands of all of us who are interested m such issues that we think seriously about the sort of

223
investment needed in transport. Perhaps those developments will take place more quickly than some people expect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd), in a previous debate, referred to the Qube experiment on opinion polling in Columbus, Ohio. We must decide how far we wish that to go. To what extent do we wish to have an instant test of people's opinions which may impose on Members of Parliament the way in which they should vote? We cannot ignore the matter and, although I would wish to see individual electors taking a greater interest in the attitudes of their Members of Parliament, and using the interactive services to make their views known, we must start thinking now about the extent to which Members of Parliament may be forced into the position of being mere delegates rather than representatives. I would wish to stop far short of that stage.
The new technology may also enable the individual at home to place bets. The pools companies are already taking an interest in the possibilities, provided by cable services, of the individual calling up a pools coupon on the screen, transmitting it down the line and having his bank account debited with the stake. However, we must be a little cautious about the way in which the compulsive gambler might be encouraged by such a system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) referred to the relationship between such developments in television and cable and the television service, which is a long-standing interactive service. Perhaps my hon. Friend can tell us how he sees that developing in the future, because many of the services will run parallel to one another and it is not too early for us to start thinking about it.
Also, as the development of interactive services grows and it becomes easier for people to communicate electronically, their use of the postal service will begin to decline. It will perhaps decline to the point where we have only a weekly service which will be used for transmitting essential documents that must be sent by post. We cannot foresee a time scale for that, but I believe that such a time may come earlier than some people believe.
This debate has shown that we are entering a period of exciting developments. There are many opportunities and many challenges. It is certainly true that there are many problems, but they can be overcome and are greatly outweighed by the opportunities. If we allow ourselves to be perplexed by the problems to the extent that we miss the opportunities, history will not forgive us.
10.49 pm
Mr. John Garrett: This has been an excellent debate. It has called forth interventions on both sides of the House that were well-informed, impartial and witty from time to time. They were made by Members who wanted to ensure that the new technologies will serve the country in the best way. I suppose that, because it has been a serious debate, it will get little reporting in the newspapers.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: The Economist is listening.
Mr. Garrett: That is something.
I wondered during the debate whether people would watch it if the House of Commons were televised and the
224
debate were sent out on, for example, channel 45 of a cable television system, which seems a reasonable speculation. I came to the conclusion that it deserved an audience if only because it acted as an offset to the widespread attitude that so many people have that hon. Members spend all the time in the House yah-booing each other.
Mr. Shepherd: Quite right.
Mr. Garrett: I wish to confine my remarks to the technical employment and industrial implications of the development of——
Mr. Shepherd: We did not expect anything else.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make a running commentary from a sedentary position. If he wants to intervene, he must stand up in the proper way.
Mr. Shepherd: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I accept that.
Mr. Garrett: I shall confine my remarks to the technical employment and industrial implications of the development of broadcasting by satellite and cable systems. Before doing so, I shall refer briefly to the constitutional points, which have come up from time to time, about the suitability of the Home Office to control broadcasting. In the absence of the Home Secretary——
Mr. Shepherd: In the presence of the Home Secretary.
Mr. Garrett: In the absence of the Home Secretary during the debate, most of the opprobrium has fallen on my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), who has been accused of representing the slothful end of the Government machine, always holding back the thrusters of the Department of Industry who will force us through to the space age. That creative tension is essential in Government. There should be a Department whose responsibility it is to look to standards of decency and of programme content while the Department of Industry's job is to promote technological development. On the whole I dislike the uncreative tension between the Departments of Industry and of Education and Science. That is another debate that we shall come to on another occasion.
We welcomed the statement by the Home Secretary on 4 March on satellite broadcasting, in which he said that
"various interests in the aerospace and related industries have shown that they are ready to play their part in this challenging new venture."
He said that the Government would be
"working closely with them and with the domestic electronics industry to ensure that the economic benefits are effectively realised for the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 4 March 1982, Vol. 19, c. 414.]
Last week, British Telecom, British Aerospace and Marconi announced that their consortium, United Satellites, would be able to provide direct satellite broadcasting by the mid-1980s. That rapid response reflects credit on all three companies. Their early move towards the project definition stage with the BBC, for broadcasting, and British Telecom, for telecommunications channels, means that they should be well placed to promote British satellite systems and services in expanding world markets.
That decision is timely. As the Home Office study, "Direct Broadcasting by Satellite" stated, France and

225
Germany will have satellites in operation in 1984 funded by their Governments for furthering their national technological and industrial development. The Home Office report emphasised that satellite development was an integral part of national information technology, for which world demand is growing rapidly.
A domestic market for satellites and receiving equipment is an essential base for the British industry to participate in world markets. The Home Office study stated that there was likely to be a world market of £2 billion a year for direct broadcasting satellite systems, of which Britain could expect, on present performance, to take about one quarter.
If our industries are sufficiently alert to take advantage of them. there would clearly be new product opportunities for broadcasting, consumer electronics and the film industry, although there is a serious risk that our radio and electronics firms have been so weakened by our recession that foreign imports will take a commanding share, as they have done in respect of other products in the electronics and related industries.
I therefore assume that the Department of Industry, either directly or through NEDO, will ensure that the response of the electronics industry will be planned and coordinated in such a way as to ensure that British manufacturers will be capable of responding to demand consequent upon the introduction of direct broadcasting by satellite. If we cannot meet domestic demand, we shall clearly be left behind in this important area of information technology.
Clearly, satellite and cable broadcasting go hand in hand, as community reception rather than individual reception has many practical advantages wherever it can be used. We note that the committee under Lord Hunt of Tamworth, announced on 22 March, will be looking at broadcasting policy issues raised by cable systems and that the Departments concerned—which I take to be Industry, Employment and possibly Trade—will be carrying out urgent studies of economic, technical and telecommunications policy related to the expansion of cable networks.
These issues are, of course, of great importance for employment, innovation, investment and industrial development. The Economist has said that the decision "to wire Britain" was the most important industrial decision of this Administration, adding that nearly all Britons were unaware of the fact.
We certainly do not want committees of civil servants closeted with tame business men, tucked away in the inner recesses of the Department of Industry taking policy decisions on these issues and their findings being dropped on the House of Commons in the form of written answers to questions. We want the fullest possible discussion of these issues in the House and its Committees.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Quite right.
Mr. Garrett: I am glad to have this continual support. It was somewhat unnerving at first, but I begin to warm to it. We are developing a symbiotic relationship via satellite.
As I have said, we do no want civil servants and tame business men closeted in the Department of Industry making these decisions and telling us afterwards. We want the fullest possible discussion in the House and its Committees. In fact, I should have thought that these issues were sufficiently important to be discussed at length by Select Committees which could take evidence.
226
We welcome the publication of the report of the Information Technology Advisory Panel—which I shall refer to as ITAP—on cable systems. It should start an important public debate, and will provide the basis of informed discussion.
Let me say at the outset that the coverage of this country with a broad band cable network is to be welcomed. It is absolutely essential if we are to maintain our place in these technologies.
Mr. Golding: My hon. Friend has said that this report can lead to informed discussion. It is probably one of the worst reports that has ever been published by a Government on this subject.
Mr. Garrett: I tend to agree with my hon. Friend, but I am about to embark on an informed discussion of this document. If my hon. Friend contains himself, he will discover how I object to it.
The ITAP report glosses over some major questions. On 23 March, the Financial Times posed some of them.
It asked:
"Who should be laying the cable? Should the cabling of Britain coincide with the laying of a new telephone network? What should be the role of British Telecom?"
The Financial Times said that these questions should be part of the Hunt inquiry, but we already know that that inquiry is about broadcasting policy, and therefore we need some other forum in which to examine these crucial issues.
An article in the Financial Times on the same day pointed out that British Telecom was the only organisation authorised by law to lay cable where it chooses without having to obtain wayleaves from local authorities. It would also be much simpler to use its existing underground ducts than to dig up public highways. It said that both the ITAP report and the Home Secretary glossed over the future role of British Telecommunications. That is an issue which the Government will have to confront sooner or later.
The ITAP report posed exactly the same question. It asked:
"What is the role of British Telecom? Then existing wayleaves give them a large advantage over other potential operators. Would it matter if they operated most or all systems?"
The report failed to answer these questions except to say that cable systems offer large and profitable business opportunities and that a dominant role for British Telecom might bring the risk of "over-engineering". Perhaps the Minister will be able to construe "over-engineering" for us. I assume that it means a technical standard that is too high. It is of interest that a high technical standard, according to the authors of the ITAP report, leads to a
"consequent reduction in commercial attractiveness."
This is blatant special pleading, but it is not altogether surprising. As The Guardian observed, the report was written by a panel which consisted entirely of people with vested interests who stood to make hefty profits out of a privately run system. These included the managing directors of Mullard and a Rediffusion subsidiary, the directors of two private computer services companies and the Inter-Bank Research Organisation. They were all circling round a £3 billion market.
This bias led the panel to an odd technical conclusion. It deliberately played down optical fibre technology, in which British Telecom is a world leader. It said that there is no need to replace existing coaxial cable systems even if optical fibres become cheaper. The fact is that cabling Britain does not make sense except by applying optical

227
fibre technology, and Britain alone has brought this technology to the stage where it is feasible to install a national network that is based on it. In a conversation that I had with British Telecom this afternoon I was assured that within three years it could be used for a local network as well.
On 11 February the announcement was made that British Telecom had transmitted the equivalent of 2,000 telephone calls over 100 km using fibre optic technology without booster stations along the route. The Financial Times called this "a world record". The Guardian called it
"the equivalent of a four minute mile".
The hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith) required British Telecom to get off its backside. Here is an example where the leader in cable transmission technology is British Telecom. Within three years the development will be capable of commercial application. By 1984 all new trunk routes will be in fibre optics.
With the use of fibre optics we could have a single broadband network capable of carrying all telecommunications, all broadcasting and all cable services. This is precisely the route chosen by the French in their experiment at Biarritz, by the Germans in their seven towns experiment and by the Canadians in their experimental application. If British Telecom is now reaching the stage where the country can be wired for telecommunications by optical fibre and if such a system can carry all the required broadcasting facilities, why do we need a separate cable system laid by private companies?
The ITAP proposals cover only half the country whereas British Telecom, using existing ducting and wayleaves, would cover virtually the whole country with a comprehensive system. The ITAP report insisted on a decision by mid or late 1982. The only reason for that can be to pre-empt a British Telecom solution. We surely need one integrated system involving one set of ducts and one optical fibre cable operated by British Telecom on the "common carrier" principle.
British Telecom is obviously the appropriate vehicle. It is already involved in carrying broadcasting signals. It runs a cable television scheme in Milton Keynes, for example. It could use existing equipment, facilities and cabling. It would create a system based on common technical standards and would set up a genuinely national broadband system which would eventually reach all parts of the country and would not be confined to urban centres, where the authors of the ITAP report want to see the profit creamed off. To go for a private system of outdated technology and partial coverage would be an enormous error. To deny this opportunity simply because of a peculiar definition of the PSBR would be a disaster.
The industrial opportunities in the supply of ancillary equipment are obviously enormous, involving about £2 billion-worth of decoders, sensors and interactive systems. The technical committee in the Department of Industry must ensure that these marketing opportunities are made available for British industry. There is heavy pressure in the United States to break into our potential market. The ITAP report speaks of American cable companies sniffing around this market already.
We know that in the United States there is massive overcapacity in this equipment and the Americans are
228
waiting to attack our market. The conclusion of two recent anti-trust suits in the United States has freed IBM and American Telephone and Telegraph from former restraints on their activities. Both companies dwarf any British company in innovation and marketing and cheap volume production. Both have annual revenues of about $30 billion—far in excess of the total output of the entire British electronics industry. AT and T in particular is already marketing electronic information and telecommunications systems designed to be attached to just the kind of cable networks that we are discussing today, and ours is a natural market for the American industry.
A report produced for the Cabinet and reported in The Economist of 6 March said that Britain's share of world exports of information technology equipment was falling and forecast a decline from 3·8 per cent. of the world market today to 2·4 per cent. by 1990—at which time the world market would be worth £150 billion per year. We must ensure that we develop a market for British and not for American or Japanese equipment. They certainly do the same for their own home markets.
The cabling of Britain offers great opportunities and a number of risks as well. The implications are so great that they can hardly be foreseen. In addition to extra entertainment channels, with the opportunity to bring the best in world entertainment to our homes, and the risk of a fall in standards which has been mentioned frequently in the debate, there is what the ITAP report calls the main role of cable systems:
"the delivery of many information, financial and other services to the home and the joining of homes and business by high capacity data links".
I assume that we shall make progress down that road and not stop, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) suggested, at the level of nude chat shows, nude ice skating or whatever stage has been reached abroad rather than developing interactive systems with one's bank or shop.
These systems can revolutionise banking, shopping, home security, education and training, meter reading and many other everyday transactions. Clearly, there are massive implications for employment, which may be with us by the late 1980s and early 1990s. The Government should now be examining those implications. We could wind up with a significant fall in demand for some occupations such as retail and banking staff, meter readers and transport services, but an insatiable demand for systems analysts, cyberneticists and electronics engineers. A training and education system needs to be anticipated at least a decade in advance in terms of the skills and the retraining programmes that are needed. Office employment and technology could be revolutionised—again needing new skills, new investment and a coherent national strategy not only in industry but in education as well.
The more one considers the implications, the more a national cable system under public control becomes an obvious need. This architecture of information and entertainment technology should plainly be constructed as a national utility, much as gas, electricity and telecommunications are today. A coherent strategy inevitably leads to a national network, under public control, and not a myriad private ventures all setting up systems of their own.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: That is absolute nonsense. There is no evidence at all for that.
Mr. Garrett: In British Telecom we have the expertise, the technical standards and the infrastructure to provide that national network.
11.8 pm
The Minister for Industry and Information Technology (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I agree with the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) that this has been a good debate and an important debate. Several hon. Members have made the point that we have been discussing the framework for broadcasting and telecommunications and the wired society, which will determine these matters not only for the rest of this century but for the next century as well and which will have profound implications not only for us but for our children. It is therefore a very important debate.
It has also been a good debate in that there has been an absence of political dogma. I very much appreciated the welcome given by the hon. Member for Norwich, South to the proposal to wire up our country. I welcomed, too, the speech of the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth), who speaks for the SDP, in which he strongly supported the drift of Government policy and spoke of the industrial advantages that would flow from it. I welcome too the speech from the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), who spoke for the Liberal Party and urged us to get on with it.
I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), who opened the debate for the Opposition, was a touch cool. She managed to squeeze out a little bit of enthusiasm but then said that we must take it all very slowly and gently and be guided by that dear old lady, festina lente. I do not know whether, when the hon. Lady used that phrase, she used it unwittingly, as it comes from Ovid's "Art of Love". Neither do I know whether she read it in the original or in the translation, but it seems to me that the policy that she is following is a policy of negation, that is driven on by inertia to find its fulfilment in torpor. I should not want to give any support to that sort of policy.
During the course of the debate there has been some criticism of the Home Office.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Quite rightly so.
Mr. Baker: It has been described in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who is no doubt trying to make up for that, in various ways—as supine, immobile, unimaginative, lethargic, and, rather like the circumlocution officer in Little Dorrit, having a vested interest in the art of doing nothing. That is a travesty and an inaccurate description of the role of the Home Office. It is a great and important Department of State, but, like a great vessel, it is difficult to turn. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the enthusiasm that he has given to the policy now followed by the Home Office over the question of cable and DBS. Without his personal intervention we should not have had a policy of direct broadcasting by satellite. I speak on behalf of my Department when I say that we are content with the support that we are receiving from the Home Office.
I turn now to some points made during the debate.
When most people hear the word cable, they tend to think immediately of cable TV. I must stress to the House that what we have been discussing tonight is much more
230
than just television, as was made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton). Cable TV is a misnomer, and I should much prefer to see the term "wide band cable systems" used to describe what we are really talking about.
The ITAP report lists a large number of potential new services that look far beyond the mass market broadcasting that one associates with the phrase "cable TV". First, wide band cable services can provide specialist subject and audience channels, such as local information services, sports programmes and programmes for ethnic minorities. By being interactive by having the power to send messages down as well as to receive them, it can provide home security services, fire alarms, home banking and shopping, electronic mail, interactive computer assisted learning, wide band business communications, and even as has been pointed out by one or two hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller) instant opinion polls.
Some of these services could literally change the fabric of the society in which we shall be living in the course of the next few years. For example, the new technologies could make it possible for those who are unable easily to commute to offices to work from home. Experiments are already demonstrating that doctors could conduct initial examinations without either having to visit the patient's home or make the patient come out and wait in his surgery.
Some of us might even be able to conduct our constituency surgeries from offices in the House. I should not be one of those Members, because I like meeting my constituents, but this is an enthusiasm that is not shared by all hon. Members.
These potential services, linked to information technology, open very exciting prospects. In the long run, I believe that the revolution that they will bring about will have more far-reaching effects on our society than the Industrial Revolution 200 years ago. Not the least effect will be the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) who talked about the job opportunities that will exist not only in laying and making cable but in the ancillary activities to which the hon. Member for Norwich, South referred.
I should like to mention the technical aspects raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) and also by the hon. Member for Norwich, South together with the choice of copper coaxial or fibre optic. It is not for Government to lay down in detail the nature of the cable technology that should be used in the wide band cable system envisaged in this report. Within sensible parameters, this will be primarily for the market to decide in the light of what systems are most cost-effective. But is is clear that so far as the cable itself is concerned, both optical fibre and coaxial cable are likely to have an important part to play. I must point out that it is misleading to suggest, as one article in the press recently did, that the use of coaxial cable, certainly in the initial years, would be outmoded or inferior in any way to optical fibre. It is simply a different method of providing the same service to the consumer.
We anticipate that the initial expansion of cable systems will use both coaxial and optical fibre but that, at a later stage, perhaps in five or six years, fibre will begin to dominate, at least as far as the local networks are concerned. However, different interests take different views of the relative costs of the two types of cable. We believe that commercial organisations should be left to

231
take their own decisions. BT is, of course, introducing optical fibre into its trunk networks. Initially, at least, there might be insufficient capacity for fibre production to allow its use throughout the entire system, except in experimental situations.
I wish to refer to another aspect of the technical side, the interactive services. We support the view taken in the ITAP report that the long-term potential of cable systems lies in the development of interactive services—the two-way message capacity. This will be crucial to the full development of the IT industries, and I would personally regret the development of any new system that did not have this capability. But this is an area that needs, and is already being given, further detailed study.
My Department is establishing a working group to investigate and draw up the necessary technical standards. These will cover, at the minimum, the interconnection between separate cable systems or town via the main trunk network and the output into the domestic television set. It is our intention that consumers should be able to use their existing "off-air" television sets with the new cable systems. The working group will include representatives from the industries involved, and we have already begun to consult the relevant trade associations about representatives. It is our hope that this group will be able to produce the minimum necessary standards—at least in draft—by the end of this year.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: This must be one of the most important statements made by the Government during their period in office. Is there anything more important than asserting the right of the individual to have access to the dissemination of information? Does my hon. Friend now welcome the fact that the Home Office is not only represented tonight by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary but that this is also a major and important move by the Government in identifying something of basic importance to the community?
Mr. Baker: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. This is the biggest industrial opportunity and the biggest industrial investment programme before our country in the next 15 to 20 years. It is as important as that.
It is our aim, in the process of consultation that we are undertaking, that various services and networks should be capable of interconnection on a national basis. I wish to make this point clear in view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Norwich, South.
I was asked whether British industry was prepared. In many ways, British industry is technically prepared for the steps forward that I have listed, although it does not necessarily have the appropriate production capability on stream at the moment. It is gearing up, as far as fibre optic cable is concerned, at a rapid rate. However, in other areas industry is less well prepared. My Department is making every effort to make companies aware of the possibilities, both directly and via the trade associations.
I was asked what it would cost to wire up a town. The capital cost of installing a modern cable system capable of producing 30 video channels and interactive cable services in a town about the size of Watford with about 26,000 households, is estimated at between £7 million and £10 million. In addition, a modest estimate of the proportion of households that would subscribe to additional interactive services showed that ancillary equipment worth
232
between another £5 million to £8 million would be required over the first five years of the system's operation. It would take about 18 months to install the system in a town the size of Watford. The total capital expenditure over the first six and a half years would be somewhere between £12 million and £18 million. If one takes the lower end of that scale, that is about £460 per household, or, if that is spread over six years, about £71 per household per year. Just to put that into perspective—because many people are a bit dazzled by the sheer amount of investment required for this service—that is less than the cost of a gallon of petrol per week. The basic system would be expected to last for about 20 years.
I was asked several questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn), the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and others, about interconnection with DBS. As the Home Secretary made clear in his opening speech, the aim is to have a direct broadcasting satellite service in operation in 1986. Discussions have already started between the manufacturing consortium and the BBC on the detailed proposals. They are hopeful that this time scale will be achieved.
An early start in 1986 is important for several reasons. First, it will enable British industry to exploit overseas markets. We have a real edge here in export markets. It will benefit the British space industry's work load. It will boost the information services. It also supports the willingness of the private sector to fund a high technology project. The satellite that will be launched in 1986 will be the first privately financed satellite in Europe. It will cost about £150 million to £200 million. It will be made and designed entirely in Britain.
DBS and cable systems are mutually supportive. There is not a stark choice of one or the other. We would envisage a mixed system. A mixture of individual and community reception is likely from the outset. Community reception distribution by cable could bring DBS quickly and probably more cheaply than individual reception to many urban households. About 24 per cent. of households either use television cable systems or are passed by cable and could therefore be linked fairly easily. DBS could hasten the expansion of cable should the Government decide to allow this. I was asked about the size of dishes that would be needed to receive DBS signals. First, over appreciable areas in the centre of the country it is likely that dishes will be no more than about 2 ft in diameter. Secondly, there is no advantage in having a DBS dish high up on one's roof. It will often be better to have it low down, on a wall or an outhouse, as long as it can see the satellite. Thirdly, the BBC research laboratories have developed a much more acceptable design—a flat plate that can be built into a house on the side of a wall or chimney.
As soon as DBS becomes operational it will offer immediate cover to almost all areas of the country, including remote and rural households, which cable cannot be expected to reach for many years.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: I believe that these developments will be of extraordinary importance to our society during the coming years.
Does my hon. Friend envisage that this form of information transmission will be a small area interest? Could my constituency, or the area of Birmingham, expect to have many broadcasters promulgating their views, information and advertising, in competition with the State

233
service? Is there any reason why there should not be six or seven such stations in Birmingham, advertising and disseminating information about community interests in competition with the State system? I should be grateful for some clarification.
Mr. Baker: In his evident enthusiasm to support me, my hon. Friend has anticipated my remarks. I shall come to that important point. The hon. Member for Derby, North asked about the overlapping footprints of the different satellites and asked how we could control that. I repeat that the reception from authorised, foreign DBS satellites would be lawful in this country under the terms of the existing British television reception licences, provided that that is within the power standards, footprints, frequencies and so on that have been internationally agreed for DBS. That means that some towns on the south coast of England can already legally receive French television signals or signals from north Germany.
There is obvious concern about intrusion into national cultures. Indeed, the hon. Member for Halifax mentioned that. There is also concern about political and religious questions and about advertising. We are glad to contribute to the discussions in the Council of Europe, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam.
My hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan), the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, the hon. Member for Thornaby and my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith) mentioned British Telecom's involvement in cable. The question of what role BT might play in an expansion of cable systems is one of the most important matters on which decisions will have to be reached. Modern cable technology means that cable systems are now capable of carrying interactive services, such as two-way telephone conversations, at the time time as television signals. They can therefore do all that BT's existing networks can do, and more. There are also clearly attractions in having a single cable input into the home, carrying all telecommunications services. BT has a massive, publicly financed investment in its existing national networks. These are being updated by the introduction of System X exchanges and optical fibre. BT can, and in some places already does, provide a large number of exciting new services, such as electronic mail, viewdata, and links to computing services.
BT has an extensive network of ducts, some of which might have space for new cables. BT's research laboratory at Martlesham leads the world in the techniques of using fibre optic cable. BT already provides the means by which television signals are relayed from the studio to the transmitters. BT is also, in a very small way, an operator of cable systems.
Mr. Richard Shepherd rose——
Mr. Baker: For those reasons, BT is likely to have a significant role to play in the development of cable systems, and the advisers' report saw BT as an important participant. But the precise role of BT is a major question, and one that it would be wrong to prejudge now.
Mr. Shepherd rose——
Mr. Baker: I shall give way in a moment. I noted the point raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, who speaks with great knowledge of such matters.
234
I particularly noted his use of the word "partnership.' in connection with the relationship that might develop between British Telecom and other interests.
Mr. John Browne: I agree with everything that has been said about the participation of British Telecom. However, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that a monopoly will not be granted to British Telecom? In a potentially vast new free enterprise system we feel strongly that monopolies should not be granted.
Mr. Shepherd: I appreciate that this is a panegyric for British Telecom, but there is a feeling that it is a dead hand. There is a great deal of private enterprise and individual initiative that could be released if the dead hand of British Telecom's monopoly were slightly relaxed. We would like to hear the Government's further commitment—one appreciates the extraordinary role that the Minister has had in the liberalisation of this policy—so as to ensure that there is an even greater liberalisation of the Government's role.
Mr. Baker: My hon. Friends have both raised basically the same point. It has to be said that the British Telecommunications Act 1981 has already put this country in a much more favourable position to exploit and develop cable systems than many of its major competitors. Prior to the Act, it would have been possible only for wide band cable systems, which are in effect a form of telecommunications, to be operated by British Telecom alone. As a result of the Act, we have a structure that allows and encourages co-operation in providing services between the public and private sectors, thus harnessing more resources, and opening the market to competition. This provides a flexibility that few other countries possess. Thus, in effect, the Government have already moved in advance to create a framework that can better accommodate the developments that the ITAP report recommends.
To touch upon an important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Howden and the hon. Member for Derby, North—the ownership of cable companies—the ITAP report also raises the question whether the cable systems should be owned by those providing the services or whether there should be a split between the two functions of the provider of the network and the provider of the network programmes. There are three separate functions, which I might relate to the printing industry—the printing, the publishing and the authorship. One of the questions that we shall have to resolve is whether the printing and the publishing should be in the same hands. I am well aware of the views of the industry that the roles should not be split entirely. Our opinion is still tentative and there are strong arguments on both sides. It would be wrong to seal off any options now on what is a very important issue. We would welcome views from as many areas as possible on this. It is a much more complicated issue than it appears at first sight.
The existing cable companies have welcomed the publication of the report. Current business prospects for existing commercial operators are not encouraging and many of them are having to close down some of their services. In discussion with my Department, they have indicated that they believe it essential that, if the Government do decide to allow an expansion of cable

235
systems, they should do so under the minimum of controls. In particular, they see two areas where the wrong decision will mean that there is no expansion.
The first of these is the so-called common carrier concept. They believe that it is essential—this comes back to the point I was making—for the system operator to control the basic tier of programming, that is, the group that lays down the cable should also control the basic tier of programming. It is these services that sell the system and from which the operators recover their basic investment. The companies see themselves as the publishers, comparable with newspaper publishers.
The second area to which the companies attach great importance is advertising. They believe that any ban on advertising or sponsorship would be unacceptable since it would cut off major sources of revenue. They argue that they would be in competition, not for national advertising of the kind most often seen on television screens, but for locally oriented advertising—a market that seems to be flourishing with the spread of "free" local, give-away newspapers. These are issues on which, again, the Government are consulting widely.
On the question of regulation, the operators argue that the imposition of any bureaucratic regulatory authority will be a serious inhibitor of their growth. This is, of course, a matter for consideration by the inquiry announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 22 March under the chairmanship of Lord Hunt. The industry will put its case for some type of self-regulation to Lord Hunt's committee. Hon. Members will recognise that there is a logic to much of what the industry says, but these are difficult matters on which decisions are not as uncomplicated as anyone, including the Government, might wish.
Mr. Whitehead: Does not the Minister agree that even in the United States, where the cable systems developed in much the way that the cable operators wish to see here, the role of the Federal Communications Commission has never been entirely usurped, and there is still a regulatory agency?
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman is correct. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have argued for a cable authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) argued for a cable broadcasting authority, and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Spence) argued for a satellite and cable authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot said that in Conservative philosophy on matters of regulation and non-regulation there was a divide between Hobbes and Locke, which I suppose is a variation on that between the drys and the wets. The matter raises interesting philosophical problems, quite apart from the practical problems. There have been several requests tonight for a new quango, those requests coming also from the Conservative Benches.
The first issue to be resolved in the public debate over the next six months is what the cable system should look like technically. I have dealt with some aspects, such as the question of copper coaxial or fibre optic cable and what standards should be laid down.
The second issue is what regulatory framework there should be for cable operators and what role BT should play in the development of cabling.
236
Thirdly, there is the method of financing this great enterprise, and the vital need for full private sector participation. It must be borne in mind that in the next two to three years BT will have to spend approaching £3 billion a year in capital investment on its basic telephony services, its basic switching services. To impose a further huge amount of money would increase the burden on the public purse considerably. That is why we must think in terms of partnership between the public and private sectors in the provision of money.
Mr. John Garrett: Does the Minister recognise that the total cost of cabling half the country under the ITAP proposals amounts to half of BT's total capital investment programme for one year?
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The ITAP report estimated that the cost would be about £2½ billion for half the country and £5 billion for the whole country. Our first preliminary examination indicates that those are likely to be considerable underestimates. My point is that the amount of money involved is considerable and is in addition to the large sums that BT will have to spend anyway in the next two to three years.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: My hon. Friend, who is well versed in these matters, will recall that Hobbes said of the Leviathan::
"Non est potestas super terram quae comparatur ei".
Many of us on the Conservative Benches fear that the State's position is such that it dominates in the dialogue. Therefore, we want to see the assertion of individual rights, liberties and so on, and the ability of small people to have a function in the whole dialogue that my hon. Friend is providing. We hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not so easily disregard the motif of Hobbes, for instance.
Mr. Baker: The quotation of which my hon. Friend reminded us is ever-present in my mind. Those of us who had a classical education do not need to translate such well-known phrases as that which dropped from my hon. Friend's lips.
The fourth question concerns the relationship between the people laying the cable and the providers of the programmes. I have already touched upon that.
The fifth question is how the country should be divided up. Should the franchises extend to each town, each county, each borough, each region? In an excellent study document that he has already circulated widely—everybody in my Department, at least, seems to have got it—my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) has drawn attention to the fact that in America there are very small regions. This matter must be examined, and we shall involve as many people as we can in its consideration in the next six months.
Dr. Summerskill: Will the Minister confirm the BBC's estimation that 40 per cent. of the country will never be able to have cable? Do the Government agree with that?
Mr. Baker: The Government do not agree with that. The other common carriers for the ducts, for example, British Telecom or the other utilities that have ducts going into the houses, will be able to take the cable into those ducts even in rather remote communities. With the addition of a DBS satellite receiver a small town or village could have cable going from that satellite receiver to the

237
homes and cottages. Therefore, I do not agree with that statement, but what I have just described will take some time to develop. I do not say that it will happen overnight.
The ITAP report was published on 22 March. It represents not Government policy, but the views of the members of ITAP who had been appointed specifically to inject a market-oriented dimension into Government encouragement for the development of IT. I am glad to have the support of my hon. Friends in that. The report was intended to stimulate discussion of the issues surrounding an expansion of wide-band cable systems. Following the report's publication, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary established the inquiry chaired by Lord Hunt of Tanworth. The inquiry has been asked to report by the end of September, a much more compressed timetable than is normally allowed for a broadcasting inquiry.
Within the Government, Departments are already at work under the co-ordination of the Cabinet Office and are considering the many other aspects of the ITAP recommendations. Discussions and consultations have been held with a large number of outside interests, and, as I have already mentioned, my Department is setting up a technical working group on standards on which the industries involved will be represented.
The Government are wasting no time in pressing forward to secure the benefits of new technology for the United Kingdom. We aim to take, and announce our own policy decisions, taking account of the findings of the broadcasting inquiry, before the end of this year. Clearly, however, there are important issues of broadcasting and telecommunications policy which must be resolved.
In order to assist this process, we would welcome the views of outside bodies as quickly as possible. I very much welcome the debate today because we shall be able to take account of the views of the many hon. Members who have contributed to it. Lord Hunt has already issued a consultative document asking for comments by 31 May. I urge those preparing to put forward their views on any topics not covered directly by the inquiry to submit them
238
to the Departments concerned, which are primarily my Department, the Home Office and the Cabinet Office, by mid-summer at the latest, if they are to receive adequate consideration.
Mr. Michael Marshall: I ask my hon. Friend to give a brief commercial—he would be too modest to do it otherwise. My hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary are to attend the parliamentary information technology committee seminar on 10 June when many hon. Members will have further opportunities to make contributions. I hope that he will fee) able to endorse its views.
Mr. Baker: I welcome the activities of the parliamentary all-party committee on information technology. My right hon. Friend and I will be attending the seminar. It will be yet another opportunity for Members on both sides of the House to express their views.
In addition, my Department will be holding a seminar in the summer on the industrial, technical and commercial aspects of wide-band cable systems as part of the consultative process. I stress that the Government are seeking a minimum of regulation for cable systems consistent with the considerations of policy which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary pointed to at the beginning of the debate.
The opportunities before us as a country in this recabling enterprise are tremendous. The recabling of the country will be as important for Britain as was the laying down of the railway network in Victorian England. It will create an enormous amount of industrial, manufacturing and service activity. It will create whole new industries and activities. The will of the House is that we should get on with it.
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Glue Sniffing
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
11.45 pm
Mr. Don Dixon: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity once again to draw attention to the growing menace of glue sniffing, particularly in my constituency and those of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and other hon. Friends in the Tyne and Wear area. I hope that they get the opportunity to participate in the debate.
Although the problem is commonly referred to as glue sniffing, the term is misleading. The practice involves inhaling the poisonous vapours of many products in common domestic and industrial use. Most hon. Members appreciate the variety of substances used, many of which are cheap and easily accessible to children and youngsters with pocket money. They include glues, adhesives, rubber solution, dyes, hair sprays, paraffin, metal polish, gas lighter fuel and many other products.
I ask hon. Members whether they appreciate all the ways in which the substances are taken into the system. They can be sniffed directly from a can, tin or bottle, or aerosols can be sprayed directly into the mouth or nose. Solvents are mixed with drinks. Handkerchiefs can be saturated and held to the mouth or nose. To heighten or speed up the effect, a bag can be placed over the head.
The House will share a sense of revulsion at such practices, but it would not be our business if no harm resulted to the users or to society generally. As usual, there is disagreement among the experts on likely long-term effects of addiction, but it has been established that damage can occur to the liver and the kidneys. In the short term there is also harm which, in most instances, is temporary. The user becomes confused, he suffers from blurred or double vision, his speech is slurred, his body actions become unco-ordinated and he can become dizzy. This is all bad enough, but the reason why the craze is a killer, even to someone trying it for the first time, is the methods used.
The campaign to prevent children having access to plastic or polythene bags was well-founded and has been successful in reducing the number of accidents. Youngsters can put a bag over their head and achieve a sense of intoxication involving dizziness and loss of consciousness. The House will appreciate what can happen. Some have suffocated, some have choked on their own vomit and, because the practice is carried out secretly, often in out-of-the-way places, other dangers arise with serious accidents on building sites, railway lines, river embankments and other potentially dangerous spots.
It is alarming that out of 22 deaths officially reported as arising from glue or solvent sniffing in 1980, only three involved people over 16 years of age. People involved with the problem have told me that children as young as eight years old have been found trying this revolting practice.
Getting facts has proved difficult, and I hope that there has been some attempt nationally to measure this problem. I know that the matter has been discussed previously in the House and that the Government are aware of the problem not only in my area but in other areas.
240
The impression of the police, social workers, health workers and education staff in my area is that the number of referrals and incidents is increasing and it is only the tip of the iceberg of what is happening in practice. The Nothumbria police report a steady increase in the number of court cases where offences have allegedly been committed under the influence of solvents and other such substances or where there has been violence towards the arresting officer or other persons. The police also report that referrals have doubled. Referrals to South Tyneside social services rose by 50 per cent. over one year and those to the educational welfare by one third.
Some of the professionals involved argue that it is just a craze and that most youngsters give it up after one or two tries. That may be true—I hope so—but once is once too often. In my area, two lads started to sniff petrol fumes while in a local cafe. The fumes ignited, causing an explosion which severely damaged the cafe. Fortunately, no one was killed.
It is a sad reflection on the state of things when our children resort to this sickening practice for kicks, because they believe that adults disapprove, because they are bored, or in order too keep up with their friends. It is disturbing because most of them can easily get hold of the substances. A lethal dose can be bought with the weekly pocket money.
Some experts also tell me that only a minority become addicted, and that usually these young people come from unhappy homes, or have had previous problems. They are the ones who may have been in trouble with the police. However, that is not always so, as has been the case with the misuse of drugs generally. I do not believe that I am being an alarmist when I say that we have a craze on our hands.
I sometimes do not agree with all that chief constables say, but I certainly agree with the chief constable of Northumbria when he said, addressing a conference in Newcastle last year:
"Solvent abuse is not merely a cult, as some experts would have it—it causes death and misery to many".
I also agree with his question:
"Do we go ahead and do something or do we dither and hold back hoping that it will go away?"
In my area people have not dithered or sat back, for they recognise that this is a problem which has to be dealt with, and locally they are seeking the full co—operation of parents, schools, the welfare and other statutory agencies. It is a matter in which everyone has had to learn about the problem, and then decide the quickest and most effective way of stopping it. After meetings of various interests in the borough, South Tyneside decided that the best approach was to set up a joint committee involving environmental health, social services and education representatives, and inviting the police, the probation service, the health officer, the juvenile court magistrates and the press to participate.
The local press has done a good service in publicising this dangerous practice. The Shields Gazette, the Sunderland Echo, the Northern Echo, the Newcastle Journal and the South Tyneside Post have all contained articles explaining the dangers, and I pay special tribute to the Newcastle Evening Chronicle which, on Thursday 15 April, started a campaign, not to exaggerate or to sensationalise, but to emphasise the dangers of sniffing.
Guidance has already been issued to teachers, social workers and other professionals as a first step, but it is

241
recognised that joint in-service training is needed, and it is encouraging that the various professionals are anxious to get together in detection of the problem and with other help.
It is also recognised that the problem is best attacked by making sure that all parents are on their guard and know the symptoms to look for. The Gateshead health authority unit has already produced an excellent leaflet telling parents of the things to watch for. This again has been pointed out in the series of articles in the Evening Chronicle. Mention should be made of the good work being carried out by Dennis O'Connor of Newcastle university on this subject. Most authorities in the Tyne and Wear area, together with South Tyneside, are issuing leaflets and broadsheets to the parents explaining the symptoms to watch for.
I fully appreciate that the range of substances is such that control is difficult—perhaps, in some cases, impossible. The series of articles in the Evening Chronicle is attempting to obtain the voluntary co-operation of shopkeepers, asking them to he on their guard and to take care when selling these substances to youngsters. The considered view of all those in South Tyneside concerned with the problem—professionals, councillors and constituents—is that there is need for further action.
It is requested that at least solvent-based glues and similar substances should be put on restricted sale, like cigarettes and alcohol—although I know that that would be almost impossible to do, and that it would require legislation.
At a time when local authorities are having to curtail their existing services, and bearing in mind that this problem is increasing every year, money should be made available by central Government to set up special clinics, where help is at hand. These can be established in the various areas, but that would require money from central funds, and I hope that the Minister will consider this.
Death through solvent inhaling is a somewhat remote consideration for some of the potential sniffers, but for many individuals and their families it is a tragic consequence that cannot be ignored. I hope that the Government will do something positive to help the voluntary organisations in the local authorities throughout Britain and the campaigns run by local newspapers.
11.55 pm
Mr. Harry Cowans: My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) has highlighted many of the horrors of this odious, habit-forming disease. I emphasise that it is a disease, although unfortunately it is not often recognised. It is not new. It swept America 15 years ago and there are still considerable problems in that country.
Many local authorities have been very concerned about the problem. Newcastle city council had a major debate on the subject in November 1981. Had I the time to quote from the speeches made in that debate, right across the political spectrum, the full horror of young lives destroyed would be brought home to the House and, more especially, to the Minister. My hon. Friend has rightly paid tribute to the laudable campaign of the Newcastle Evening Chronicle. It is not a scare campaign, but a campaign to highlight to parents and others the consequences of the disease.
My hon. Friend mentioned deaths and I can quote some from the newspaper campaign. Michael Goodwin, aged
242
18, died from glue sniffing. George Donnelly, aged 20, was found dead in his lodgings after sniffing glue. Robert Morton, aged 25, was found dead by his wife. Michael Bamborough, aged 15, was found dead. Noel Clynch, aged 15, was found dead. David Lott, aged 18, was found dead. Stephen Hughes, after inhaling the contents of a fire extinguisher, was found dead.
That is tragic enough—nothing can be more final than death—but other problems arise from the cases that fall short of death. Long-term health is affected, there are thefts, burglaries, muggings, recent cases of schools burnt down, and on Tyneside one young man, after a glue-sniffing exercise, ran amok with a bayonet, attacked all those in the vicinity and inflicted serious injuries upon them. All the incidents occurred after bouts of glue sniffing.
I hope that the Minister can supply some national figures about the size of the problem, if such figures exist. If they do not, the House should ask why. Many people work hard in this area and my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow has paid tribute to Mr. Dennis O'Connor of Newcastle university, who operates a clinic and publishes many documents. I have an example with me which I would be happy to furnish to the Minister. He not only draws attention to the prevention and cure of the disease, but highlights the early warning signs to parents and says where they can turn for assistance. That is one of the important matters. The glue sniffers and their families need active support.
As my hon. Friend said, we recognise the effects of tobacco and alcohol on young people. We have legislation that prevents them from purchasing alcohol and tobacco. If it is important to have that legislation, surely it is important to have legislation on solvents. We are trying to be constructive. We recognise the problems, but it is important that people are aware that they have somewhere to go to seek help when they are in need.
I support my hon. Friend's remarks. It is not beyond the wit of man to add something to the aerosol sprays that will make people physically sick if they try to inhale them. Those are the actions that the Government could and should take.
12.1 am
Dr. David Clark: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) for raising this important issue. There has been a major campaign in our area with the local authority, the area health authority and the police, responsibly backed up by the local newpapers—the Newcastle Evening Chronicle and the Shields Gazette.
Last autumn I wrote to the Minister on this issue, making three brief propositions. The first related to marking, the second was on restrictive sales and the third concerned publicity. At the time the Minister was not able to accept the proposals, although he wrote an accommodating letter.
I shall put some more proposals to the Minister. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans), said, glue sniffing is a killer. Young people are afraid of death. We should use the hard sell in getting across the dangers of glue sniffing. We should increase the publicity, emphasising that glue sniffing can kill. What research is being done into the use of aversive additives to the substances in order to make them less attractive to the glue sniffer?
12.3 am
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) for raising this topic. I should like to take the chance of setting out the Government's view on glue sniffing and of telling the House about some of the steps that they propose to take in response to that problem.
It is two years since the House last debated what is more accurately called solvent misuse. In this time, concern among hon. Members and among the general public has grown. Sometimes this concern has been fuelled by somewhat alarmist journalism. At the same time, around the country those responsible for the well-being of the community, and of young people in particular, have been developing the response to solvent misuse best suited to their localities. I am referring to the police, social workers, teachers, youth workers, health workers, doctors, and, in some places, retailers. Together with parents they have been getting on with the job.
Where that is happening, newspapers have tended not to be alarmist but have rather supported the local response. I have been interested to note the helpful campaign mounted by the Newcastle Evening Chronicle, and I shall ensure that a copy of the report of the debate is sent to its editor.
Hon. Members have urged the Government to action. Some take the view that the problem can be tackled only by legislation: either to control the sale, possession or use of solvents, or to control the chemical formulation of solvent products. The Government do not share that view. Others have pressed for steps which will support and enhance the response of the workers in the field rather than measures to take the job away from them.
In sifting the advice, the Government have looked carefully at the nature of this problem. For many sniffers this seems to be a transitory activity, taken up in order to experiment and most seem to give it up without having sustained any permanent physical damage. The greatest risks while actually sniffing or from short-term misuse are either accidental while intoxicated, or from the method of sniffing.
I am particularly concerned for youngsters whose experimentation leads to prolonged misuse of solvents, from which they may develop damage to their nervous system, liver or kidney. The causation of such damage is not, however, clear-cut; it may depend on the solvent inhaled, the concentration inhaled and the length of time over which it is used. It must be said that that is an area where more research would be helpful.
We cannot say with conviction, as some have, that certain solvents cause no physical damage. More research is needed, but the evidence does not justify the alarm generated in some quarters and we must always be careful not to encourage some to experiment just because they hear about this craze. The evidence seems to be that in only a relatively small proportion does solvent misuse become a chronic problem, and those in the field are finding that this minority already have other problems. Solvent abuse, it often appears, is an expression of these other, deeper problems. Reliable information on the numbers of sniffers or the proportion whose misuse becomes prolonged is not available. But the numbers are very small when compared with, for example, the number
244
of young people who died in accidents on our roads last year. None the less, I understand and fully share the widespread concern for youngsters who sniff solvents.
What should the Government do? We have looked, as some hon. Members have urged, at statutory controls on the sale, possession and use of solvents, perhaps by extending the Misuse of Drugs Act. We have found strong objections and overwhelming practical difficulties to applying this sort of control to everyday household products. The House can imagine the uproar, were, for example, sales of modelling glue and shoe cleaners to be restricted. It would not be easy to set an appropriate age for restrictions. Experience in other areas indicates that whatever age was chosen might be difficult to enforce. Traders would find it difficult, as do publicans, to judge with reasonable accuracy, and there would always be the possibility that young people would evade the controls by getting someone else to buy the solvent for them, or they would misuse solvents in their homes, or resort to stealing. Restrictions could, moreover, result in sniffing being driven underground with consequent added dangers. I should further mention that many of those most active in service provision in this area are opposed to legislative controls. However, it may be possible to exercise voluntary restraint based on common sense, thus avoiding the difficulties inherent in legislation as is happening in some areas.
Some have said that the police need more powers, but it seems that the police can act when offences are committed under solvent intoxication. The police in the constituency of the hon. Member for Jarrow work helpfully with the social services department to aid solvent sniffing youngsters. This is just one way in which local services are working together across the country.
Others have suggested that the chemical formulae of solvent-based products could be altered to make the product unattractive to sniffers. This would be an enormous task. Any change would have to be consistent with the product still being effective for its intended purpose. Manufacturers would need to find a formula which did not deter normal usage. It would have to be toxicologically safe, and not offer other hazards. Every solvent-based product would have to be changed, otherwise sniffers would misuse the remaining unchanged products. I am informed that some parts of the United States have attempted this, but the federal authorities have not been able to commend this approach.
All our inquiries suggest that the problem, as I said at the beginning, is being dealt with by existing statutory and voluntary services working together, with parents and sometimes retailers, using their skills to respond in a way best suited to their localities and the children's needs. This seems to be the way to tackle solvent abuse.
Parents are, of course, in the front line and they look to the social services, the schools, the National Health Service and the police for support. They look also to voluntary services for help. Naturally, parents look to retailers to exercise responsible restraint in serving youngsters with solvent products. Let none of us seek to undermine parents' efforts in helping solvent sniffing youngsters, nor underestimate the support that they expect from all of us. By strengthening statutory and voluntary services capabilities we intend to support parents. I want to tell the House toninght how the Government propose to support this work—how we shall help the helpers.

245
I should like to answer the suggestion that there should be specialist units or clinics for solvent misusers. There is no evidence that such an initiative is necessary or would be helpful. It is part and parcel of existing services deciding how to respond locally, that they should decide whether specialist resources are needed and how to provide these from their health, local authority or other services. This is happening in Avon and in Northamptonshire.
What have the Government done so far? Some hon. Members will know of a seminar held at Guy's hospital in London last November which brought together researchers, industry, the police and people from the care professions, and I understand that seminar papers are to be published shortly in the journal "Human Toxicology".
My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) has suggested the making of a training film for parents and professionals likely to come into contact with solvent sniffers and this project is being put in hand by the Central Office of Information. We shall be inviting industry to co-finance the film. That much is started.
After consultations with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science, the Home Department, the Departments for Wales and Northern Ireland and my hon. Friend the Minister fo Consumer Affairs, I can inform the House that in addition to the film we are exploring the possibility of a book, perhaps based on the Guy's seminar, as an aid for professionals, and a paper addressed to the medical profession is to appear shortly in my Department's journal "Health Trends". Officials will consult retailers' representatives on voluntary restrain by traders. They will report on whether the circumstances in which voluntary restraint can be helpful and effective, actually warrant active encouragement, and, if so, how.
Subject to receiving suitable applications, we shall fund studies into solvent abuse. Since the House last debated this problem, inquiries have shown that the most reliable information on the prevalence of solvent sniffing will come from small-scale studies. It may assist local services if responses to the problem are evaluated. Therefore, we shall fund, in particular, studies of the prevalence and of effective service responses to solvent sniffing.
246
I have said that we must act with sensitivity to support the commendable work that is being done by local statutory and voluntary services. Those who have contributed to the debate have shown clearly that local authorities and voluntary bodies in their areas are already working hard in this sphere. I hope very much that some of the initiatives that I have mentioned will be of assistance. My officials will shortly be consulting representatives of the voluntary services to learn what more the Government might do to strengthen and enhance their responses. I shall have placed in the Library in due course copies of the memorandum, the book to which I have referred and "Health Trends". We intend to rely on and to support those in the community best able to do the job.
However, it is worth recalling that we live in a society in which each individual has a responsibility for his or her own health. We must assist parents—I make this point over and over again because in many instances they are the ones who need a lot of help—to teach their own children. This responsibility must be exercised with common sense so that it is put over in an understandable way. This approach, rather than Government intervention, could be the main safeguard against the hazards of glue sniffing.
Everything that hon. Members have said will be carefully studied by my Department. That includes the ideas set out by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) in his earlier letter and the two issues that he has raised tonight, with the various matters that the hon. Members for Jarrow and Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) have drawn to the attention of the House. We shall gladly listen to anything else that they may care to submit which will supplement what I have already said about what the Government propose to do.
I hope that the Government's approach will be found to be a practical way forward. It seems to be the best way forward, and I hope that the hon. Member for Jarrow, who was fortunate enough to raise the matter on the Adjournment and give us the chance of debating it, will feel that it was worthwhile staying up until after midnight to do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Twelve o' clock.

DEFENCE
  Departmental Staff (Wales)
  Departmental Staff (Wales)
  Meteorological Office
  Meteorological Office
  Civil Aviation (Personal Briefings)
  Civil Aviation (Personal Briefings)
  Trident
  Trident
  Arms Sales (Argentina)
  Arms Sales (Argentina)
  "Canberra"
  "Canberra"
  Military Equipment Sales
  Military Equipment Sales
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Belize
  Belize
  Remedial Gymnasts
  Remedial Gymnasts
TRADE
  Manufactured Goods (Statistics)
  Manufactured Goods (Statistics)
PRIME MINISTER
  Factory Closures
  Factory Closures
  State Schools
  State Schools
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Trades Union Congress
  Trades Union Congress
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Capital Taxes
  Capital Taxes
  Mortgage Interest and Life Assurance Premiums
  Mortgage Interest and Life Assurance Premiums
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Manufactured Goods (Exports)
  Manufactured Goods (Exports)
  PAYE Inquiry Office (Huddersfield)
  PAYE Inquiry Office (Huddersfield)
  Vehicle Excise Duty (Elderly Persons)
  Vehicle Excise Duty (Elderly Persons)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Farm Incomes
  Farm Incomes
  Deficiency Payments
  Deficiency Payments
  Sugar Imports
  Sugar Imports
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Northern Ireland Carriers Ltd.
  Northern Ireland Carriers Ltd.
ENERGY
  Commercial Insurance Market
  Commercial Insurance Market
  North Sea Vessels (Flag Registrations)
  North Sea Vessels (Flag Registrations)
  Gas (Export and Exchange Arrangements)
  Gas (Export and Exchange Arrangements)
  Gas Exports
  Gas Exports
INDUSTRY
  Hearing Aids (Telephones)
  Hearing Aids (Telephones)
  Telecommunications Equipment (Approval)
  Telecommunications Equipment (Approval)
  British Leyland
  British Leyland
  Concorde
  Concorde
  British Shipbuilders
  British Shipbuilders
TRANSPORT
  M25, Reigate
  M25, Reigate
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Fire Service (Pay and Conditions)
  Fire Service (Pay and Conditions)
  Detained Persons
  Detained Persons
  Complaints Against the Police
  Complaints Against the Police
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Albany Prison (Dental Treatment)
  Albany Prison (Dental Treatment)
  Argentine (Immigration Rules)
  Argentine (Immigration Rules)
  Detained Persons (Ethnic Origins)
  Detained Persons (Ethnic Origins)
  Prison Sentences
  Prison Sentences
  Murders (Statistics)
  Murders (Statistics)
ENVIRONMENT
  Argentine (Sporting Events)
  Argentine (Sporting Events)
EMPLOYMENT
  Community Enterprise Programme
  Community Enterprise Programme
SOCIAL SERVICES
  National Health Service
  National Health Service
  Falkland Islanders
  Falkland Islanders
  Merchant and Boreham Social Surveys
  Merchant and Boreham Social Surveys
  Doctors (Deputising Services)
  Doctors (Deputising Services)
  Abortion Notification Procedure
  Abortion Notification Procedure
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Examination Results
  Examination Results
  Education Standards
  Education Standards
  Local Education Authorities
  Local Education Authorities
  Secondary Heads Association (Minister's Speech)
  Secondary Heads Association (Minister's Speech)
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Open University
  Open University
  Catholic Primary Education (Liverpool)
  Catholic Primary Education (Liverpool)
  University Redundancies
  University Redundancies
  Religious Education
  Religious Education
  Secondary Education
  Secondary Education
  Political Education
  Political Education
  Grammar Schools
  Grammar Schools
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Schools Council
  Schools Council
  Schoolchildren (Training and Education)
  Schoolchildren (Training and Education)
  Textile Industry (Career Opportunities)
  Textile Industry (Career Opportunities)
  Free Milk
  Free Milk
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Diplomatic Immunity
  Diplomatic Immunity
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
SCOTLAND
  Mental Hospitals (Patient Statistics)
  Mental Hospitals (Patient Statistics)
  National Land Register
  National Land Register
  Secondary Pupils (Accidents)
  Secondary Pupils (Accidents)
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  One-parent Families
  One-parent Families
  Forestry Commission
  Forestry Commission

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

Inflation Comparisons 1979–81
Lord Gainford: 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 the comparisons are in inflation between Britain, the USA, Japan and Western European countries between the years 1979 and 1981.
The Secretary of State for Trade (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, the annual average rate of inflation between 1979 and 1981 was 14·9 per cent. in the United Kingdom, 12·5 per cent. in the rest of the European Community, 11·9 per cent. in the United States of America and 6·4 per cent. in Japan. In the 12 months to February of this year, the rate of inflation in the United Kingdom was 11 per cent., and further falls are anticipated.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, particularly regarding the falls that are expected. Can he give any idea of how Her Majesty's Government plan to bring this about as soon as possible?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, we anticipate that by the end of this year the rate of inflation will be down to 9 per cent., and next year it will be down to 7½ per cent. The Government's fiscal and monetary policies have made an important contribution to this, as indeed have the fall in oil prices and other commodity prices.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, can the noble Lord inform me whether he has taken into account the dipping into the contingency funds that will be necessary whatever happens—hoping that peace will be found—to answer the Falklands issue? Is it not a dangerous statement for the noble Lord to say so forthrightly that he thinks that inflation will be down?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the estimates published at the time of the Budget were as I have indicated. There are always uncertainties in the future. Nevertheless, we would anticipate that the falls that have been forecast will be achieved.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord did not think that I was asking that antagonistically. I was looking for reality in the answer, and I did get it.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I entirely appreciate the noble Lord's point. Inevitably, events that occur can have an impact on these and other figures. But our
460
hope of course is that they will not result in a significant change in the estimates that I have quoted.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept our felicitations on his elevation to Cabinet rank?
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we hope to have the opportunity of crossing swords with him from time to time, not only on his former subjects but on his new responsibilities. Is the noble Lord aware that we on this side welcome also his forecast in very precise terms as to where he expects the rate of inflation to be at the end of this year and towards the end of next? Is he further aware that we have had these kinds of forecasts before and that, even as we are talking, the inflation rate still remains above that which his Government inherited nearly three years ago? Will the noble Lord, while he is about it, pass some observation on which way he expects the taxes and prices indicator to go? I believe it is an index upon which the Government set great store.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his felicitations and I look forward to the challenge which he promises. It is perhaps understandable—although unwise—that he should refer to the record of the previous Government. If he cares to refresh his mind on thesematters, he will find that the average rate of inflation for the five years in which the previous Administration were in office was 15·4 per cent. In the three years that this Government have been in office it is 14·1 per cent.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, may I associate myself with what my noble friend on the Front Bench said about the noble Lord the Minister, and dissociate myself completely from the unmannerly, discourteous remarks made by one of my colleagues in another place? Has the Minister noticed some figures published this morning showing that the rate of inflation for poor people is very much higher than it is for people with above-average incomes? If the noble Lord has not studied those figures, will he do so and let us know what the Government intend to do about that?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for what he says. Regarding the rate of inflation at different income levels, there is a large element of estimation in these figures, but I think it is very important to bear in mind that retirement pensions, for example, are in fact protected against price rises.
Lord Glenamara: Yes, my Lords, but is the noble Lord aware that this refers to people with an income of below £80 a week? These are not simply retirement pensioners. There are a great many people on low incomes who spend a much bigger share of their income on food, fuel and rent.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, while I am of course very willing to look at the figures quoted by the noble Lord, I would remind him that the increase in the price of food is significantly less than the increase in the retail price index, generally.

The Loan Guarantee Scheme
2.43 p.m.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the progress of the loan guarantee scheme.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, I am pleased to be able to say that the encouraging response to the loan guarantee scheme has been maintained. In the 10 months since this scheme came into operation 3,351 guarantees have been issued in respect of £113·7 million of bank lending. This includes £53·4 million of lending to new businesses. A preliminary review of the scheme's operation to date is being carried out at present.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, which I believe shows almost a doubling of the loans in the last four months. Can he tell me what average rate of interest above base rate is charged by the banks? Can he also please tell me whether the Department of Industry has any thoughts of changing the premium of 3 per cent. which it charges on these loans?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, yes; the increase in the use of the scheme has been very considerable and that led my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase for the second time the funds allotted to this scheme. He announced at the time of the Budget that £150 million would be allocated in the current year and £150 million next year. So far as the rates are concerned, the clearing banks normally charge most of their small business customers between 3 per cent. and 5 per cent. above the base rate for lending. Under the loan guarantee scheme they seem to be charging between 1¾ per cent. and 2½ per cent. above base rate. That is why, in answer to a previous question from my noble friend, I said that the net cost to the borrower was about the same. In relation to my noble friend's third supplementary point, as to whether we would consider any change in the premium charge, it is much too early to say, and the main object of the scheme is to cover risk loans that would not otherwise take place, rather than to produce cheap lending.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while welcoming the news that progress has been made with this scheme, may I ask the noble Viscount to be kind enough to say how many new jobs have been created in these businesses since the inception of the scheme? Can he further say what prospect there is that the upper borrowing limit might be increased from the present £75,000 to something much more substantial?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, the current review will of course take in the current individual ceiling which the noble Lord mentions, but I do not think
462
that that will be radically changed without changing the whole nature of the scheme. So far as the employment consequences of the growth of small business and new business is concerned, it is very hard in current circumstances to evaluate this, but the many schemes, and not only this one, in support of small and new business undoubtedly have added substantially to the employment figures which otherwise would have been worse.
Lord Spens: My Lords, has the noble Viscount the Minister any evidence to suggest that the banks are making use of this facility to make risk loans, as he describes them, to businesses which they would not otherwise have been prepared to help finance?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, the noble Lord has on a previous occasion asked me the same question and I can only give him the same answer: the banks and financial institutions are taking every step to try to ensure that this is additional lending. This is one of the important aspects of the present review being carried out by my honourable friend Mr. John MacGregor at the Department of Industry. It is one of the points he will be particularly looking at.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord satisfied that this scheme, together with other schemes, is making an important contribution to the assistance of businesses, in the light of the fact that during the first three months of this year firms were either going bankrupt or into liquidation at the rate of one per hour?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, as I have said to the noble Lord so often, the effects of our cumulative non-competitiveness are still with us and it will take some time yet in this country to overcome the very poor rate of new business start-ups and of small business growth, compared with other countries over the last 15 to 20 years; but the difference is beginning to be made good by the current Administration's schemes, including this one.

Gibraltar: Development Aid
2.50 p.m.
Lord Merrivale: 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 financial and other assistance they propose to give to the Government of Gibraltar after the opening of the frontier between Spain and Gibraltar to enable them to meet the substantial expenditure which will be required:

(a) to create the necessary tourist infrastructure; and

(b) to promote the private sector

in addition to the substantial expenditure which the Government of Gibraltar will have to incur to commercialise the dockyard.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the Gibraltar Government have not yet made any request for financial or other assistance for the purposes which my noble friend mentions. If and when they do make such a request, the Government will give it thorough and careful consideration. The sum of £4 million was made available to the Gibraltar Government at the end of last year to help finance essential development projects, and project applications submitted by the Gibraltar Government are currently under discussion.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, may I take this opportunity to congratulate him on his recent appointment, and also on the fact that he is the Minister responsible within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for our dealings with Gibraltar? If I may, I should like to ask him two supplementary questions, the first of which deals with the last part of my original Question. I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether he agrees that the Falklands issue has brought in a new dimension to the question of timing in regard to the closure of the dockyard, bearing in mind, too, the fact that the viability of commercialisation is still very much in the melting pot. Furthermore, if I may refer to the figure of £4 million, may I ask my noble friend to bear in mind that, at the time, the Gibraltar Government asked for £8½ million over two years, but received only £4 million? Also, would my noble friend agree that the delay in opening the frontier, which was to have been done today, means that there is an increased urgency for supplying the Gibraltar Government with funds as they require them and, anyhow, assistance, on account of extra financial commitments—
Several noble Lords: Question!
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I am asking whether the Minister can reply to this. In view of the fact that the Gibraltar Government have extra financial commitments—
Several noble Lords: Speech!
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend would be good enough to bring his Question to a conclusion.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Merrivale for his kind remarks. The first question which he asked me was about the timing of the closure of the dockyard. Within the framework of the decision which was announced by the Government last November, the Government will be as flexible as possible to ensure that any ill effects arising from the closing of the dockyard for Royal Navy purposes are avoided where possible, or, at least, minimised, and that the transition to commercial work, if that is what is decided, should be as smooth as possible.
Secondly, my noble friend asked me about the figure of £4 million which was mentioned in my original Answer. Of course, the fact is that the Gibraltar Government asked for more aid than that over a three-year period as a contribution towards their development programme, but consideration of the request was suspended in the light of the decision to close the
464
Gibraltar dockyard. I am sure that the best course now is for Gibraltar to submit new proposals in the light of altered priorities.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the dockyard at Gibraltar is rendering very considerable service at this moment, in the present crisis? In view of the fact that, whatever else results from the present crisis, there will plainly have to be a review of defence arrangements, particularly affecting the Royal Navy, can my noble friend undertake to give further study as to whether it would make strategic sense to retain the Gibraltar dockyard indefinitely?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I confirm to my noble friend that the dockyard in Gibraltar has rendered very valuable service in the present crisis which is facing this country. I think it would be right for me just to remind my noble friend that it has already been agreed, if both the Gibraltar Government and Her Majesty's Government accept the viability of a commercial dockyard operation after the Royal dockyard has closed, that, subject always to parliamentary approval, necessary surplus dockyard lands and assets will be made available free of charge. Moreover, subject to detailed negotiation with the operator, some continued naval work will be made available during 1983 and 1984.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that, in this and similar problems, a two-flag solution is probably the best answer?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not think that that is a very appropriate question.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether a fresh date has been agreed with the Spanish Government for the opening of the frontier? If so, does he think that the frontier will, indeed, be opened on that date?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, a firm date has been agreed between Her Majesty's Government and the Spanish Government for the meeting which was to have taken place today, when the negotiations agreed under the Lisbon agreement will be carried forward.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend very briefly whether Her Majesty's Government will bear very much in mind the fact that the Gibraltar Government have had quite a large amount of expenditure on the assumption that the frontier would be opened today? Will they bear that in mind when reacting to any demands in the near future by the Gibraltar Government?
Lord Belstead: Certainly, my Lords. I take the point which is being made by my noble friend. But I do not think we ought to let my noble friend's Question go by concentrating solely on the dockyard. In addition to that, the Overseas Development Administration is financing a consultancy on behalf of the Gibraltar Government to investigate the prospects for alternative economic activities other than the

465
commercial dockyard, and that consultant's report is expected by the end of May.

Key Installations: Protective Measures
2.57 p.m.
Lord Renton: 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 steps are being taken to identify and protect key targets in the United Kingdom against enemy attack, whether conventional or otherwise; whether local authorities and appropriate industrial managements are being asked to co-operate in this matter; and what steps are being taken to protect such targets from terrorist attacks.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, there is a well-established procedure for identifying civil and military installations with a vital role in maintaining the economy and the defence of the country in both peace and war. The procedure provides for full consultation with all interested parties. Appropriate security precautions are undertaken to ensure the protection of such installations against hostile attack, but it would not be in the national interest to give further details.
Lord Renton: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that reply and remind him that what he has said is of great importance. Does he bear in mind that recent events point to the necessity for prior preparation, rather than brilliant improvisation at the last minute, and can he assure us that these plans to which he has referred are, in fact, being carried out?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I think I can assure my noble friend that this is a subject of great importance, is understood as being of great importance, and that more than one Government department, as well as the forces, the police and the local authorities play an important part in it. I think I can also assure my noble friend that we review the situation in all the areas concerned to ensure that it is up-to-date, and to ensure that emergency plans are made, particularly in the frightening and uncertain world in which we live today.
Lord Peart: My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition may I say that I am rather surprised that the noble Lord should have introduced this subject. After all, it embarrasses a lot of people and gives information to other people who probably do not deserve to have it. As a fellow gunner, the noble Lord will recognise that he is very wrong in many ways to put such a Question, which is very silly.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I am sorry that I omitted to mention the gunners.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, do the Government totally reject the idea of forming some kind of Home Guard for the purposes indicated?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, the Government have recently announced the formation of the Home Service Force, which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced in relation to his Statement in March on the Territorials and the Reserves. That, certainly, is one of the bits of evidence to show that the situation is kept under constant review, as was the extension of the Royal Marines with the Comacchio Company a few years ago.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is not one of the best ways of preventing attacks by terrorists on targets within the United Kingdom to stop weapons getting into the hands of psychopathic regimes, like the Libyans, who are prepared to use terrorism as an instrument of policy? Will the noble Viscount give proper attention to this, in conjunction with our European allies, so as to ensure that the activities of the Libyans and the Ethiopians do not spread from the Continent of Africa into our own continent?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, that is largely a separate question which the Government also keep under review. Their security arrangements are constantly discussed with their allies.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in view of the doubt thrown by a member of the Opposition Front Bench upon the validity of my Question, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that it would be a bad day for democracy if Members of either House of Parliament were not free to ask reasonable questions about the defence of our country?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's supplementary. The importance of this subject is immense. However, I hope he will accept that part of my Answer which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition reinforced; namely, that it is extremely difficult to answer the Question as put in terms of the actual steps that we are taking.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, could my noble friend say what scope there is for volunteers to take part in the defence of these key targets? We shall never have enough professionals.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I have already mentioned that, in announcing a major increase in the reserves of the Territorials, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State also announced the formation of the new Home Service Force with this specific object in mind.

Hong Kong and China Gas Company Limited Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Thomas Brown and Sons, Limited Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill
3.3 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill proposes important changes to the structure of the public sector oil and gas industries. Its provisions concern the future wellbeing and development of these vital energy resources. It represents a major piece of legislation with three principal objectives.
First, it will be a major step forward in reducing the size of the public sector. There is no justification, in our view, for direct state involvement in oil exploration and production. The history of the North Sea shows that the successful development of our oil resources had overwhelmingly been the achievement of the private sector. Privatisation will be in the best interests of the British National Oil Corporation itself. After six years in existence, it is poised to expand and develop its potential without the inevitable constraints of the public sector. Secondly, the Bill will introduce competition into the gas market which is currently dominated by monopoly in both the purchase and supply of gas. Competition and efficiency are the hallmarks of private enterprise and are essential to the economic success of the nation. Thirdly, it will strengthen existing petroleum legislation, particularly to amend and clarify the offshore safety régime. These objectives are reflected in the three main Parts of the Bill. It may be helpful to the House if I describe each of these in turn.
But before doing so I should like to set these objectives against the background of current North Sea activity. In the past year three new oilfields were brought on-stream, bringing oil production to some 90 million tonnes a year and providing, for the first time, a surplus to home requirements. Two more fields started operation this February bringing the total number of fields in production to 20. Exploration activity increased in 1981 with 73 exploration and appraisal wells being drilled, compared to 54 in 1980. Twelve new discoveries have been made. Seven gas fields are in production and four gas terminals have been constructed, together with five oil terminals including Sullom Voe, the largest in Europe. All this represents some £25 billion of investment in the United Kingdom continental shelf between 1965 and 1980. This is a considerable achievement in developing our vital oil and gas resources.
Part I of the Bill enables BNOC to prepare for the disposal of its oil exploration and production business. Clauses 1 and 2 give the corporation the necessary powers, including the power to transfer its oil-producing business to a subsidiary, Britoil, prior to disposal through the operation of a scheme. Clause 3 sets out the Secretary of State's powers and responsibilities in relation to a sale of shares. The remaining clauses in Part I provide a new financial structure for the corporation and for the abolition of the national oil account.
Under this part of the Bill, therefore, BNOC's business will be reorganised, with the oil producing assets identified and transfer by the scheme to Britoil under Clause 2. The remaining assets, mostly those concerned with BNOC's trading function, will stay
468
with the corporation. Once Britoil has been established as a subsidiary and the oil producing assets transferred, the Secretary of State will exercise his powers under Clause 3 to take over the shares in Britoil. The sale of shares will therefore be carried out by the Government. Our initial aim is to sell 51 per cent. of the shares, but the Bill will keep open the way for a further sale from the Government's shareholding at some later date when the Government of the day decide that it is in the national interest to do so.
Subject to the passage of the Bill through this House, our hope is that Britoil will be sold to the public this year unless market conditions are such that there is a convincing case for delaying it until next year. There has been speculation about the effect of the recent fall in oil prices on the Britoil sale, but we take the view that it would be premature to jump to conclusions. Nobody can be sure how the oil market or the stock market will look in, for example, six months' time. In deciding on timing, it will be necessary to weigh up a number of factors of which oil prices will be only one.
Once 51 per cent. of the shares have been sold, Britoil will become a normal private sector company. The residual Government shareholding will not be used by Government to intervene in the company's commercial decisions. It will be then free to develop its business without the inevitable constraints of the public sector. The memorandum and articles of association of the company will, however, contain provisions to protect the independence of Britoil. The contents of the articles have been the subject of some interest, and copies are available in the Library if noble Lords wish to study them in detail. But it may be helpful if I briefly outline the relevant provisions.
These contain effective safeguards against unacceptable changes in control, whatever the nationalities of the parties involved. These safeguards will apply in a range of circumstances from an outright takeover bid to more subtle attempts to gain control over the composition of the board. Yet they have been carefully drawn up as reserved powers only. It is important to preserve the commercial independence of Britoil, responsible for its own management and business strategy. The passive nature of the safe-guards would not permit any interference by Government in the day-to-day running of the company. By definition, they would only be triggered in exceptional circumstances and then for long enough only to prevent a change in control. Otherwise the safeguards will remain dormant. Also, the safeguards in the articles do not depend on the size of the residual Government shareholding in Britoil. They are to be attached to a single special share to be held by the Government.
These, then, are our plans for Britoil. So far as BNOC is concerned, the corporation will continue in being with the reduced role of trading primarily in participation oil. It is necessary to preserve this function under Government control since the oil available under participation agreements is an important contribution to the nation's security of oil supply. The new financial structure under Clauses 4 to 8 can apply to the corporation either as presently constituted or following the disposal of Britoil.

469
I turn now to Clauses 9 to 17 which comprise Part II of the Bill. The provisions fall into three main groups. Clauses 9 to 11 are concerned with the disposal of BGC's assets; Clauses 12 to 14 deal with the breaking of the BGC monopoly to supply gas; and Clauses 15 to 17, which are an important ancilliary to the previous provisions, make it possible for private sector gas suppliers to gain access to the BGC transmission and distribution pipeline network. The gas industry is of great importance to the nation. We are fortunate in possessing substantial reserves of natural gas, and it has become a major source of heat for the home, for industry and for commerce, as well as a feedstock for the petrochemical industry.
But all is not well in the gas industry. It is dominated by the British Gas Corporation, which enjoys a position of great privilege. It has special rights in the purchase of gas, and special rights in the supply of gas by pipe. It owns the onshore gas transmission and distribution pipeline network, and is exempt from the provision of the pipe-lines Act 1962 which applies to private sector onshore pipelines. The BGC has not only an effective monopoly in the purchase and supply of gas by pipe, but also major interests in the production of gas and even in the production of oil. And its position in the retailing of gas appliances has attracted criticism for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
The privilege and dominance of the British Gas Corporation have given rise to increasing problems and anomalies. There is no reason why a public sector body—least of all one whose business is gas—should be involved in the production of oil, when the whole history of the development of the North Sea is one of successful private enterprise. The Government therefore intend that BGC's offshore oil business should be transferred to the private sector and the powers proposed in Clauses 9 to 11 of the Bill will enable the Government to act in order to bring this about.
The monopolistic position of the corporation now creates the bizarre situation where there is simultaneously disquiet both among those producing gas and those wishing to consume it. Producers see little incentive to explore for and develop gas reserves because they see that at best they will be faced with a "take-it-or-leave-it" price offer from the Gas Corporation. At worst they may get no offer at all because BGC has decided to take other gas first. In this state of uncertainty is it surprising, my Lords, that companies have been unwilling to invest money in exploration? In the meantime, gas consumers and potential consumers face difficulty. Industrialists faced with a take-it-or-leave-it price for gas from BGC are concerned as to whether the price is fair. Other would-be gas consumers are unable to obtain the supplies they require. This affects both industrial and commercial concerns using large quantities of gas, and also small businesses and domestic householders whose premises are more than 25 yards from a BGC distribution main.
The Government's proposals will bring enterprise and competition into the British gas market. This Bill will open the way for persons other than BGC to supply gas by pipe to all consumers except those who have a statutory right to require BGC to supply gas on demand. For this purpose it creates three tiers of
470
gas consumer. First, consumers whose premises take more than 2 million therms a year may be supplied without the Secretary of State's consent, subject only to a notification procedure which will provide a check on the estimated rate of consumption and cater for circumstances where the rate subsequently drops below 2 million therms a year for at least three years. Secondly, consumers whose premises take less than 2 million therms a year but who do not benefit from BGC's statutory obligation to supply may be supplied with the Secretary of State's consent. The Secretary of State has made it clear in another place that he will only be prepared to give consent where he is satisfied with the safety arrangements proposed. Thirdly, consumers who have the benefit of BGC's statutory obligations to supply, namely those whose premises take less than 25,000 therms a year and are within 25 yards of a BGC main, may be supplied only if BGC do not object to the giving of consent by the Secretary of State. Thus effectively BGC will retain its monopoly where it has a statutory obligation to supply on request, but the door will be opened to competition in all other cases.
The ability of other suppliers to compete effectively with the BGC will be enhanced by the provisions of the Bill concerning use of BGC pipelines by other parties. BGC would start with an enormous advantage if it retained exclusive use of the pipeline grid, and the Bill therefore permits other gas suppliers to appeal to the Secretary of State (if they are unable to reach agreement with BGC by themselves) to determine whether non-BGC gas can be accommodated in BGC pipelines and on what terms. To sum up, the gas provisions in the Bill will enable the Government to remove from the British Gas Corporation assets which it does not require in order to pursue its essential activities of supplying gas to the British market. The sale of the corporation's offshore oil assets will put them in the hands of the private sector where they will be used to better effect. The removal of the BGC's purchase rights will provide the incentive which is needed by the private sector to explore for gas; and the breaking up of the virtual BGC sales monopoly will enable the market to flourish. This is good for the gas producers, suppliers and customers, and indeed good for the nation.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, if the noble Earl will kindly give way for a moment, and while thanking him for the care he has taken, may I ask: is he aware that the very opposite has been done in the case of the Venezuelan oil industry? Venezuela has one of the greatest oil industries in the world, but after years of experience it has now been given over to the Government. We are throwing away the British inheritance.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, no doubt this is a theme which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, can develop if he has put his name down to speak—and, indeed, if he has not. But perhaps I might continue with the latter parts of the Bill. The most important elements are those concerning safety, in Part IV. This part provides for important amendments to existing legislation. I would like to review briefly how we see the aims and objectives of the

471
changes we propose, and to put them into proper perspective.
They are not designed to effect fundamental changes in our safety practices; nor do they aim to consolidate the separate Acts, regulations and codes which regulate the offshore oil and gas industry. As our experience has accumulated on operating in the difficult environment of the North Sea, inevitably some inadequacies and some uncertainties about the interpretation of existing legislation have become apparent. We are taking the opportunity afforded by this Bill to deal with these matters. Thus in Part IV we are dealing with the clarification, up-dating and re-enactment of key legal and safety provisions of the Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971. I would illustrate this by particular reference to the safety régime set up under the 1971 Act. It was suggested following the capsize of the "Alexander Kielland" in March 1980 that there was doubt about whether the safety régime applied to installations which accommodate workers but do not engage in drilling. The Department of Energy believes that the safety régime already applies to these installations, but to put this beyond doubt it will now be made explicit. Thus we are implementing in full one of the major recommendations of the Burgoyne Report on Offshore Safety which called for clarification of the legal status of accommodation installations under the 1971 Act. Similarly, we are extending the safety legislation to cover gas storage in anticipation of the first gas storage scheme.
There is no room whatsoever for complacency when dealing with safety. However, there is, I hope, much common ground concerning the effectiveness of the United Kingdom safety régime. In the years between 1971 and 1981, the number of fatalities and serious accidents did not increase proportionately in relation to activity, the scale of the increase in the offshore workforce or the increase in the number of installations on the UKCS. In 1971, when there were estimated to be 1,260 persons employed in 11 installations, there were 4 fatalities and 15 serious accidents. By 1981, the numbers employed offshore had reached 21,000 and there were 64 installations; the number of fatalities in that year was 6 and the number of serious accidents 59. Successive Governments have striven to develop a régime at once effective and yet flexible enough to take account of new techniques and new situations. The amendments to the safety régime proposed in this Bill are consistent with this practical approach and should be welcomed by the offshore workforce and those who are responsible for their safety and the safety of installations.
My Lords, the provisions in this Bill are far-reaching but necessary to the continued successful development of our oil and gas resources. It will help to secure our oil and gas supplies effectively yet safely to the benefit of the nation as a whole. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
3.21 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will
472
be indebted to the noble Earl for having taken us through the Bill and explained it, thus relieving me of the necessity of going over the same ground. I am bound to say that he introduced the Bill without any noticeable enthusiasm, and there was not a deal of enthusiasm that I detected on the Benches behind him, because of course this is at the same time a squalid and completely irrelevant Bill. One finds it difficult to understand.
Does the noble Earl realise that at the present time in this country we have very serious economic problems indeed, that we have over 3 million unemployed, that our manufacturing production is at its lowest level since 1975, just teetering up and down slightly on the bottom, that investment is at an all-time low, that businesses are going out of existence in the first three months of this year, either in liquidation or bankruptcy, at the rate of one per hour, that inflation is still running at a very high rate? Does he really think that a Bill of this kind makes the slightest contribution in any remote or indirect sense of the term to the national recovery to which his party pays perpetual and deferred lip-service? Does he really think that the Bill itself is going to help to unify the nation? Does he think that it does anything to better relations between employers and employees. Does it help industrial relations in any way? What practical good is it? So much so—
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked me three rhetorical questions and I do not think they really should be rhetorical. It is not my practice to interrupt noble Lords' speeches, but I think I must on this occasion. The reserves of energy which we have on the United Kingdom continental shelf are proving, and in the future will continue to prove, of the most vital interest to this country and its economic recovery. It would be a shame if they were prevented from being exploited to the full by the out-of-date nostrums of the party opposite and a belief in economic theories which have been exploded years and years ago.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am very grateful for the noble Earl's intervention, with which I will deal at a convenient point in my remarks upon the Bill. But I ask myself, why should the Bill have been introduced at all—a completely irrelevant Bill—as if structural changes of the kind described are going to have the slightest impact or the slightest beneficial effect upon the planning and constructive use of our energy resources? It is not even in the Tory Party manifesto, which I have here; they have no mandate for it which they can quote to us. At least, if they can, there must be some small print somewhere which I have not been able to understand.
What, therefore, is the reason for it? The noble Earl accused me of supporting outmoded party dogma. The real fact of the matter is that they are the party that have the dogma; they have a pathological hatred of any nationalised industry. They do not cease to belittle nationalised industries when they can. As a Briton, I find it very difficult to understand why there should be this attitude. Most other free democracies of the West agree, and indeed have put into practice, measures by virtue of which some industries function

473
under national control however exercised, whether by public board or by whatever means, and work alongside and in co-operation with the private sector of industry. This is so in practically all of the free democracies of the world. Only in this country, by reason of an outdated dogma, resting to some extent on Hayek and more recently upon Friedman, is this ridiculous attitude taken.
So there has been a continued campaign of denigration against all the nationalised industries. There has been a refusal to accept that social imperatives do occasionally mean that some industries and services in any country have to be run at a loss. This is so, once again, in most of the free democracies of the West. For example, in the German Republic the amount of losses that are subsidised by the state are four times the amount of the deficit which we subsidise here, about which the Government continuously moan that there can be no acceptance of this.
It seems to me, therefore, that one of the reasons why there is this attack on BNOC and upon the Gas Corporation is that they have the temerity to make profits; they have committed the sin, in the eyes of the Tory Party, notwithstanding the fact that they are under national control, of actually making profits. This is a grave offence to the Conservative Party. So without much more ado they must seek to dismantle what they can of these concerns, so that they can be up for grabs by their political friends to the detriment of the nation as a whole. I am quite willing to be examined on this point, and I have the accounts of BNOC in front of me. In 1980 they made a profit before tax of £308 million. British Gas made a profit of £433 million in 1980 and £510 million in 1981, before deducting the gas levy imposed by the Government in the course of raising the price of gas.
One of their propaganda steps was to try to make British Gas unpopular. They can do that very easily with the support of the popular press, by ordering the Gas Board to raise its prices, so that then of course the Gas Board will be blamed by the public for the ever-increasing price of gas. That is why the Government themselves deliberately increased the price of gas in 1980 by 27 per cent., in 1981 by 25 per cent., and in 1982 by 22 per cent. That gas levy, of course, has gone into the pockets of the Treasury; a form of indirect taxation which has gone to help subsidise the taxation benefits that have accrued to the wealthier people ever since this Government have been in office. The money has gone out of the gas meters of the poor into the wallets of the rich. If the noble Earl wishes to query that, I can assure him that I have all the figures here.
No, my Lords, what has really happened is that the Government know that on the basis of their miserable record to date they must have something with which to go to the Tory Party conference in October. They hope to be able to slur over their monumental failures by saying to them, "Ah, but we have made progress in denationalisation. We have made progress in handing industry back to private enterprise"; thereby, I have no doubt, getting uproarious applause from the "hang 'em and shoot 'em brigade" that evidences itself so prominently in the more vocal portions of Conservative Party conferences.
The benefits claimed by this Bill so far are, first,
474
that somehow the return of certain sections, or the hiving off of certain sections, of the oil industry and of the gas industry to private enterprise will somehow mean that the public are able to acquire shares; that there will be a wider diffusion of public ownership. The noble Earl opposite knows better than that. He indeed has not argued it seriously here as it was argued in another place.
He knows quite well that 70 per cent. of the population of Great Britain have no opportunity, or resources, to invest in anything at all, and that when he is talking about investment of the public he is first of all talking about, in the initial stages, the professional stag, who must always be given the opportunity of making £300 or £400 for nothing in every new issue, and indeed some of the institutional and other shareholders. The amount of public diffusion of ownership that is occasioned by this is very small indeed.
The other benefit that the noble Earl claims is that it will remove the disincentive, which he alleges exists at the present time, further to exploit the oil resources that are available to this country. This comes a little odd from the party opposite. It is only about a year ago that they were enthusing about a new main gas line in order to avoid the losses that are occurring at the rate of £1 million a day of flaring off gas in the North Sea. Great benefits were claimed for that. The Gas Corporation were perfectly willing to participate in it. But no, it came up against the good, stolid dogma of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, and that the public sector borrowing requirement did not permit the country to finance what would have been a gigantic operation which would have paid for itself in very few years indeed, and would have enabled this running waste of natural resources to stop.
But no. Even after having claimed all these benefits about which they enthused in another place, there was a sudden change of mind because dogma, and nothing else but dogma, said that state money, or the taxpayers' money, should not be used to finance national measures of this kind; that this should be left to the claims of those who seek to make their private fortunes out of it. This was the dogmatic decision. It goes a little odd. The noble Earl has been speaking as though to keep his courage up: that these moves, with the swap around in shares, the disposal of assets, are in fact going to mean some dynamic thrust into the North Sea for the exploration of new resources, and for the avoidance of the wastage of gas. If he likes to read today's Financial Times he will find that his enthusiasm may be a little dimmed.
The third benefit that is claimed for this idea was referred to by the noble Earl when he mentioned competitive prices. It would be very nice indeed to feel that these measures would result in some kind of price reduction, but I observe what the Minister said in another place. Mr. Lawson, speaking in another place on 19th January at column 174, said:
"Competition here, as elsewhere, will tend to reduce prices below what they otherwise would have been, …".
That of course introduces an element of delightful speculation into it, because of course if perchance prices go up his right honourable friend can always go back on his caveat and say, "But, of course, if we had not denationalised, prices would have gone up by much more." So that will not wash.

475
Indeed, we have here the words of a prominent Conservative, Sir Ernest Woodroofe, former Unilever chairman. Not, be it noted, a civil servant. Not, be it noted, a politician, but a distinguished industrialist —and a distinguished and progressive firm—whose credentials are impeccable, and a self-confessed staunch Conservative. Mind you, my Lords, passing over for the moment that that would appear to be a contradiction in terms, let us see what he says about this Bill:
"I see nothing in this Bill which will reduce the price to the consumer, and since British Gas will have to compete for supplies at higher costs to the corporation, I see the effect of the Bill as likely to make the price of gas to the consumer higher than it would have been."
Many of us in this House, and indeed outside, would probably prefer to accept the verdict of Sir Ernest Woodroofe than the speculations of the noble Earl and his right honourable friend in another place.
I have some questions to ask the noble Earl, or the noble Lord who is to reply. We are talking of the disposal of assets, the selling of assets which, through the Government and a public corporation, belong to the British people. Who is going to put a value on these assets? Who is going to determine the share price of the various companies whose shares are going on to the market? Who is going to determine the capital worth of the assets, aside from their ordinary balance-sheet asset valuation, with their valuation on an earnings basis?—which forms the normal basis for the public dealing in shares of companies.
Does the Minister himself even know? Has he an approximate idea of the value of the assets that he is selling? If he does not have an idea of the value, what business has he to sell them? He is dealing with the nation's assets. We are given to understand that S. G. Warburg have been appointed to act as the financial advisers to the Government in these and other matters. We should like to know the terms of the firm's engagement. We should also like to know what underwriting arrangements are to be made regarding the sale of any shares, bearing in mind the results of the Amersham deal, on which I shall not at present enlarge. What is the position of Rothschilds? There were press reports that they had already been paid £500,000 as an interim fee for the services that they are to render to the Government. I have no means of checking the accuracy of that, and of course I shall immediately accept any correction. What are to be the ultimate fees paid to the City of London for these services?
The other question I have to ask is this. Have the Government in any way taken into account the morale of the staffs of the organisations that they propose to hive off and dismantle? The function of all leadership is always to bring out the best in people. The function of leadership is never to divide. The function of leadership is never to attain the execution of plans by fear or division. Have the Government seriously considered how the people who occupy executive, and indeed lower positions, in the corporations feel about this matter? What will be their reaction? How are their individual lives going to be affected? How is their whole attitude towards their professions or occupations going to be affected?
476
Politicians like the noble Earl opposite can always juggle these things about as being of no consequence. But the party opposite, above all, particularly in the light of their experiences over the last three years, ought to know that those who rule by fear sooner or later are brought down by hate. Have the noble Earl and the Government taken into account the organisational effects on the staff and the other changes that will come about in the social organisms that all companies are? Those are the questions.
Now I should like to make some comments. I must say that one of the most unfortunate parts of the Bill lies in the provisions in Clause 31, which lays down that the Secretary of State may proceed by statutory instrument subject to the negative procedure in both Houses. The powers given to the Secretary of State under various other clauses of the Bill to make decisions are such as to fill us with considerable concern, and in our view are designed to circumvent the ordinary democratic processes that one expects in Parliament. The noble Earl has touched on these points only very lightly, if in fact at all.
If he will turn to Clause 3, he will find that it gives the Secretary of State power to do virtually anything he likes. Under Clause 31:
"it shall be the duty of [the] Corporation (notwithstanding any duty imposed on it by or under any enactment) to comply with the directions".
These are powers that ought not to be given lightly, more particularly in view of the known performance of the noble Earl's right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy. He is the last person, in what remains of the Government after the recent resignations, to whom one would lightly entrust any powers so all pervasive as these.
We also observe that the national oil account has been closed. The Government did that with alacrity. On the very day that the Third Reading took place in the House of Commons £1,000 million was transferred from the national oil account into the Consolidated Fund. There must have been very considerable satisfaction in the Treasury at that time. So far, by the end of 1983 £1,687 million will have been transferred out of gas levy into the Consolidated Fund, all paid for by the consumer.
Our policy towards the Bill may be clearly stated. We shall repeal it in order to restore the position as regards the national ownership of national resources. So far as compensation is concerned, we shall take such steps as are necessary to ensure that those who have profited unduly by a series of sordid transactions do not get away with the swag. It might be necessary—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to ask a question on this matter, which I am sure fills us all with considerable interest? Can he explain what would be the attitude of a future Labour Government to the miners' superannuation fund and other funds of that kind which had invested in such stocks as we are now considering?
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, if the noble Lord cares to defer putting down that question until my party are in office, I shall give him a reply from the proper Dispatch Box, in the proper place. My own view—to which I do not in any way commit the next

477
Labour Government—is that when the shares come back on the market to be reacquired by the state, there should be a deduction from the market price equivalent to the percentage that is made upon them, being the difference between the issue price when the sale takes place and the market value immediately thereafter. That would then ensure, in broad and general terms, that undue profitability did not pass unnoticed.
The Bill will ultimately go into Committee, unless of course it is withdrawn. I am bound to say that there are precedents for withdrawal. The right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for the Environment found it necessary to withdraw a Bill dealing with local authority reorganisation. So there are good precedents for withdrawal. It might well be that, as soon as the House and the country perceive what a squalid little Bill this is, the Government will decide to withdraw it. If so, no one will support them more than I shall. I assure them of my most benevolent support in facilitating such an arrangement.
If, however, the Bill does go into Committee, I think that the noble Earl is being a little optimistic if he expects it to be clear of this House by the end of June bearing in mind that we have to go through a detailed examination of the memorandum and articles of association of Britoil which was originally produced on the day of the Report stage in the House of Commons and which they had not very great opportunity of examining. These and other things we shall examine.
This is a Bill to "privatise". That is a new word, of course, in the English language, Noble Lords will not find it in the Oxford Dictionary. However, what they will find is the verb "private" which means to rob, to deprive. That, indeed, is what the Bill is all about: it is to take away from the use of the nation, for the private gain of a comparatively few individuals, valuable resources which ought to be developed in the interests of the nation as a whole. I am convinced that the first thing that we shall do when we get back into office again—which we surely shall—is to initiate an investigation into the whole manner in which these deals have in fact been carried out. Make no mistake, we shall form the next Government. As soon as the British people realise the extent to which they have been taken for a ride, the full purpose of the Government's activities, and realise the nature of their bungling incompetence, they will not return them for a second period of office.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, we from these Benches wish to express our gratitude to the noble Earl for his presentation of the Second Reading of this Bill. I am rather inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that it was a low key approach, but gratifyingly short, and helpfully split up into the three different parts of which this Bill consists. We are not at this stage going to take the approach that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has just taken, of robust confrontation. We shall attempt perhaps more constructive interrogation of the Government in some of the matters of principle that are contained in the Bill and which will reflect very clearly what will be our attitudes towards it, in Committee.
I believe that this is an important opportunity to
478
restate some of the guiding principles which will affect our attitude from these Benches throughout the course of the Committee stage. The first concerns nationalisation. We are not in favour of nationalisation because we support the principle of a mixed economy in which the state and the public join together in providing capital for industry. Secondly, with regard to monopolies, we are against monopolies whether they be in the private or in the public sector as, in our opinion, they do not necessarily confer benefits on the general public or on industry. Thirdly, with regard to privatisation—which I agree is a new and ungainly word—if that means wider share ownership which includes worker shareholdings and representation at board level, then we have no objection to this policy in principle. However, if "privatisation" in the context of this Bill means "foreignisation"—another new and ungainly word—and by that I mean greater non-British participation in our national resources through the sale of the Government's 49 per cent. holding, then we should oppose it. Therefore, I must ask the Minister whether he is in a position to give an assurance not given by his right honourable friend the Minister of State in another place, that the Government's shareholding in Britoil will be retained in spite of the powers given to the Secretary of State to dispose of it.
We are quite convinced that the "golden share" device will maintain control of the company in a legalistic sense, but there is nothing to stop overseas interests from buying 51 per cent. of the company for investment purposes only. That is not as unlikely as it sounds, for why should not Middle East oil interests spread their risk by an investment of this nature? Indeed, £1 billion—for that is what it might cost—is not an impossible sum to raise from these areas, and in that case the dividends would be remittable outside this country. Or are the Government saying that these shares will be such a poor investment that it will not attract overseas interests? I do not think so at all, in which case we feel that the powers given to the Secretary of State to dispose of the balance of 49 per cent. should be taken away in Committee.
If the Minister cannot give this reassurance, will he at least say that small individual investors will be able to apply for participation in Britoil with an equal chance of success as those institutional and large block shareholders who have applied? Whatever his answer may be to that question, we welcome in Clause 1 and elsewhere in Part II, the provision for the Liberal principle of employees working in Britoil being able to participate as shareholders, we hope on a privileged basis.
That leads me on to ask about the Government representation on the board. I really see that it is only necessary to require one director to represent the Secretary of State and the so-called "golden shareholding". Further nominations which I would deem "stooge directors"—that is Government appointee directors—can hardly be expected to contribute to the operational running of the company or the deliberations of the board. Would this not be an excellent opportunity for the Government to create instead a director nominated by the employees to sit on the board? In our view, this would be a positive and exciting step forward, for which the Government would be duly acclaimed in the management of their

479
affairs, rather than creating entities as a result of dogma or other promises of that kind.
Much has been said about the unfortunate timing —and this was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce—of this issue of shares; the reason being, as we all know, that oil shares are presently at a low ebb due to the temporary surplus of all oil products, coupled with a world economic recession. I do not want to quote Sheikh Yamani twice in two days in your Lordships' House. He made such a good speech and I recommend it to all of your Lordships. However, I shall quote him again as regards the speech which he made in London on 31st March this year. He said:
"At times of over-supply, stocks are built up in order to hedge against the detrimental effects of price declines on the suppliers. In the case of oil, whether by design or coincidence, inventories have been used to achieve exactly the opposite objective. They were mainly built up during the shortfalls of 1979–1980, thereby contributing vigorously to the pronounced increases in spot prices. They are now being drawn down massively, thereby contributing effectively to the price deterioration in the spot market. This is obviously a paradox which defeats the purposes of security and economic stability".
Sheikh Yamani has been right far too often for us to ignore his warning yet again. What he is saying—and I am sure that the noble Earl appreciates this—is that there will be a sudden and violent possible upsurge in the spot market which will create all the panics that we have had in the past. At the moment this is not so. I am wondering whether perhaps the Government will bear this in mind, because as I understand the objective is to raise funds—the maximum amount of funds—the timing of this issue should be delayed until the oil markets and the world economic position improve. I think that merely to go ahead regardless of market conditions or market forces, in which this Government so strongly believe, would hardly be to the benefit of the taxpayers, and would defeat, as I have said, the primary object of the Bill which is to raise, as I understand it in this part, capital funds.
That leads me on to a far more serious problem which concerns re-nationalisation, which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has robustly put forward as his party's policy. There is a very serious problem here, because what the noble Lord has said is that in the event of re-nationalisation some form of compensation or possibly no compensation will be given. In fact, I think that there are two theories—
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, at no point in my remarks did I say that no compensation would be paid.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, the noble Lord should wait. Mr. Wedgwood Benn, who is known to the noble Lord, has declared that compensation would be unlikely to be given in the event of renationalisation. However, in the debate on the Nationalised Industries Bill in another place on 10th November 1981, at col. 438 Mr. Rees said:
"As the Shadow Cabinet recently said, we wish to make public and plain to any outside interests contemplating the purchase of these shares our firm resolve to restore the assets to public ownership on terms that will ensure that no private speculative gains are made at the nation's expense".
480
That is quite clear, and it has been confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that that is where the party stands.
The noble Lord has added another factor—that, in his view, there is a possibility that there may be a difference in the price of issue and the market price. That is all right if it goes up; I am not quite sure what will happen if it goes down. Perhaps the Government will recompensate back again, but I do not know. The Labour Party cannot have it both ways. If employees are to participate in these companies, they, as small investors, as well as institutions, should be told quite clearly that they are doing so at a considerable risk and would be holding shares that could become virtually worthless in the event of the Government of the day maintaining a policy of renationalisation of these companies without adequate compensation. In particular, it is to be assumed that Britoil shareholders will have a greatly appreciating stock—for the reasons that I have mentioned and for the reasons that Sheikh Yamani has given—as the oil surpluses become mopped up and new shortages occur either through demand or through political instability in the Middle East. Will a Labour Administration be prepared to pay the increased value of these shares? The answer seems to be, "No"; I think that that is quite clear. But I do not think that this has been thought through very fully, because this is a risk that all shareholders carry by investment in Government industries, which is far greater than that of other ordinary shares in the private sector. There may be a considerable unwillingness on behalf of the small shareholder or the worker shareholder or the pension fund manager, as has been mentioned, if this kind of investment, however attractive it might be in principle, might be a dangerous and unwise method of saving his money.
Alternatively, it is possible that the shares of Amersham, Cable and Wireless, British Aerospace and National Freight will be put in a special high-risk category which could affect their value adversely in comparison with other ordinary shares quoted on the Stock Exchange. These matters must be thought through and clarified quite clearly in everyone's interest, and I am not making a party point here.
I should like to go on from that to talk, very briefly, about accountability. The noble Earl was very clear in his presentation of the Bill, that the trading activities will be separated and will not be made available to the investing public. We come to this problem again. Once the money has gone across into these trading activities in the state sector, then we shall lose track of the accounts. There are first-class accounts by BNOC and Britoil; they are comprehensible and understandable. But I believe that the accountability of this money in the trading sector will again get lost. We, in the Opposiion, will not know—and I am not entirely sure whether even Government Ministers will know—where the money is going until they start restructuring their accountancy system so that we all understand where the money has gone. I do not want to dwell on this because I have raised it time and time again. This is a factor which has been glossed over in the Bill, certainly in another place, and I hope that that will not be the case in your Lordships' House.
Basically, this is an enabling Bill giving vast powers to the Secretary of State in various forms in various

481
parts of the oil and gas industries. In fact, we shall look very carefully in Committee at the powers given to the Secretary of State, in particular the power in Part I to sell off 49 per cent. of BNOC at his discretion without further reference to Parliament. In Committee we hope to draft a clause to limit that power.
Similarly, the discretion given to the Secretary of State and the Treasury in Clause 9 is, in our opinion, unacceptably wide in its powers to sell off any British Gas Corporation asset when and how it likes without debate in Parliament. I am sure that it was not the intention of the authors of this Bill to use it merely as a vehicle for asset stripping for the benefit of the PSBR. We sec it instead as an excellent opportunity for restructuring both BNOC and British Gas for the benefit of the community, for the industry and the consumers as a whole.
We are pleased that the Government have changed their attitude towards BNOC, which, as some noble Lords will recall—and no doubt they will do so in this debate—was much castigated in the past by Conservatives as an irrelevance and a burden. They felt that it should be wound up, and it is jolly lucky that it exists today. Now, the merits of BNOC have apparently been recognised at last by the Government under this Bill, but, if the expertise built up by BNOC over the years is to be lost somehow in the small print of its clauses, then the baby will be thrown out with the bath water. We, on these benches, will do our utmost to ensure that this does not happen.
On the other hand, we think that the powers given to the Secretary of State to extend BNOC's activities in a multinational role must surely be wrong. Why dilute the expertise of a national asset in this way and run the unnecessary risk of a conflict of interest or political retaliation? For instance, what if BNOC had been producing in Libya or, for that matter, in Argentina? We believe these extra powers to be unnecessary and dangerous and, indeed, superfluous to the needs of the Bill.
I now want to turn to Part II of the Bill, as regards which our attitude can be summed up by saying that too much is said about giving immense commercial control to civil servants, while too little is said about how the Secretary of State intends to use his unacceptably wide powers to sell off the corporation's assets. In particular, we shall study carefully what controls, if any, there are to operate a sensible depletion policy. Above all, we shall want to be assured that the premium uses for gas are maintained in the current order of priorities, which are, as we see them, domestic, industrial (and in particular the chemical industry) and lastly, of course, steam raising. Will the Minister confirm that some controls of this nature are envisaged, or is there to be just a free-for-all?
I should like to say a few brief words on steam raising. In the case of steam raising, there is one area in which it would be most helpful to have the Government's view. I am thinking in particular of coal-fired power stations which require standby facilities to meet peak load demands. Will it now be possible for these power stations to apply for an interruptible supply of gas to meet these short-term demands? Will the private sector gain permission to offer this service under the terms of this Bill? I understand that there is only one station, which is at Thurrock, which uses this process,
482
which has already proved to be an economic and effective means of satisfying peak load demands. Why are there not others? Can we perhaps be given some explanation as to the policy with regard to the use of gas as a standby facility or, if you like, booster for coal-fired power stations? This would be immensely beneficial to the generation of electricity and would stabilise some of the problems that exist in the industry. Indeed, it might even save the construction of one nuclear power station, in the sense that the coal-fired power stations can be used more effectively up to the turn of the century.
Then there is the question of the oil assets owned by British Gas. I was very interested to hear the noble Earl, in his presentation of the Bill, put his case, but he put only one half of it. What reason is being given by the Government for selling them off? Is it merely to release capital to meet current expenditure, or is it a matter of principle? The matter of principle seemed to be expressed by the noble Earl; it was that it would seem to be in order for oil companies to engage in the supply of gas, but it would not seem to be in order for the British Gas Corporation to continue in the oil business. The Government must make themselves clear. If they want to stick out on principle and pretend that they just do not want the money —which, of course, they do—they must put up a slightly better excuse. If the private sector oil companies can get into the gas business, why cannot the gas business maintain its interest in the oil business? I hope that that, as a matter of principle, will be cleared up because it would be most helpful when we come to our attitude in Committee on this.
Finally, we shall be asking the Government in more detail as to why they are hesitant about breaking the Gas Corporation's monopoly of the retail trade. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission was, as the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, rightly said, quite clear in its 1980 Report on Domestic Gas Appliances. It drew attention to the damage done to consumer interests by the British Gas Corporation's very effective monopoly in this area. We support these conclusions. We are not convinced that the domestic consumer or the gas appliance industry are obtaining any benefits from allowing this monopoly to continue. Nor are we convinced that the British Gas Corporation has a monopoly of' the only expertise capable of ensuring that adequate safety precautions are taken in either domestic or industrial markets. However, the Government must show more clearly than they have to date how they see the safety factor being maintained effectively under the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will say what kind of body is envisaged to look after that side of the business, once privatisation has been achieved, in both the domestic and industrial markets.
One could go on at length and I do not want to go into more detail than I have—possibly too much at this stage—but we cannot welcome the Bill as it stands. There are too many unanswered questions, some of them concerned with very wide-ranging principles involving the powers of the Secretary of State, principles as regards which we are not clear what the Government are trying to achieve by certain provisions in the Bill. We should need a number of reassurances before feeling we could give it our support. I hope the Government will give some indication that they will use this as an

483
opportunity to restructure primarily the gas industry for the benefit of all its consumers through the powers given in the Bill. Merely to see it as a fund-raising or enabling Bill weakens the Government's case considerably and reduces any support that we on these Benches might have for it.
4.12 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, as the House may guess, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, I strongly support the Bill, and I shall not indulge in the type of rhetoric which he employed. I greatly appreciated the more balanced views of the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw. I support the Bill, having been concerned with energy questions as a Minister and on the Opposition Front Bench in the 'sixties; and, as my noble friend Lord Mansfield knows, as an energy spokesman at the European Parliament for six-and-a-half years; and now, for some three years, as a member of the Energy Sub-Committee of the European Communities Committee of your Lordships' House, of which the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, is the chairman and of which the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, is a member, and I am sorry he has not put his name down to speak today because I intend to refer later to a few of his public utterances.
That considerable experience has led me to conclude that the disposal of BNOC's oil exploration and production business is a wise measure. It also leads me to agree with the Government's main objectives as outlined by my noble friend the Minister of State. I agree that this major step in reducing the size of the public sector should be taken. No industrial corporation should, in my view, be owned and controlled by the state unless there is a positive and specific reason for such an arrangement. There seems to be no such reason for direct state involvement in oil exploration and production. I must also admit, as my noble friend said, that the successful development of the North Sea has been overwhelmingly achieved by the private sector. Enterprise and competition are essential to the industrial success of the nation, and that applies essentially in the energy sector and particularly in offshore oil and gas development.
It is easy to be wise in retrospect, but I think the same kind of argument could have been used, as it was effectively in the United States, about the atomic energy industry in so far as it is concerned with civil uses such as the generation of electricity and the manufacture of isotopes. That is why I also welcome the privatisation—I regard that as a perfectly respectable new word—of Amersham International. The privatisation of BNOC will, in my view, be in the best interests of the corporation itself. After six years of existence, the corporation has built up very considerable expertise. It is rightly looking to expand and develop its potential without the inevitable constraints of the public sector. Britoil, as I think my noble friend made clear, will be free to develop on its own initiative and will, in my view, rank alongside other successful British private sector companies.
Another aim, as I understand it, is to achieve wide-spread share ownership among the public. Thus, the British people will have the opportunity to share more directly in the oil wealth of the country. Employees
484
of Britoil will also be able to acquire shares in the company, both as a reward and an incentive in its future success. I also agree that it must be important to maintain conditions which encourage the oil industry to invest in the North Sea. BNOC's preferential position in licensing rounds and its role as advisor to the Government have been rightly criticised by the oil industry as a disincentive to invest.
We should not, I think, jump to conclusions about falling oil prices and their effect on the sale of Britoil. Nobody can be sure how the oil market or the Stock Market will look in, say, six months' time. In deciding on timing, I feel sure the Government will consider it necessary to weigh up a variety of factors, of which current oil prices will he only one. In regard to share prices, I would say that in the case of Amersham International the taxpayer got a very fair price—19 times the prospective price-earnings ratio. Similarly, there is no reason why the taxpayer should not get a fair price in the case of Britoil.
It is clear that BNOC's prime purpose, after privatisation, will be to trade in participation oil. Participation makes an important contribution to strengthening our security of supply. It is obviously necessary therefore, in the national interest, to maintain under state control the 65 participation agreements currently in existence. It is also clearly desirable and necessary that those agreements should be managed by a fully professional trading organisation. With BNOC's trading experience, it will be well fitted for that role. I understand that directions will be issued to bar BNOC, after privatisation, from engaging in upstream and downstream activity, except to the extent necessary to discharge its participation trading role. I also understand that BNOC will continue to he a party to licences and related agreements and to hold any rights which are necessary for the exercise of participation options, such as access to relevant information, attendance at relevant operating and management committees and lifting rights.
But it is in regard to the British Gas Corporation, BGC, that the Bill is even more necessary. While recognising that the nationalised control of gas may have been desirable in the early days, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kearton—who was chairman of BNOC, appointed by the last Government—that monopoly buying, distribution and pricing had been had for industry, the country and the North Sea. Moreover, from listening to witnesses who appeared before the Energy Sub-Committee of the European Communities Committee, and while admitting that the job of the corporation is to transmit and distribute gas in Great Britain, I cannot see what possible justification there can be in their being involved in the business of producing offshore oil. There is none.
As for industrial gas prices, there is no doubt that in the past British industrial consumers have paid more for gas than their European competitors. That was abundantly clear from our deliberations in the European Communities Committee. Moreover, potential new industrial gas consumers were until recently deterred by British Gas pricing policy which required payment at an inflated tariff for an initial period before supplies could be obtained at normal renewal prices. That policy, fortunately, has now

485
been abandoned, but it is an example of the kind of malpractice which occurs when consumers are at the mercy of a monopoly supplier.
It is good to note that the recent NEDC Task Force report showed that, partly as a result of Government action to freeze renewal prices, the price of gas to industrial users is now in line with or below the prices paid by industrial users in other European Community countries. In future, we should have greater confidence that prices paid for industrial gas supplies will be fair, because they will be dictated by the market.
In so far as gas prices generally are concerned, I think we must be on our guard against those who suggest that the Government will cause gas prices to rise through the measures we are now discussing. It is, I fear, perhaps inevitable that prices will rise. The prices currently being paid by BGC are up to 10 times higher, in money terms, than they were before the oil crisis in 1973.
Some of the pre-1973 contracts are still running, but as supplies under those old contracts diminish the gas corporation will be forced to increase its prices. Whatever noble Lords opposite may say, this inevitable process is nothing to do with the provisions of this Bill. The important point is that gas prices in future will come under the influence of market forces, and this must be good for the consumer.
The Government's critics say that breaking the gas corporation's monopoly will reduce competition as the oil companies who undertake the supply of gas in the future will make sure that it does not undercut the oil products with which it will be competing. This is nonsense. For the oil companies to hold the price of their gas artificially above the price of their oil products would require the companies to act as a cartel. But in fact there is no cartel, and companies compete with each other in the market, as has recently been illustrated by the example of petrol prices. In the case of gas, competition is, if anything, more likely, as in any one area at any one time some companies will be marketing both oil and gas, others oil alone, others perhaps gas alone. Each will be competing with the others to win customers and sell products.
I should have liked, towards the end of my remarks, to say a word about the effect on conservation, but I think I have detained your Lordships quite long enough. There are just one or two final things I should like to say. Perhaps, in so far as conservation is concerned, I might just say this. In my view, by introducing competition and allowing market forces to operate, we should improve the ability of consumers to take sensible and well-informed decisions about conservation.
Overall, I am glad that the present Government are committed wherever possible to reducing the size of the public sector in industry by selling companies partly or wholly into the private sector. This policy is desirable because it not only brings in the fresh breeze of competition but also benefits the industries concerned in so far as it frees them from Treasury supervision and the inclusion of their borrowing in the public sector borrowing requirement. In the private sector they can develop and expand free from inevitable public sector constraints.
The Bill will undoubtedly help the consumer. As my right honourable friend Sir Geoffrey Howe remarked in July last year, all too often subsidies have been paid
486
in order to maintain production in those industries which were failing to sell their output profitably to the public. There is no doubt that we have tended to subsidise production of those goods the public sometimes wants least, produced by those processes which are relatively least efficient.
Protected from the market by monopoly or subsidy, state-owned industries have all too often deprived consumers of choice and failed to keep their prices down. In the private sector, companies will feel the spur of competition and be encouraged to maximise profits by providing good, efficient service at competitive prices. Thus the economy must inevitably benefit because the receipt of money from the sale of assets helps reduce the public sector borrowing requirement; and the public also benefits from the opportunity to buy stakes in the wealth of some of our major industries.
I was much encouraged to support this case when I heard what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, who I see is still in his place and who I wish was speaking later. I was interested to hear him last October on, I think it was, the BBC's "The World Tonight" programme. He was first of all asked whether the decision to denationalise BNOC represented a "black day" for Britain, and he replied as I heard it (no doubt he will correct me if I am wrong):
"No, in no sense. I would say that with the tax regime as it is, with the political control as it is, with the participation agreements remaining in being, I think it will go a long way to get the whole North Sea development given a new lease of life".
That was the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, and I was very glad to hear that. It made me even more convinced of the wisdom of supporting this Bill.
One final point, my Lords. I hope my noble friends on the Front Bench are indeed happy about the safety regulations and the safety régime. From what my noble friend said I am assured that they will be adequate, but if the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, would like to amplify points regarding the safety regulations I should be very happy to listen to them. Also, I would be interested if he has anything to say on the question of conservation. For the reasons I have given, I strongly support this Bill.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, in spite of the weight which we would all surely wish to give to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, which have just been quoted to us, I and we on these Benches would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that the best thing the Government could do would be to withdraw this Bill and have another look at the problem. I only hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, will not regard this as something of a "kiss of death", coming from these Benches, because in my recent experiences in the hustings in Hillhead my impression was that the mutual distaste of members of the Labour and Conservative Parties is far surpassed by their distaste for the Social Democratic Party.
This Bill has, of course, like all measures which come from another place, been variously described before it came here. Thus it has been praised as "tackling the problems of the nationalised industries in a common sense and undogmatic way", and "its purpose is to rescue two great public corporations from both the

487
bureaucratic embrace and the perversion to which immunity from bankruptcy inevitably leads." Behind this, there is the implication that with the spirit of enterprise liberated by the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill the promised land will be ours. On the other hand, it has been attacked as an unprecedented exercise in public asset stripping, the biggest programme—and here comes the alliteration so beloved of politicians—of plundering of the public purse ever before Parliament.
The older and wiser ones, like us, in the House of Lords can smile tolerantly at these political punch-ups; but what will they make of it outside, in the real world, the real world where people work and play—and quite hardily at both—where they make love and make war and live and die, probably knowing just about as much of the technology of the oil and gas industry as I do myself. What will they make of it? The truth lies somewhere else and the reality lies somewhere else; and it occurs to me that it was to establish that truth that the Social Democratic Party came into existence.
This is not a wholly bad Bill; it is just that it has one or two flaws which are quite fatal. Let me seek to establish this, I hope, shortly, by looking at it from two aspects, first the particular and then the more general. Let me try to illustrate the particular aspect from the provisions of Part II of the Bill, which confers extraordinary and quite draconian powers on the Secretary of State. There is no dispute about that. The powers of Clauses 9 to 11 (which correspond in Part II to Clauses 1 to 3 in Part I) are quite draconian. Indeed, the Secretary of State, I cannot help feeling, somewhat puts Draco to shame.
The power is a power completely to dismantle the entire undertaking of the British Gas Corporation. There is no doubt about that. The power to do that is there. Of course, it is said reassuringly, as it always is on such occasions, that this power will not be used. Why, then, is it there?—because it is not just a matter of giving the power completely to dismantle the British Gas Corporation to the Secretary of State. It does not rest there. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has already touched on this and I make no apology for elaborating further upon it. It does not rest there. We go to Clause 31 and find that it shall be the duty of the corporation to comply with directions given by the Secretary of State:
"notwithstanding"—
and these are the words that I emphasise—
"any duty imposed on it by or under any enactment".
I wonder whether the Government have really thought of the full implications of this provision compared with what was put in the other measure of the Conservative Government in 1972, the Gas Act. In Section 7(2), of that Act there was the similar usual power in this context which allows the Secretary of State to give directions to the corporation and requires that the corporation shall give effect to such directions. Then the proviso there, in sharp contradistinction to the one in the present Bill, provides that the Secretary of State
"shall not give any direction under this subsection unless he is satisfied that he will not thereby impede or prevent the proper discharge of the corporation's duties".
488
Very proper! Before the Secretary of State gave any directions he had to be satisfied, he had to ask himself the question: Is this direction which I am about to give consistent with other duties resting upon the corporation?
This now all goes by the board in the present Bill. Under Section 2 of the Gas Act, there are the principal duties and powers of the corporation. The principal one is the duty to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of gas supply for Britain and to satisfy, as far as it is economical to do so, all reasonable demands for gas in Britain. The position now, if this Bill goes through as it stands—and there is no control over this except in the negative resolution procedure—is that the Secretary of State can give a direction to the Gas Corporation and, if the chairman of the Gas Corporation says, "But, Secretary of State, if I do that, it will conflict with my over-riding duties under Section 2 of the 1972 Act", then I can hear the Secretary of State saying, "Do not worry about that. You just do as you are told".
I am advised that this sort of thing can happen. It is not something imaginary. It could happen in the real world. The Secretary of State is not taking away the responsibilities from the Gas Corporation, but he is taking the power to tell it how to do its business—and this is the Secretary of State who has said, and said more than once, that the business of Government is not the government of business. If it is said that the power would never be used in that way, why take it? Why protect it with nothing better than the negative resolution procedure? It is really a classic example of the power without responsibility syndrome the implications of which I need not remind your Lordships.
The matter of the Secretary of State's powers does not rest just there. The Bill is essentially an enabling Bill. Under its provisions, control of the development of the transmission system, I am advised, will effectively pass from the British Gas Corporation to the Secretary of State. That is a radical departure from existing practice. It offends against the principle that responsibility for development must rest with those who carry the responsibility for the safe and efficient operation of the system. This is quite crucial. I am advised that, since, in terms of Clause 12 of this Bill and the new Section 29A of the 1972 Act, the Secretary of State will have no control of supplies above two million therms a year, this effectively means the abandonment of the current depletion strategy which has been agreed between the British Gas Corporation and successive Administrations. My point about this particular part of the Bill is that, unless some effective Parliamentary control is introduced at Committee by someone, then the Bill should he regarded by your Lordships as quite unacceptable.
May I turn briefly to the more general aspect by reference to which I would seek to establish that there are fatal flaws in this Bill? Surely one matter is, if not certain, then reasonably clear to most peole in this country outside Parliament who think about it. Of course all is not well in the public sector. No one claims that. We know that there are problems which must be tackled. Having said that, the argument about nationalisation and private enterprise which had real relevance in the years before and immediately after the Second World War—relevance, I venture to suggest,

489
both to the political and social and to the economic and industrial state of the nation—today is largely sterile and irrelevant. Yet in the Mother of Parliaments that argument rumbles on to the intense boredom of most of the people outside. They know—do they not?—that if we are to achieve economic and industrial success and, above all, stability we can only do so on the basis of a mixed economy; and they know too that the functioning of a mixed economy is only hampered and added when Government have a doctrinal commitment to either the public or the private sector and an ill-concealed doctrinal distaste for the other. I say ill-concealed, but of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has frequently said in this House and as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said today, there is no attempt on the Government side of the House to conceal their doctrinal distaste for the public sector, and that can only hamper and addle our attempts to achieve economic and industrial success and stability.
Recent events over a considerable range from that week-end just about a year ago in Brixton to events in the Falkland Islands suggests that the Government's thinking is more than somewhat confused. That would explain much, including the question mark of the grave doubts raised in the minds of many as to their competence in a range of spheres from law and order to foreign affairs. Here in the controversy that has surrounded this Bill in the other place and outside in the country I see further evidence of this confused thinking.
It has been said—not just once but more than once, and I have referred to this already—that the Conservative Party does not believe that the government of business is the business of Government. I cannot recall what attitude the Conservative Party took when the business of the slave trade was abolished in 1807 and slavery was abolished throughout the Empire in 1833. I have not checked from the history books, but my suspicion is that the 1807 event took place during the short interregnum of a Whig Government during the Napoleonic Wars. Of course, the events in 1833 must have taken place just after the first Reform Act. I do not know what their attitude was then, but of course the Conservative Party since then have done their share of governmental regulation of business.
So far as oil is concerned, there is the tax régime, taking into the public coffers up to 90 per cent. of the oil revenues from individual fields—more, I believe, than when the Labour Party were in office. On top of the participation agreements and the tax régime, there is the host of regulatory controls of various kinds. How do we ensure that all development is carried out in accordance with good oilfield practice, that recovery of oil and gas is maximised, that wasteful or inefficient development is avoided, and that production limits for oil and gas are in accord with the national interest? We do it by power to achieve these aims conferred on Government, and this Government acknowledge the need with one voice for such power and with another say that the government of business is not the business of Government. That, my Lords, is what I mean by confused thinking, and, when the Government's thinking is confused, their competence is impaired.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Lovell-Davis: My Lords, when this Bill was first announced, the Secretary of State said that it represented the biggest programme of privatisation ever to come before Parliament. In my view, it also represents potentially the most disastrous programme of privatisation ever to come before Parliament. What is more, it will be implemented by a Government whose financial acumen in such matters hardly inspires confidence.
Basically, the Bill is the battle plan for a major attack on our two most successful public sector energy corporations. The motives are all too depressingly familiar. This is yet another manifestation of the dogma of monetarism and the belief in the miraculous powers of free market forces.
However, I do not wish to pursue the political argument. Nor do I want to re-run the arguments for and against nationalisation. I believe that there are certain sectors which, in the public interest, have to be taken into public ownership. I should like to see much more Government participation in others which greatly affect our lives and well-being, but I happen not to be a wild-eyed, or wide-eyed, all-out nationaliser. What I am trying to do is to look at this Bill as a one-time Minister at the Department of Energy and a junior member of the Government which set up the British National Oil Corporation, and to assess its possible effects on our overall energy policy and on the long-term interest of this country.
Since the first eight clauses refer specifically to BNOC and the national oil account, perhaps it is as well to consider why the corporation was established. The first broad reason was, as my noble friend Lord Balogh pointed out when introducing the proposal to set up BNOC in July 1975, the need,
"to strike a just balance between the need for the Government to have adequate control over and adequate revenue from the oil and gas, and the oil industry's legitimate commercial interests".
It was clear at the time from a PAC Report that this balance had not been achieved as a result of the 1964 Act and the licensing rounds that had taken place. Other countries were doing a great deal better from their oil than we were from ours. Therefore, the sensible thing was to emulate their example in developing state participation in the oil industry, and this necessarily meant the creation of a state oil company. There was also the matter of control: control of the rate of production—a depletion policy—control of dealing with licence rights and many other activities of the oil companies operating in the North Sea. One can hardly exercise proper control in any situation without adequate information. It was essential—in my view it still is—that we should be able to gain our information at first hand and not be dependent for it upon vast impersonal companies with no special allegiance to our long-term national interest.
Today, six years after commencing operations, BNOC has proved to be an enormous success and it is achieving the aims for which it was created. It is a direct operator, an equity partner in fields in production and under development, and it is in equity partnership with nearly 90 companies on the United Kingdom continental shelf. What is more, the corporation has made a pre-tax profit, as has been pointed out already this afternoon, of £309 million in 1980. I understand

491
that figure is likely to rise to £500 million in the following financial year. So BNOC is a large successful operator, active in exploration and production; it is a profitable company and the eyes and ears of the nation in safeguarding vital but not inexhaustible assets: our oil and gas.
On the face of it, except for the fact that it demonstrates by its very existence what is for the present Government the dreaded combination of success and public ownership, there seems every reason for encouraging it on its way and indeed helping it to extend its activities overseas as well. But we find that the first eight clauses of the Bill destroy the whole concept on which the corporation is based. It is to be smashed up and split into two ineffectual parts. One of them will be a middling, not to say trifling, oil company attempting to keep its end up in exploitation and production among its much bigger sisters, and the other will be a corporation simply involved in selling participation oil, living on small management fees and capable of making big losses. The whole proposal is incomprehensible. What is the purpose of breaking up a successful state corporation and handing the North Sea over to private enterprise, except to create a sort of marine version of the Yukon in the interests of political dogma?
Instead of our having a major presence in the North Sea, we are to be given 49 per cent. of a minor oil company and the public—which will almost certainly mean only large investors since, whatever Tory philosophy says, the British public are not heavily into dealing with stocks and shares—will be offered 51 per cent. of Britoil. It seems a sorry and wholly unnecessary end to a great and successful enterprise. The Secretary of State at Second Reading in another place referred to the Bill as,
"a landmark in the history of national policy towards Britain's energy resources in the North Sea".
That is a nice way of describing what I see as a half-submerged reef on which our energy policies may well founder.
The treatment proposed for British Gas is equally astonishing. No one is pretending that the corporation is perfect in every detail, but it provides a remarkable service, it takes a highly responsible attitude to its duties to its customers and the long-term interests of the nation; and the efficiency and speed of its turn-round to natural gas was an immense achievement. Its reward seems extraordinary by any standards of judgment, for it, too, is to be penalised for its success. Apparently the fact that British Gas enjoys a monopoly in the supply of gas and quite fairly negotiated low prices for Southern Gas is preventing the producers from exploring for and exploiting new sources of supply. They want more money and the Government, on the admission of the Secretary of State and confirmed this afternoon by the noble Earl the Minister, intend to give it to them. The effect on gas prices to the consumer as a result of introducing what has been described as a North Sea gas auction, is foreseeable. Neither the domestic nor the industrial consumer need expect lower priced gas once these proposals are implemented. I think my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington has nailed any claim that they will, or are even expected to, lead to lower gas prices.
492
More worrying, however, is the matter of depletion. If the producers are given their heads, if the monopoly of the supply of gas is taken from the corporation and the distinction between premium and non-premium uses is removed, we could be set on a dangerous course of exhausting supplies which, however large they may turn out to be, are not limitless. I hope that, when he comes to sum up the debate, the noble Lord will have some crumbs of reassurance to throw to us on this score. There is precious little about it in the Bill.
The cost to the consumer and depletion of supplies are only two of the many disturbing questions that this Bill leaves unanswered. There is the matter of the British Gas Corporation's ability to guarantee supply to its domestic consumers. It has a statutory duty to do so, but what is its position going to be if it has to dispose of assets which are essential to the carrying out of that duty? And how is the consent procedure going to operate in practice for private suppliers providing less than 2 million therms?
There is also the question of safety. As the noble Earl the Minister said, there is certainly no reason for complacency. The use of British Gas pipe-lines by private suppliers will call for the most stringent of safety regulations. And do the safety arrangements referred to in the Bill deal with the regulations which will certainly be needed before the gas showrooms are sold off? It seems to me that we need to know a great deal more from the Government, and in specific terms, about safety, both offshore and onshore, and for both oil and gas, before the Bill leaves this House.
We also need to know more about possible foreign intervention in British energy supplies, as the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, has pointed out. It is essential that we retain control over these vital assets. How does the Bill meet this particular threat? There are so many worrying issues raised by the Bill which have been aired during its passage through another place and again raised by noble Lords this afternoon, that it is difficult for any individual to cover them adequately, and I shall not try to do so. But perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this Bill is the tremendous power it gives to the Secretary of State. That has been referred to by other noble Lords today and in some frightening detail by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside. This power underlines everything else in the Bill. As my right honourable friend Mr. Merlyn Rees said in another place:
"The Secretary of State will be able to do what he likes".
That is true. Under Clause 2 he can, as my honourable friend Mr. Rowlands pointed out—and I quote—
"amend, alter, approve or disapprove any scheme proposed by the BNOC. He also has such power in relation to any schemes proposed by the British Gas Corporation. According to Clause 2, not one of the schemes will be subject to any form of parliamentary approval, amendment or scrutiny".
That is a state of affairs which, frankly, I would not have thought would commend itself to many noble Lords opposite; nor does it seem to square with the words of the Secretary of State when he led off his introduction of the Bill in the other place, at Second Reading, by saying, as Lord Wilson of Langside has just reminded us,
"the proper business of government is not the government of business".

493
My fundamental objection to this Bill can be stated quite simply. It is this. We are in a very favoured position, so far as natural energy resources are concerned, but that does not mean that we can be profligate or fail to plan ahead, and to plan carefully and in great detail. We should be aiming for an integrated energy policy, making the optimum use of the resources we have.
We should, in this instance, be asking ourselves: who will develop the marginal oilfields on the United Kingdom continental shelf, if there is no strong state oil company to do so? What is the likely effect on the coal industry of making gas freely available for a possible range of uses for which coal should, in fact, be burned—not gas? The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, has already referred to the possibility of gas being used for steam-raising. It never should be used for such a purpose. Can we really, with any confidence, abandon such a crucially important matter as our energy future to the play of free market forces?
In my view, these are not constructive proposals. The Bill seeks, for reasons which I consider reprehensible, to break up and destroy, rather than to build on the firm foundations that already exist. It offers nothing to the concept of an integrated energy programme, which is the only hope that we have of realising the full potential of the priceless assets that have accrued to the British people—our coal, oil and gas. As my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington said, it offers nothing either to our economic recovery or to solving the problems of unemployment.
The strength of the Government's determination to privatise what should be taken in trust for the whole of our people has already been demonstrated in another place, where the guillotine procedure was applied to the Bill. No doubt they will marshall the forces which they have available to them in this Chamber to carry it through. One can only hope—forlornly, I suppose—that noble Lords whose support they seek to enlist will not adopt a wholly dogmatic approach to the Bill, as it goes through its various stages in this House, but will consider its full and depressing implications for the future prosperity and well-being of this country.
5.2 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis I was going to say that it is quite like old times, but he has mellowed a good deal since the days when he and his noble friend Lord Balogh—and I count them both personal friends, anyway—piloted the Bill through this House creating the BNOC.
The noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, clearly knows quite a lot about this Bill. He raised one or two serious points relating to depletion and so on, and did so in a manner markedly more moderate and more relevant than those of the noble Lord who spoke for 31 minutes from the Front Bench. He gave us all but one of the clichés which are known to the public—"squalid and completely irrelevant", "3 million unemployed", "low production", "industrial relations", "not in the Tory manifesto", "pathological hatred and social imperatives". All the lot. There is only one cliché, which is known to noble Lords, but out of deference to ladies in the Gallery I shall not allude
494
to it, which he did not mention. More to the point is the very simple claim that this Bill is bad for the oil industry, bad for the gas industry, bad for industry in general, bad for the economy and bad for jobs, whether we are talking about the BNOC or the BGC.
Noble Lords opposite may be interested to be reminded of a very remarkable testimony which issued on 19th October last from the very man whom they invited to preside, and who did preside with such spectacular success, over the early fortunes of the British National Oil Corporation. I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Kearton. I have given him warning that I proposed to quote from something that he said, and I gathered that he has no objection to it. But in "The World Tonight" programme on 19th October last, he was asked whether the news that the BNOC was to be denationalised was a black day for Britain, and I quote his answer. He said:
"No, no, in no sense. I would say that with the tax régime as it is, with the political control as it is, with the participation agreements remaining in being, I think it will go a long way to get the whole North Sea development given a new lease of life."
I invite the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, who does not, apparently, suffer at present from laryngitis, but I think he will get it one day, just to swallow those words again:
"… it will go a long way to get the whole North Sea development given a new lease of life".
Those are the words of the man who was invited to preside, and who did preside with brilliance, over the first years of the British National Oil Corporation.
Then what about the BGC? The same noble Lord was also asked in the same programme what he thought about that, and I again quote, with his permission, from the public record. He said:
"I think that the nationalised control of gas was essential in the early days, and I think it has been brilliantly successful, and I think that the Gas Corporation have been brilliantly led not only by Sir Denis Rooke, but by his predecessor"—
wait for it, my Lords—
"But I do think the time has now arrived"—
Lord Kearton speaking—
"where the control of complete monopoly buying, monopoly distribution and monopoly pricing is, in fact, bad; bad both for industry, for the country and for the development of the North Sea. So I think to break up the Gas Corporation's monopoly is extremely sensible".
Those are not my words. Those are the words of a brilliant tycoon who took over the British National Oil Corporation and presided over it brilliantly, but who is a realist and understands the business of the North Sea.
For a moment, I should like to distance myself a little from the controversial issues of this Bill and state the case, as I see it, for going down this road. The real question is how the main energy decisions should be reached for a situation 20 or 30 years hence, when lead times are 10 to 15 years each, whether we are talking about power stations, collieries or oilfields. Focussing those decisions principally in Whitehall, and on the nationalised industries, has led to several consequences.
First, successive Governments have usually ducked the long-term question with the motto "Keep your options open". Secondly, Governments have put short-term issues first and the classic example—and I shall not hesitate to repeat it in the ears of my own

495
Front Bench—is a change in the tax régime in the North Sea six times over in less than three years. Then, again—I think noble Lords will find that I am pretty balanced and even-handed in what I am saying—there were the silly arm-twisting exercises to try to get a gas-gathering pipeline, a public utility, going, without a public Government support guarantee. Then another area of mistake—error, shall I say?—has resulted from this endeavour to focus energy decision-making either in Whitehall or in the centralised, nationalised industries. The gas, the coal, the electricity and the oil supply industries have been taking long-term decisions on a disaggregated basis in isolation, and, as a rule, in response to current fashions of thought—for example, as to what the price of oil is or is thought likely to be. This has not provided for our country a coherent energy strategy for the future.
The alternative to trying to get Whitehall and centralised organisations like nationalised industries to take these decisions—and they quarrel like Kilkenny cats—is to go down a different road altogether. That is the road initiated by this Government and pursued by the Bill. It is to leave the free market to send the right price signals to consumers on the one hand and to investors on the other. But there are drawbacks. I see three straight away.
First, the price signals to consumers are often slow in getting through. Secondly, the price signals to investors with regard to long-term trends are by no means always clear. Finally—this is the counterpart to which I hope a future Tory Government will address their mind or, at any rate, the free economy will give its mind to—there is no energy futures market. If there were such a market, the mistakes of investors and others could always be hedged. Then the market would be giving signals which were effective.
What we are looking at in the Bill is a first substantial step towards a completely different system of energy decision-taking in the long-term. I do not pretend that the Bill will solve more than a certain number of problems. It may be that the Bill will raise as many as it solves.
Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Lauderdale: It is all very well for noble Lords to cheer, but some of them know very little about it—very little indeed. That is true. Noble Lords know that very well. However, a degree of Government intervention remains inevitable if only to hold the ring and create the context. That is and will remain inevitable until the fiscal régime is seen to be stabilised. On that may I say that the Government's decision in the Budget to stabilise, as they said, the tax régime for the North Sea is not good enough as it stands. It needs to have the support of all parties in Parliament. Then the industry would see that it would stick like the Varley assurances. I should like to see a Varley assurances kind of régime applied to the North Sea fiscal system. Secondly, this approach to stability in energy decision-making requires that a stable fiscal régime is underpinned by a broad parliamentary consensus surviving through more than two Parliaments at the least.
This, as I see it, is the real argument for taking this
496
route. It is to get price signals going. I do not pretend that the Bill goes very far in the direction that we need to go. However, I do believe that it goes in the right direction. With regard in particular to the tirades—I think "tirades" is the word—which we have heard about national assets being thrown to the wind, a very telling phrase was used about the meter pennies of the poor going into the pockets of the rich. It was a very colourful phrase, and I may borrow it from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and use it on another occasion to my own advantage. But all that is a lot of rhetoric. With regard to the BNOC, the present chairman, Philip Shelbourne, has made no secret whatever of the corporation's wish first of all to be free of Treasury control; secondly, to be free of the Oil Account (a lot of money is going into it but not much money is coming out); to be free of the mystique of the PSBR; to be free of restrictions on expanding and investing overseas; and, above all, to be free of restriction on its exploration operations. On all those points, the present chairman of BNOC is on public record. However, there are some reasonable anxieties about the approach of the Government to BNOC and I ask this question: having hived off the exploration side from the trading side, can the trading side in fact flourish with a falling oil price and a falling or, at any rate, a low exchange rate as between sterling and the dollar? And if it does not succeed, then will it end up as part of the Department of Energy? And nobody will be the better off for that.
My second question, which is a serious one already raised by other speakers, is how is Britoil to be floated off? After the Amersham International affair, I hope that the Government will consider the possibility of a two-stage operation. The first stage might be the sale of, say, 10 per cent. of the shares by tender to the institutions so that a market price can be established. Then, later, let the balance be offered to the public at, let us say, a discount of 5 or 10 per cent. with careful arrangements made to make sure that it goes to small savers and that there is no duplication of applications. People must not only pay their cheques but the cheques must be cashed straight away, even if the money has to be returned later, so that the stags are cut off at the ankles. This I believe is an approach to flotation which might be worth considerating.
One of the difficulties about the British Gas Corporation is that, thanks to its monopoly, it has been able to push its market on very favourable terms against the interests of coal, electricity and heavily taxed oil, indeed, it has been a kind of pirate—a kind of state pirate in an area where co-ordination of energy decisions and energy consumption is urgently needed. The British Gas Corporation charged such low prices to domestic and commercial consumers that their demand rocketed until industry could not get what it needed. This is, of course, why the Chemical Industry Association and other bodies pleaded with the Government to undertake some such measure as this.
We have been told much about BGC's profit record. I am not a financial man. All I know about balance sheets is that if you get it right, the assets are on the right side and the others on the other side. However, I do follow the Financial Times. I notice that the Financial Times are by no means so enthusiastic about BGC's vaunted profit record as are noble Lords oppo-

497
site. I am now quoting from recent articles in the Financial Times. One of them draws attention to the gross profit of £54 million over 1981–80 on one aspect of its operations. How did that relate to costs? How did the oil revenues of £92 million affect costs and profits? Why did the regular service contracts and the installation of new appliances make so great a loss? The answer to that question is to be found in some tart comments by the National Gas Consumers Council, who relate a whole saga. Finally, when almost every other industry in the country is improving its productivity notably—this is particularly true of the coal industry and of many aspects of manufacturing—how is it that the gas volume per employee stayed more or less the same for three years in succession?
Then we have had a virulent political campaign by Sir Denis Rooke, who has not scrupled to tell the oil companies that this Bill will not take effect, anyway. He has told people not to mind what Parliament does and he has ground out the old socialist argument that we are being deprived of our great natural resources. In fact, the British National Oil Corporaton and BGC together do not own more than 8 or 9 per cent. of all the North Sea oil output. So much for our heritage being scattered to the winds.
It is forgotten, although I will remind noble Lords opposite, that the Labour Government in 1976 sold off some 17 per cent. of the Government's share in BP. This was because they had to borrow £1 billion or so from the IMF. They sold those shares for some £500 million. It is as well to remind them also that the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975 transferred £100 million worth of BGC oil assets to the British National Oil Corporation for a mere £50,000 or so.
The British Gas Corporation's complaint that the common carrier system will end flexibility in deliveries is one that has caught a certain amount of attention. But that complaint speaks for itself. There will be no damage to the flexibility of supply, if BGC play the game as laid down by Parliament when this Bill becomes an Act. What is important is that BGC, from the chairman down to the humblest employee, realise that their role from now on is to be a trustee for a pipe-line system. They will have to see that various measures are taken which make that trusteeship real. For example, there must be gas exchange and balancing servicing services, both between the BGC and private enterprise and between the private enterprise companies themselves. There must be facilities for private enterprise suppliers to borrow gas from present supplies contracted under monopoly against repayment in other supplies later on.
Finally—and this is very important—BGC must disclose costs, revenues and volumes relating to the performance of the common carrier pipe-line in order to make serious tariff negotiations possible. I believe that the Government should write into the Bill either a direct or an enabling provision so that there can be quick and simple arbitration mechanisms should it happen, as many people fear it will, that BGC obstruct negotiations with private enterprise. The Government should also concede—and this is critical—a full right to export gas, otherwise there is virtually no market mechanism coming into effect. We have heard from the Secretary of State that he is prepared to consider export once United Kingdom needs have
498
been satisfied. But, in the context of Europe as a whole, in the context of a Europe which has enormous gas resources in the Norwegian sector, that is an unrealistic restriction. The only real way in which to bring the market mechanism to bear on gas supply, exchange, and price is by allowing export as well as import. One hopes that the Government will take a further look.
It is because some parts of the industry suspect that the Government are going to hold back on allowing the export of gas, that there will not be adequate arbitration procedures, and that BGC will in fact obstruct at every level the endeavour to enter negotiations, that they still remain to be convinced that the monopoly is really going to be broken. However, there was the hopeful news today in the Financial Times that two of the largest American companies—Conoco and Amoco—are getting together with others to form a consortium to face the problems which will arise.
One point that has been given very little attention in the speeches of noble Lords on the Benches opposite is the need for more gas exploration. The fact that gas exploration has been positively discouraged by the low prices paid by BGC as a monopoly has been overlooked. I believe that we need more gas—but less hot air.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Balogh: My Lords, the noble Earl and I have fought very many battles—most of them good natured. But today I felt that the noble Earl wanted to emulate his noble friend Lord Thorneycroft—the chief entertainer of this House. Perhaps I misunderstood him, but it seemed to me that he claimed that a figure of three million unemployed is somehow an achievement.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, would not want to misrepresent me and neither would I wish to misrepresent him. All I said was that the existence of three million unemployed and all these arguments about industrial relations are not in this Bill. This is a Second Reading debate on the Bill, and not a debate on the general economic situation.
Lord Balogh: My Lords, the noble Earl's reference to the BGC was not clear to me either.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I believe that the noble Earl described it as a cliché.
Lord Balogh: My Lords, the oil problem has been historically determined. The industry has had its ups and downs. At one point, the industry became a sort of political football, and it still continues to be so. That is a pity, because in many other cases, mainly involving loss-making industries, the Government have been quite prepared to leave them alone.
The first steps taken by the British Government into the oil industry were undoubtedly unfortunate. The Geneva Convention divided the sea-bed according to the shelf being a part of the structure of the whole country. As a result of that, our shelf ought to have embraced a large part of what is now the Norwegian shelf. The negotiations were very lengthy and not

499
very conclusive. At first, the then Tory Government did not ratify the Geneva Convention for four years. Then it enacted the 1934 Act. At the same time, the Government also let a number of licences. These licences had no provisions for controls or for collective determination of prices. At the same time, the gas situation about which the noble Earl was so discontented allowed us to charge very low prices for gas and even lower prices paid to the oil companies. The oil companies were paid on a cost-plus basis. What they wanted was to be paid on a world price parity basis. The difference, of course, would have been colossal. It would have meant that the most valuable of our national natural resources, which surely ought to belong to the community, would be handed over to the oil companies.
What was worse was that among the oil companies it was the Americans and the French who got an undue share. At the moment the British share is 40 per cent., even if we include Shell as a British company, which of course is not altogether so. How the Minister was persuaded to accept this as the original line is still a secret, but he certainly was very much influenced by the department, the department then having a view very much like the noble Earl's.
Much the most important break, with the possibility of having a rational system of exploitation in the North Sea, was the licensing fourth round. This assigned the best territory, an enormous extension of territory, by a discretionary process. The licensing did not regulate the procedures in the oilfields, and no technical supervision was secured. The licences were in the form of contracts rather than by way of regulations. Thus unilateral change would attract compensation which a change of regulation would not.
Even more typical was the refusal to indicate what measures could be taken to secure a due part of the vast profit for the community as a whole. There were some vague references to heavy taxation—I think by Lord Carrington; heavy taxation may have been in preparation, but there was no action followed until the end of the Government in 1964. This was accompanied by a refusal to end the favourite tax loophole which permitted the charging of tax payments abroad against North Sea profits. It was an all-party committee, the PAC, which brought this scandalous situation to the fore and to the public. Had no action been taken it would have cost the Exchequer £4,800 million accumulated in the past, and the claim would grow at the rate of £240 million per annum. The departmental brief gave a completely misleading picture of the situation and the consequences of the policy followed.
This was the situation when I found myself as Minister in the Energy Department more or less in charge of oil. We proceeded on two parallel lines. The revision of the technical aspects came quickly, still operated through the licensing procedure so as to avoid any legal difficulties about retrospection. Licences would be given to firms under the following conditions: firms should submit production plans and follow advice; firms should allow 51 per cent. equity participation to BNOC; firms should carry all expenditure until commercially viable finds were made, but the BNOC would then have to pay its share of investment. I do not think there is any unfairness in that. Any
500
change in the composition of the private sector consortia would be subject to departmental approval, which could lay down further conditions and did so, so far as mergers and that sort of thing were concerned. What was even more important, indeed the most important, was that BNOC representative would have the right of membership of the boards and operating committees of all licensees.
Such was the position, and it would have enabled us to have a pretty confident knowledge of the profits and the tendencies and the working habits of the various corporations. Why did all this happen? I think this is explained by the speeches which the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, from time to time lets loose upon us. They are obviously befuddled by their conviction that we still live in a neo-classical market; that is to say, that supply and demand are automatically balanced; that is to say, that no participant could influence the market signals, that is prices.
This, of course, was rubbish, but it has been accepted implicitly and explicitly by the present Government. Yet is is an undeniable fact that in all manufacturing and most service industries oligopoly persists, so that price movements and the sort of thing the noble Earl wants to call in to help us to establish an optimal system does not work. The labour market has also been transformed from what it was in the old days, when you had price and wage cutting in a slump, into a battle of monopolies, which is as bad for trade unions as it is for the country and the Government. Unless a more civilised way of solving the problem of wages and differentials can be found—that is, a conscious substitution of rational discussion instead of working through the "new" price system—the automatism of the market would be displaced into sectional struggles.
Much of my time and effort was spent in repairing the damage done in the first four licence rounds by Mr. Heath's Administration. Once it was accepted that the country was faced with a complicated matrix of corporations which could and would influence the market, all these claims for using the market of course disappear. Some means had to be found to monitor the real costs and prices so as to arrive at a balanced view of policy means and policy aims. In our own particular case it might open the possibility of repossessing for the community step by step what had been given away in 1972. The BNOC could supply the department with essential information from the inside. This, in my opinion, is indispensable in the case of giants dominating our most important markets. At the same time the BNOC could then have an inside view of the overall situation and could inform the Government. The recent hapless hesitation over North Sea oil prices, which really ended up with losses to us, shows clearly how needful this is. It is difficult to get at the truth, but we must do so. The department could not possibly afford really first class people because of the American competition and their completely different wage/salary systems.
Noble Lords opposite will be delighted at the sale of BP and BNOC shares, as we heard just now, because in their view this will transform industry and the small investor will again acquire a voice. However, there are very few of these small investors, except through pension funds. But, whatever happens, the

501
dispersal of stock, the more widely spread holding of shares, would in fact be likely to result in the increase in the independence of the managers. They would be in a completely dominant situation because the scattered shareholders would not be able to combine in order to vote against them. In modern economics and finance shareholders will not change their policy. If the shareholders are dissatisfied they sell their shares and buy something which pleases one more or which is probably more successful. There is no real accountability to anyone.
Much the most important and disgraceful measure was that to the gas corporation to divest itself of the best on-shore field it had discovered together with BP. Hardly had we heard the news than they wanted to force the BGC to sell it, when it was learned that the estimated oil reserve of the field had doubled. I can imagine that there was some sort of conscious action behind this, but it must be said that it emphasised the enormous risk of not having some sort of overall control of an industry which has become as powerful—indeed, more powerful in some countries—as the Government themselves.
By the way, gas is not monopolised; it is monoposonised. There is a monopoly of purchasing and not a monopoly of selling. However, perhaps that is something which need not worry us.
According to the Government, the revenue gained by selling capital assets reduces the PSBR and therefore is deflationary. Not a bit of it. When deposits are passed to the Government in exchange for shares, those deposits are likely to be used. That is to say, their velocity of circulation, in comparison with the pre-action, increases, and thus any net influence on the economy is lost.
Much play was made by Mr. Lawson about the joys of the reprivatisation of exploration and production. He claimed once more that this will also relieve the balance of payments. It may support the balance of payments for a time, but not for very long. In the future the cumulative sales will create a situation in which the stock market will be uncontrollable—which has happened about four or five times in the last three years—and the expenditure side of the equation will be negative. This is a striking further example where an unrecorded movement of the true velocity of circulation of money might cause disturbances which the new quantity theory simply ignores.
The reprivatisation and suppression of the BNOC will endanger the attainment of a due "take", because the structure of the market will be decisive and will no longer be restrained by the forces of the imaginary neoclassical world. I suggest that the present policy, especially in gas, will inevitably cut the "take" from the hydrocarbon discoveries, and the balance of payments will be much the most affected. I assert that all these things put together add up to a permanent slowing down of increase in our national income and a fall back into an even worse position than we are in at present. The escape from this will be very difficult indeed.
I think that I subscribe totally to what my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington has said about what measures a future Labour Government ought to take. I completely agree that the restoration of the status quo
502
is an essential step in harmonising the various economic factors for a speedy recovery.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Donnet of Balgay: My Lords, it is perhaps not unexpected that the introduction of a Bill which changes the existing state of things in two of our most important energy industries, should cause some heat and some controversy. It has certainly raised the point as to whether or not the public or the private interest is being served. I am to be numbered among those who express concern that the Government have found it necessary to provide a new legislative background for the privatisation of a great deal of the British National Oil Corporation and of the British Gas Corporation. I would assert that the two national public industries mentioned are, in anybody's language, and subject to the depression which we are going through, dynamic and enterprising; in world energy terms of the highest importance; and in financial and employment terms, running at the head of the United Kingdom league. Industries that qualify for those descriptions are the stuff of which prosperity is made, and this country of ours badly needs that.
Coming from my part of the United Kingdom, I am specially sensitive to the fact that the Scottish community, of which I am part, is deeply interested in this Bill, especially perhaps because at present it is the areas in and around Scottish seas that are being exploited for the raw materials that form a base for the industries mentioned in this Bill. It is also worth a mention that among the by-products are the consequential material benefits to the United Kingdom economy and to the nation's central fund in the British Treasury.
As this is a Second Reading debate, I shall try to make my concern manifest by speaking to those clauses which are described as the "gas" part of the Bill. Incidentally, I am informed that when the Bill was being examined in the other place the process of explanation and answer was somewhat affected by that French instrument, the guillotine. This debate should go some way towards rectifying that shortcoming.
I have another appropriate reason for dwelling on the "gas" part of the Bill. For many a long year I was national chairman of the gasworkers' union, during which period I helped to co-operate in the build-up of the outstanding industrial relationships that exist in that old industry—relationships that carried the industry through its long history to its present peak with the minimum of dislocation. Over the last 30 years in the gas industry in this country we have seen a complete revolution: gas produced by the carbonisation of coal, moving on to the use of the light distillates, moving on to the almost complete use of natural gas, and perhaps the present preparations continuing and the process going back again to substitutes for natural gas.
We had a very robust explanation of the principles of the Bill, not from the noble Earl who introduced the Bill on behalf of the Government, but from my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. I think that his first point dealt with the first point in the Bill. The Bill's first concern is the removal of the existing legislative qualifications preventing the disposal of assets if

503
they are required to meet the gas corporation's statutory obligations. Therefore, I should like to support his assertion that the provisions of the Bill are a complete irrelevance to the operational vitality of the British gas industry.
The second point about this legislation is that British Gas would also suffer a loss of buying rights. However, I am sure that Members of your Lordships' House will be aware that, although British Gas has the first opportunity of buying gas at a reasonable price, where an offer is not considered reasonable the Secretary of State has the power to consent to an alternative supply. Thirdly, this Bill puts at risk the gas corporation's supply monopoly, including that to domestic customers beyond 25 yards of the gas main in the distribution system.
Subject to the direction of the Secretary of State, this Bill provides that British Gas would be required to provide a transmission service to carry gas on behalf of others. With such a direction on this and other things the Department of Energy might need, therefore, to become involved in the detailed planning processes of British Gas. As has already been said in this debate, it seems to me that that would offend certain principles and it would certainly affect fundamentally the existing relationships.
Reference has been made in this debate to an opinion of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission last year. As a former member of the Price Commission, may I say that in 1979 the Price Commission subscribed to a point of view, and published its point of view, that the British Gas Corporation, both with its transmission and its distribution systems, operates an efficiently controlled industry, and very high engineering standards, In the opinion of the Price Commission, the Government would have been wise to do what they are now being asked to do, because the Opposition considers the provisions of this Bill to be irrelevant. It is also my opinion that the Government would have been wise to leave well alone.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Polwarth: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Donnet of Balgay, would necessarily expect me to support his views on the Bill, but I think that we all appreciate his experience in one of the industries affected by it and the service that he has given to it in Scotland. I think that we should all be grateful to my noble friend Lord Lauderdale (who I am sorry is not here at the moment) for his extremely knowledgeable contribution to the debate and for giving us a refreshing dash of realism in a debate which for a good deal of its course has tended to wander in the arid wastes of ideology.
Very briefly, I should like to look at the main points of the Bill in the wider context of the whole North Sea scene, because I think that we are in danger of losing sight of some of our objectives. In recent times, once the developments had come on stream, we have been looking at two main objectives: first, to become self-sufficient in hydrocarbons—and that we have now done, and indeed are becoming an exporter; and, secondly, to ensure a fair take of profits for the state, which again is as it should be.
However, now that the first objective is achieved,
504
I fear that the Government are becoming over-zealous in the drive towards the second, of the tax-take that they can get out of the industry, which is, after all, understandable in times of financial stress. But I sincerely submit that the evidence is that they have gone a bit too far, whatever Treasury Ministers may say. The repercussions are beginning to be felt fairly widely and seriously.
We should remind ourselves of another of the main objectives of the North Sea development from its early days; namely, as bringing a great benefit to the economy in general in the creation of all the supporting industries and services; the supply services, and the employment and the skills that it creates. I should like to pay a tribute to the work of the Offshore Supplies Office in encouraging more British industry to get into this business, and bring up the proportion of the total supplies and services from a very small minority one to a majority proportion of all that the oil industry requires.
A whole new infrastructure was created—I do not like the word, but it is the only one that meets it—in support of the offshore industry, particularly in Scotland. We improved harbours, communications, built great new housing developments. I speak with some experience having at that time been responsible in the Scottish Office for these problems. This brought new life to many areas which had seen their employment prospects fading away. That is something that warmed my heart as a fellow countryman of the noble Lord, Lord Donnet.
Perhaps one could sum up that benefit in one figure; namely, that some 100,000 new jobs are estimated to have arisen onshore from the industry, of which 70,000 are in Scotland alone. The great majority of those, I would remind your Lordships, were created by private enterprise with Government and local authority support.
But what now? I am sorry to say that North Sea development appears to have gone into rather a low gear. There have been no major new development plans for fields agreed with the Department of Energy since the Hutton field in 1980. As a result, the orders coming to the principal manufacturers have fallen off seriously. I speak here with experience and declare my interest as a director of one of the companies engaged in manufacturing platforms. Less than a month ago we floated out at Nigg in Ross-shire the largest steel platform yet built in Britain, 40,000 tonnes, for the Magnus field, completed on time and with no labour troubles whatever. We have one more platform on order and building in the yard. That will provide work through until next spring. However, already we are having to lay off 300 to 400 men in that area because the new job cannot accommodate them all. That is a serious matter in an area where there is little alternative employment.
Beyond next spring the prospects of orders are bleak indeed. We have seen that other yards are in the same position. Lewis Offshore on the Island of Lewis have had provisionally to give 400 men notice. Howard Doris of Kishorn on the West coast are following the same path. This is because the orders for new hardware are just not there. There is at the moment not sufficient incentive to the oil companies to press ahead with these developments. We must remember that

505
most of the rich and profitable fields have probably already been developed and are in production. The new prospects are harder; they are further offshore; they mean deeper drilling, and are altogether more expensive to embark on.
What is equally depressing with the long lead time for this kind of work—the design and engineering commences at least a year before any actual construction takes place—is that I am also assured that at that end, design and engineering, there is a dearth of orders too, which means that there is not a good outlook for many of these companies in this kind of work. There could be wholesale closures, and in areas where we have the prospect of so much to come in the future. That does not apply only to platform construction but to many other activities in support of the North Sea.
Some people will say that of course the oil companies are holding off because of the fall in oil prices. Obviously that is a contributory factor, but it is a very recent one because this is a phenomenon of only the last few months. One must only conclude that it is the high level of total taxation that is the major disincentive that is preventing companies from going ahead. I would earnestly ask the Government to be prepared to look at this again.
It is all very well for them to quote as, with great respect, my noble friend Lord Mansfield did in his introduction, figures of the numbers of fields in production, yes, and of the number of exploratory wells drilled, yes; but the exploratory end is not where the larger amounts of equipment are required. That only comes when you get to the stage of development for production.
Perhaps I could ask the Government to take a leaf from Canada where, 18 months ago, the Government introduced a particularly onerous tax régime for the oil and gas industry. The rigs upped and went and moved south of the border, and new development came practically to a halt. I am delighted to see that now the Federal Government and the Government of Alberta are urgently discussing with the industry a major relief on the tax front to encourage further development in Canada. I am sure it will be well worth their while.
What is the relevance of all this to the Bill, or of the Bill to all this? So far as the oil clauses of the Bill are concerned, what we are talking about in the BNOC case is, as my noble friend Lord Lauderdale said, a very small proportion of the total United Kingdom oil production. It is about 7 per cent. I feel that really an undue fuss is being made about this transfer. One should consider whether, in the first place, it was really justified that it should have been set up in this way.
If you can look at it like this I believe that freeing the BNOC production end, as it were, from the restraints of being a publicly financed industry can only he beneficial. Remember the Clyde field development with which they were anxious to proceed. They were prevented from doing so by financial restraints by the Government because of the effect on the public sector borrowing requirement. I think the sooner they are released, or untethered, from the sacred cow of the PSBR the more likely we are to see further development of their oil territory.
506
It is on the front of the natural gas that I see a real hope for an increase in activity benefiting all these other industries. There is no question but that the gas corporation monopoly has inhibited the exploration for new gas fields. There has been no search for new gas fields as such since the earlier days of the southern North Sea, simply because the monopoly price offered by the gas corporation has not justified the companies in doing that work.
It is all very well to say that the consumer is benefiting from low gas prices. That may well be so long as those southern North Sea fields are on stream. But the day is coming soon when the gas corporation will have to get supplies from elsewhere, and they are going to have to pay a great deal more than they paid in the early days of the southern North Sea. I believe it will be a great boost too to the chemical industry, as their association has said, to have the chance of alternative supplies, because there is no doubt that at the present prices they are being charged they are not competitive with their colleagues overseas.
I would simply say that in those two industries in this way I see the Bill helping to increase activity and work for a wide sector of industry in support of the oil and gas companies, and if the Government will at the same time take seriously this question of the level of taxation, then I think we can see a real resurgence in the North Sea.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, one of the most frustrating experiences can be arguing a contentious issue with a religious zealot, because however much one reasons with such a person one tends to run up against the quotation of some heavenly authority who will work miracles and whose word is law. We tend to be in that position when speaking to the Government on anything which criticises monetarism, and we are in that position with this Bill.
Her Majesty's Government have not complained of inefficiency on the part of the British National Oil Corporation, though it is claimed that in future it will be of advantage for that highly successful firm to be in private hands. The Labour Party, on the other hand, is already promising renationalisation. We are not clear what the terms will be—whether it will be by expropriation or payment on some rather arbitrary formula—but it is already certain that the attitude of the Labour Party, in response to the Government's unjustified moves, has created a political football which will do no good for the country, no good for the reputation of our two main parties and no good whatever for the people working in the industry who, above all, need stability.
Indeed, it makes precious little difference to the workers whether they are working under a nationalised régime or a privately-owned one, so long as it is reasonably efficiently run and they have stability to get on with the job.
By their proposals for BNOC, the Government are quite unnecessarily, creating a political football which will be to the detriment of the nation. We on this Bench prefer to maintain a more pragmatic stance and say that each case (be it of nationalisation, denationalisation or renationalisation) should be proved—

507
"By the fruits shall ye know them"—
but in this case we have not seen the justification established and must therefore regret what the Government are proposing.
As for oil, there is no monopoly. Government supporters in another place said on Second Reading that the main reason behind the measure was to get rid of the inefficiencies of monopoly. In fact, there is no monopoly in BNOC. As has been said, it controls only 7 per cent. of the exploration and production in the North Sea. What a lot of fuss is being made. The Government are proposing that 3½ per cent. shall go over to the 80 per cent, which is already in the hands of private enterprise. It seems a great deal of effort to produce such a minor shift, one which will be highly contentious.
If the Government were so keen on extending the scope for private capital—which, goodness knows, is not lacking in that area; it already dominates the North Sea—why did they not sell off some further shares in BP and maintain the BNOC structure, which has values other than its purely financial ones? It has been said that BNOC should not have to go to the Treasury for its funds, and there are two thoughts on that. The first is that if the prospects for BNOC are so good as to tempt private capital, surely they are good enough to tempt public capital as well. The second is that, in any case, if the Government are so determined not to involve public capital, there is no reason in the world why BNOC should not be allowed to go out into the private market. But that is not to be; it offends the monetarist dogmatists.
The advantages which are alleged are therefore highly contentious and certainly not proven. The disadvantages are very obvious. The first and most important I have already mentioned, that it creates a political football when there is absolutely no necessity to do so. The price of the immediate sale of shares is likely to be depressed below its market level because of Labour's threat of renationalisation, so in selling off those shares—rather than, say, BP's shares—the Government will be selling off a national asset at a discount, which seems hardly in the best interests of the country.
The instability being introduced into the industry must be deplored by those who operate in it. But beyond that, any Government responsible for the depletion policy, for conservation, for the rate of exploration, for safety regulations and pricing policy—huge areas of vital importance to this country—must have the most intimate knowledge of the whole integrated structure of oil exploration, production and sale. Yet they are getting rid of the main means of providing that, and that must be a great disadvantage which can only in part be replaced by the recruitment into the Department of Energy of some of the most expensive experts in the world today. I cannot see the Government producing that money. Nor can I see top experts preferring to work for a Ministry department rather than in the field. Thus, the Government are putting themselves at a disadvantage in any negotiations they have in future with the great multinationals, which are well capable of upholding their end in any price and licence negotiations. The whole thing is so unnecessary—in order to get rid of
508
this little 7 per cent. interest—and for what? For those reasons I find that part of the Bill deplorable and quite unnecessary.
As for the gas sections, I have more sympathy. I have read arguments and depositions of those for and against, and I still find myself in some confusion when faced with masses of figures from the experts. However, I cannot get over the feeling that in this sphere the Government are much stronger. There is a very strong element of monopoly in the Gas Corporation and I always have suspicions of the efficiency of monopolies, be they private or public. Therefore, in principle, I do not object to the introduction of a measure of competition into this area. It seems to me that the British Gas Corporation has shown insensitive tendencies at times; its discussions with the chemical interests I know only too well, and they have been mentioned already by noble Lords. The fact that we have a restrictive asset here has been mentioned time and again by Gas Corporation interests.
I remember about 30 years ago working in the oil industry, when expert opinion was that we had only 30 years' oil left in the world. Today, we still have only 30 years' oil left in the world. I regard the argument about the limited life of the fields as highly suspect, and I strongly feel that if we throw open the development of the gas fields to greater competition, we shall be amazed at the extra amount that will emerge within a few years.
I also believe that the opening out of the non-premium market to the use of gas under private contracts is likely to produce much more inventiveness, which I am sure many noble Lords have already seen, as I have seen, in the United States, in particular in the southern area—Texas—in industry where very efficient use indeed has been made of natural gas. The use of total energy is a concept accepted throughout industry in those states, but it seems to have made very little progress here. I expect that area heating and the total energy concept of getting the most out of the gas will move forward rapidly as the contracts for gas are opened up, as proposed by the Government. So I do not in principle object to this move.
However, there are some questions which arise because of the Government's great haste. The negative resolution procedure has already been criticised many times, and I must add my criticism. It is not a satisfactory method of democratic control. Further, I have to ask whether the effects on the coal industry have really been assessed. It is calculated that the non-premium market which will be opened up to the new procedures is equivalent to about 40 million tons of coal a year. This is an almighty slice of Britain's present coal production. Are we sure what effect the proposal will have on the future planning of the coal industry? I am not condemning it, but the implications are considerable and need weighing up. Many people's jobs are at stake.
The restructuring of British Gas is not obvious in the Bill. The Minister will have voted to him enormous, draconian powers. Throughout the gas industry, and among users of gas, the restructuring of the whole of the British Gas Corporation has become very necessary. There is need for much more sensitivity and for organs to ensure that the corporation responds to the opinions

509
of its own users. The retailing activities involving gas have come in for much criticism. What is to be done about that aspect?
We are also very unclear as to the Government's intentions with regard to exports. Reading through Hansard of the other place I find it very difficult to determine exactly what the Government's attitude would be, but if gas exports are to be allowed, then the effect on the pricing of all fuels throughout Europe would become very marked, quite dramatic. I happen to believe that to work towards one European market in energy is probably the most sensible thing to do. But we really need to know how it is to work out, before we commit ourselves on legislation, yet all we are to have from here on are negative orders.
Therefore, my conclusion is that the Bill is very much a curate's egg—good in parts, bad in parts. Quite clearly there should have been two Bills. The guillotine procedure that has been used means that the legislation has come through in a very half-baked manner, and we are likely to be faced with a prolonged, hard job in Committee.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, first, I must apologise for the fact that I did not hear the noble Earl's introductory speech. That was because I was engaged upstairs in one of your Lordships' Select Committees. It is generally agreed—and this has been emphasised by Ministers, too—that both BNOC and British Gas are highly efficient industries and that both have served the country very well. Therefore, right at the outset one must ask, why is there talk of introducing competition to achieve efficiency? Mr. Nigel Lawson, the Secretary of State for Energy, speaking during the Second Reading debate in the other place on 19th January, said, when referring to BNOC—and I give a brief quotation from column 169 of the Official Report:
"It has now been in existence for six years and has an oil-producing business with considerable expertise and potential".
But he then went on to say:
"While the business remains in the State sector, its activities will inevitably be subject to the politicisation and to the constraints that that entails".
His latter statement contradicted his earlier one. I would suggest that the only politicisation that we are going to have is that which is contained in the present Bill before your Lordships, and that the only constraints that will be placed on BNOC will be that it will be left merely as a trader in oil, working on a management fee basis.
I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, who emphasised that BNOC is not a statutory monopoly, and therefore the question of the introduction of competition being the reason for the Bill hardly applies. The Government's intentions clearly are not in accordance with the praise that they have already given to the achievements of BNOC. I ask your Lordships, why should Britain not be in the same position as most other countries and have its own state oil-producing business? Why should it be good enough for other countries—whether they have social democratic, socialist, or capitalist governments—to have state oil concerns, but not he good enough for the British Conservative Government?
510
In the other place, the Minister expressed the hope that the sale of shares will take place before the end of the year. I must ask the obvious question: is before the end of the year the appropriate time for such a large flotation, bearing in mind the present level of oil prices? We on these Benches oppose the entire policy towards BNOC, and surely the intention of an early flotation amounts to selling a national asset cheaply, bearing in mind present conditions. I must ask whether the price to be gained will sufficiently compensate for the annual proceeds that have been received?—and there is no reason why they should not continue to be received if the position is left as it is at present.
In the debate in the other place to which I referred earlier, the Secretary of State said, at column 177:
"If the problems are less acute now with BNOC than with the gas corporation, that is partly because BNOC is one of the newest of the public corporations, and its spirit of enterprise has not been stifled by the bureaucratic embrace or perverted by immunity from bankruptcy".
That statement must be a fantastic excuse for the Government's intentions towards BNOC.
If it is said that those words do not apply to BNOC, then we must look at the position of the British Gas Corporation. I am old enough to recall the state of the British gas industry before public ownership in 1949, with the 2,000-odd small concerns, both municipal and private, dotted up and down the country. Many of them looked as though they were liable to fall down almost at any moment. There were many derelict-looking plants. That old-fashioned, locally-based industry was brought into a great national undertaking, and I make the claim that without public ownership in 1949, we should not have the type of gas industry that we have today. Surely we can all recall the massive effort that was made by the Gas Corporation in the reorganisation that was carried out over a period of years during the changeover to natural gas. That was a really massive undertaking and a credit, surely, to any corporation. I should like to hear Government Ministers praise this public concern for that achievement.
It is generally agreed that the corporation has carried out considerable research, with a highly expert staff. How did the Government react to such an entrepreneurial attitude, enterprise and initiative? They reacted by instructing the Gas Corporation to sell off the profitable venture at the Wytch Farm oilfield in Dorset. That, surely, was not stifled by bureaucracy. It was a great enterprise which nobody else had thought of until the Gas Corporation undertook it. The argument is: why should not a gas undertaking also have oil interests where such enterprises as Wytch Farm can be undertaken? If diversification is good for big private enterprises, surely diversification by a public enterprise which is proved to be efficient and worthwhile should not be killed. Only a doctrinaire Conservative Government could behave like that; and I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, who spoke of "the arid wastes of ideology". That applies, I believe, to what has taken place in relation to the Gas Corporation and Wytch Farm.
The corporation will in effect be reduced to supplying gas to customers of 25,000 therms or less. I would

511
ask: what will be the criteria for the Secretary of State to give his approval for private supplies between 25,000 and two million therms? It has been said that the Secretary of State will envisage granting permission where safety arrangements are adequate. I must ask the Minister: is that to be the only criterion? Because, if so, surely it does not go anywhere near far enough. Then, for supplies of over two million therms, there is apparently to be no hindrance or restriction whatever. That, surely, must be a disastrous policy.
There is even worse in the Bill, my Lords. As has been pointed out already, it will provide statutory provision for the private suppliers to have access to the Gas Corporation's pipeline network; and the Secretary of State will have power to determine the terms on which BGC shall carry the gas in its own network. The Secretary of State has stated that he hopes the terms for such transmission will be negotiated. I should like to ask whether any charge which he may approve will include the large cost of the network, which has been paid for out of revenue provided mainly by the present consumers.
The Secretary of State has also said that the private gas suppliers will have a right of appeal to him. In all fairness, if anyone reads the Secretary of State's Second Reading speech they will see that in effect it is a right of appeal to a Minister who, by his speeches, is clearly antagonistic to public ownership and favours the maximum of private access. But the Secretary of State threatened to go even further. He said that although the introduction of private gas would be the main market for gas competition, he did not rule out the possibility of private supplies to new housing estates, et cetera.
Once again we have the Government's policy of endeavouring to encourage private interests where they believe the maximum return can be achieved for those interests. We all know that on more than one occasion the Government compelled the Gas Corporation to increase prices to consumers when it did not wish to do so. I must ask what assurances there are that the so-called competition planned in the Bill will not lead to further price increases.
Apart from the principles involved in what I regard as this tragic interference with an efficient industry, and despite what the noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, said, at the present moment we have to keep it in mind that our gas supplies are not infinite. We have to work on the supplies of which we have knowledge at the present time; and unless a sensible depletion policy is followed, which has been the case with British Gas, this country could find itself in dire straits. With the introduction of the proposals in relation to private gas, that depletion policy could be in danger.
As reserves are diminished, and with virtually uncontrolled or loosely-controlled private supplies, there is bound to be a type of auction for the supply of gas, and that will almost certainly have an adverse effect on domestic consumers. Surely, also, the loss of the "first purchase" right, to which reference has been made by other noble Lords, is one which we must consider, as to how that will affect the obligation of the corporation to supply gas to the non-industrial consumers. Also, under the Bill oil companies will be allowed to sell direct to private suppliers. Surely
512
this will be a further auction of gas supplies, and I must ask: At what prices, and by how much will the price to the consumer be increased?
My Lords, I understand that the National Gas Consumers' Council is concerned with aspects of the Bill, particularly Schedule 3, which will in future prevent the council from representing many of the industrial and commercial consumers. I hope noble Lords will agree with me that it is desirable for consumers' representations to be made under one head, under one body. Surely there should not be any split in representations made by a consumer body. The question has been asked: What is there in the Bill which will prevent oil companies from selling British gas to the Continent, even if that has an effect on depletion policy? I hope the Minister may be able to deal with that question.
Mr. Hamish Gray, the Minister of State for Energy, speaking on the Third Reading of this Bill in the other place on 1st April of this year, said at col. 451:
"At present the Government have no plans to require the corporation to dispose of its interests in gas fields or to dispose of its transmission and distribution pipelines".
Note what he says, my Lords—they have no plans "at present" In the Bill there is power to instruct the corporation to do that. I must echo what other noble Lords have said about the excessive powers given to the Secretary of State, and the fact that this is in effect an enabling Bill in which the Secretary of State is enabled to do very many things.
The Minister may say in reply that the Secretary of State will act reasonably in this respect. This is a matter I have taken up on two transport Bills; and I can remember what happened in the case of the judgment of the noble and learned Law Lords in the London Transport case. It is not what is said by Ministers and what is said in this House or in another place that matters: it is what is in the Bill, and the Bill gives the Secretary of State power to act in the way I have suggested.
The last point I want to raise is this. Little has been said in the debate today, or even in the debates in the other House, about the gas showrooms. The Bill still leaves the power in the Minister, the Secretary of State, to compel the Gas Corporation to dispose of its 900-odd gas showrooms. The Minister made it clear in the other place that this will be carried into effect possibly in 1983, when other safety legislation has been introduced. The power is there. The question of safety legislation was overlooked, apparently, by the Government when they made their original statement in this House and in the other place.
I am not going to go into the position of the showrooms at any length, although a lot could be said. We must remember that selling gas appliances has been a basic part of the gas industry since long before nationalisation in 1949. Both private undertakings and public undertakings sold appliances prior to nationalisation. In fact, the Monopolies Commission report said that they sold and installed nearly all the appliances sold to domestic consumers prior to nationalsation. When the Monopolies Commission commenced its review there were only 500 private outlets, but by the time it produced its report there were 1,000, and by June 1981 these had increased to 2,000. But there are only just over 900 outlets through the Gas Corporation showrooms.

513
The 1972 Act gave the corporation a statutory monopoly for gas supply. It also gave it power to manufacture, supply, install repair and maintain gas appliances and fittings, but the corporation has not a statutory monopoly for those latter things. The Government, which revel in the advocacy of competition, are even going to the extent of refusing to permit the Gas Corporation—this is not in the Bill but it has been said by the Secretary of State in statements—to compete in the sale of appliances. It is their intention to use this Bill to make the corporation dispose of its showrooms and to cease trading in appliances. That will come about when they have the necessary safety legislation and they will introduce that power in 1983.
I should be happy if the Minister could say that I am wrong, that it is not the intention of the Government now to make the Gas Corporation cease trading in appliances. If the Government believe in competition, if they believe that competition will help the publicly-owned sector to get on with the job, they ought to leave them free to carry on with the work that they have been doing magnificently in safety and in other respects in the sale of appliances through their showrooms.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I speak at the end of a long and detailed debate on this important measure. I am sure that we are indebted to the noble Earl the Minister for the way in which he introduced the measure and the explanation he gave. I must admit (and I am sure that other noble Lords may agree with me) that I was sorry that he did not set out the main provisions of the Bill because he gave the reasons for the measure as being very pedestrian. He said it was a major step forward in reducing the size of the public sector. That was the first objective. Then, the introduction of competition into the gas market; and the third objective, he said, was the strengthening of the existing petroleum legislation. That lacks any semblance of excitement or of real policy. He went on to refer to the considerable achievements of the energy sector.
I feel that most noble Lords would have wished the Minister to begin the introduction to the Bill by saying that it was absolutely essential for more productive use of a limited asset, to the better integration of vital resources, to the greater economy, to greater development of R and D, to better financial returns, to lower prices to the consumer and to the reduction in imports and expansion in exports. Those ought to have been the objectives of this Bill. But the Minister was honest when he mentioned the purely doctrinaire political motives behind this measure to deal with this great industry.
I can tell your Lordships what the Bill is about. It is about energy and power, the provision of the energy that our country needs and the massive power it gives to the Secretary of State to ensure that it is organised with the energy supply in the public interest being a mere by-product of the private interest. This Bill does not follow in the wake of the failure of a great enterprise to fulfil high hopes expected of it; it does not follow in the experience of an enterprise wrongly conceived, badly run and failing the nation. It is not
514
dealing with an undertaking with a record of great financial losses. It follows in the wake of a great public enterprise which has led the way in profitability to ensure our independence in the vital field of energy resources. I think it has been a story of real enterprise and real partnership between the public and the private sectors, run with true co-operation between both. I know that my noble friends have detailed many objections to the Bill and we have had a number of speeches on the other side. I thought that some of the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, gave a fair view from his experience about the way the partnerships has been pursued.
We come now to this squalid Bill which is facing us, despite the fact that Britain has the largest energy resources of any country in the EEC. In 1980, the value of mineral production was 43 per cent. higher at constant prices than in 1970, virtually all the increase being in the oil and gas sectors. Our self-sufficiency in energy in 1980 in net terms resulted from the growth of offshore oil production, a situation which must continue for some years to come. Our prosperity and security depends on whether Britain has a developing and comprehensive energy policy where all our resources are subject to the overriding national interest.
Having heard the Minister and other speakers today, I am sure that that is a hope that we cannot expect to he achieved. The question which arises is this. Is this the time to smash up something which has been growing successfully for a number of years with a partnership of the public and private enterprise? Is this the time to create uncertainty? In our energy resources we have a priceless asset which has been transformed by the substantial oil and gas reserves offshore in the United Kingdom continental shelf. We must continue to ensure that our industry can continue to compete effectively in respect of offshore equipment and services. We must encourage, too, with national initiatives, the promotion of new ventures in alternative energy resources.
The changes in energy consumption between 1970 and 1980 show the changing pattern of energy availability. In 1970, coal accounted for 46 per cent. and, in 1980, for 36 per cent. Meanwhile, natural gas consumption rose by 16 per cent. over those years. The two leading British oil companies are BP and Shell Transport and Trading, the two largest industrial companies in Britain in turnover terms. The Government's policy in the Conservative manifesto has been quoted by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. But in the general election campaign, the Daily Mail on the 26th April 1979 referred to various lies by the Labour Party about Government intentions. This, they say is "Lie No. 12":
"They are promising to sell off the Government's majority holdings in one of our more priceless national assets—British Petroleum".
The Daily Mail says that this was a quotation from Denis Healey on April 11th. The Daily Mail goes on to say, having contacted the Conservative Office:
"Truth: 'We have never suggested any such thing. Where did Denis Healey get this idea?'—Tory spokesman".
We know now that the idea was there all the time but they dared not expose it at the time of the general election. If there had been any one reason why people should not have supported the party opposite at the

515
last election, it can be this reason: the matter that we are dealing with today in the management of these great energy resources, and, as I have said, the two leading British oil companies, BP and Shell Transport and Trading, the two largest industrial firms in Britain in turnover terms. Our current barrelage was achieved in crude oil and petroleum products with a gross income of about £26,000 million in 1980.
BNOC is, of course, a public corporation set up under the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975 with two main activities, that of an oil trader and with development, exploration and production responsibilities. The growth of our own energy resources has led also to a great reduction in imports. That is essential at this time when our financial situation is so perilous. This represents a great improvement not only in terms of foreign currency but in terms of our independence of world resources—a great asset indeed in these times of great instability worldwide and in the changing balance of world power which is before us.
Is this the moment for us to say that we will smash up the integrated workings of our great energy resources, to a fragmentation where only market considerations are paramount? The Labour Party and others who care for the national wellbeing have always insisted that our national resources should be under public control and publicly accountable. That goes not only for energy resources including oil, gas, coal, electricity, and nuclear power, but also the means of transport and in other aspects, too.
Such a policy is not doctrinaire but is essential especially to secure an integrated and co-ordinated national policy with adequate resources devoted to research and development and for exploitation generally. This great industry—this great national asset—has been gradually but surely built up over many years. Tributes have been paid to those who have been responsible for these developments over the years.
Now, at this time, when there is so much doubt about the future, when the international situation has been more uncertain than for decades, the Government are to decimate it in the private interests regardless of the public overall interest. The public sector is sometimes unprofitable through having to fulfil a social and national interest role. The Government seem to want to add to their problems by deliberately forcing up costs. Noble Lords have mentioned this. The recent gas levy order that went through Parliament a few weeks ago meant that for the third year in succession domestic gas prices will be increased well above the rate of inflation. In the three years, this has meant a 100 per cent. increase in the price of domestic gas. Yet we are told from time to time by the Prime Minister and other Ministers that the higher prices in the public sector show that this is not serving the nation. But this is due to political interference by the Government themselves.
The Government are trying to force the public sector to behave in a way no private enterprise operator would behave. As my noble friend Lord Underhill has just mentioned, one can say: what firm would sell off profit-making assets such as the gas showrooms and the BGC sales of appliances while keeping the loss-making aspects to themselves? Why should British Gas have to be responsible for safety aspects of
516
appliances of which they may not approve and from which they get no profit? Will the Minister tell us whether the private sector will take on more social responsibility in this respect? Will the private sector be responsible for the safety aspects of the changes? Why should a public body have to supply pipelines for the transmission of energy to the private operator at prices decided by the Secretary of State himself, who he would admit is far from impartial in this way and, as my noble friend has said, shows a deep and bitter hatred of the public sector? Why sell off oil fields owned by British Gas or plan to terminate British Gas's right to buy more North Sea gas? How can we ensure that energy assets sold to the private sector do not fall into foreign hands or under foreign control? That, of course, is a very important question at this particular time.
On the subject of profitability, it is interesting to note that in 1980 BNOC made a profit of £315 million with prospects of rising profitability for the national interest. That is to change because the profits are in future to flow into the private sector. Then one can ask about the prices which will come from the sale of these priceless assets. With the experience of Amersham International still fresh in our minds, where millions of pounds went from the public to the private sector, what will happen to the oil and the gas sector when that is put on the market? If any commodity has to be sold regardless and not subject to a fair price, the buyer can hold the seller to ransom, and the buyer will be the private sector and the seller will be the public sector—and that means all of us.
On competition, with the immense overheads for R and D and exploration costs, the public sector will not be able to face fairly competition from the private sector where sheer profitability is to be the sole criteria. This is bound to mean higher prices for energy and fuel. It will mean less competitiveness and it will mean the dissipation of resources and no guatantee of adequate supplies in uncertain times, and a free-for-all.
Why should the Secretary of State have the immense powers which various noble Lords have referred to? I refer of course to Clause 31, which says:
"Where the Secretary of State gives directions—

(a) to the Oil Corporation under any provision of Part of this Act; or

(b) to the Gas Corporation under any provision of Part II of this Act;

it shall be the duty of that Corporation (notwithstanding any duty imposed on it by or under any enactment) to comply with the directions".
So the Secretary of State is going to be the dictator in all this. One would not mind if he had the public interest in mind instead of the private free-for-all. These are aspects which we shall want to consider in Committee.
We have had a long debate. Many noble Lords have detailed objections and criticisms of the measure. The Bill had 27 sittings in the other place, followed by the guillotine, so that much of it was not discussed. I think that we can say that, although, as is our usual way, we shall not vote against a Bill from the other place, nevertheless we feel duty bound to pursue the Committee stage constructively and responsibly so that we have a measure at the end of the day which, so far as possible, will have in mind the overriding public interest.
6.56 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I believe that this is the first major debate in this House, under the present Government, which has dealt specifically with oil and gas matters. The debate demonstrated that considerable experience and expertise of the oil and gas industries which exists in this House. Whatever our respective views are about the Bill, and very naturally there are differences both between the parties, and individual Members within each party, it has given rise to an interesting and wide-ranging debate. There have been many excellent speeches, for which I am truly grateful.
I am particularly glad that the speeches of my three noble friends have reduced my own by a good 30 minutes and I am sure that your Lordships will be glad of that as well. I agreed with my noble friend Lord Lauderdale, until he started speculating and making novel suggestions. I shall have to read very carefully what he said. This has, though, been a long debate and I propose to break with tradition in a way and probably will not deal with as many of the points raised today as I might otherwise have done. The Second Reading of the Bill is after all the time for a discussion of points of principle, and I trust that your Lordships will forgive me if I follow the inference of Lord Tanlaw's remarks and suggest that we wait until the Committee stage before we consider the detailed points of this Bill, which are often complex. Knowing Lord Bruce of Donington's sword play (to which he referred at question-time today) I look forward to the cut and thrust of debate then. I hope that he will find my remarks today a little more robust than he obviously found those of my noble friend Lord Mansfield. No doubt in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, will seek to change this curate's egg, as he called it, to what in his opinion will make a better Bill. We shall see. He may be joined either in amity or even battle by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. Again, we shall see.
Before moving on to the Bill itself, I should like to consider the subject of nationalised industries per se. I have said it before and I make no apologies for saying it again; but in my book there are only three reasons for nationalisation. These are for companies which are concerned with defence; where it is in the national interest; or where the Government in some exceptional circumstances should provide a safety net.
I am glad that my noble friend Lord Bessborough agrees basically with this. Perhaps I may quote the sentence following the one by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, to which the Opposition have taken such exception today. He said in column 169 of the Commons Official Report of 19th January, as your Lordships have so obviously noted, that the proper business of government is not the government of business. He went on to say:
"No industrial corporation should be owned and controlled by the state unless there is a positive and specific reason for such an arrangement".
That is one of the foundations of this Bill.
A few months ago I heard a speech by the noble Lord, Lord Oram, in which he might have been arguing with his noble friend Lord Bruce. He said this—and I quote from the Official Report of Wednesday, 3rd February this year, at col. 1347:
518
"I acknowledge that there are weaknesses in the public sector".
Later in the same column he said this:
"… in other words, in my view, both in terms of industrial democracy—that is, the role of the worker within the nationalised industry—and of consumer democracy, nationalisation has so far largely failed".
This Government on all fronts is actively pursuing a policy of correcting this against a background of a very deep recession and the need to limit both the size of the public sector borrowing requirement and the very real restraint imposed by the public sector borrowing requirement on the nationalised industries. In that same speech the noble Lord, Lord Oram, referred to the famous Clause 4 of the Labour Party's Constitution which calls for the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. There is nothing in this Bill which conflicts with that aim. The Government contend that common ownership does not necessarily mean state ownership. The first two parts of this Bill will give a wide spread of ownership to a previously entirely state-controlled industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, complained that Conservative governments only disposed of those industries that make a profit. I should like to turn the question back to him. When he considers my previous remarks, may I suggest that he would do well to ask himself: Why should the state continue to run industries it has no need to run? I should also like to ask him—I am sure we shall get back to this point in later discussions—whether he agrees with his noble friend Lord Balogh, who said at col. 1936 of the Official Report of 7th August 1975:
"The pattern established for the nationalised industries has not worked outstandingly well under governments of either party".
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the noble Lord wish me to answer his questions now, or is he inviting responses at some later stage?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think your Lordships would all agree that it would be better if the noble Lord considered his answer and would be good enough to give it to us at some later stage. I should now like to go on to emphasise three points about the Bill. First, the powers to dispose of BNOC's oil-producing business and to provide in the first instance for the disposal of the British Gas Corporation's North Sea oil assets are important changes. I appreciate that change, however necessary, is rarely welcome to everybody, but there is a clear need to reduce the size of the public sector. This is especially so where there is no justification for direct state involvement in oil exploration and production. It will therefore be a major step forward in reducing the size of the public sector. I have been asked about the timing, about valuation and how much the sale would raise. I must say that unless any noble Lord objects I intend to regard these as Committee points.
It is no accident that nearly all the £25–30 billion capital investment in the North Sea has come from the private sector, using the private sector's traditional methods of fund raising. That this same private sector has been enormously successful in developing the mineral assets of the North Sea cannot be questioned. Therefore, noble Lords should not under estimate the

519
scale of the investment required in the North Sea. After a period of consolidation, BNOC is quite rightly looking to expand. This calls for freedom and enterprise. The latter word is therefore in the Title of this Bill, which will achieve both objectives. The large North Sea acreage which Britoil will have will give it the potential to be one of the biggest explorers in the North Sea. While in the public sector, BNOC's financial requirements—which will not always remain within the size of its internally-generated resources—must compete with other claims on the public purse, thus stunting the spirit of enterprise. Privatisation will allow Britoil to finance its operations free of the public sector. That, I believe, is the answer to at least one of the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis. It is for that reason that the Government intend removing oil production from the state-owned BNOC and the British Gas Corporation.
We have had from the Opposition what, were my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport still Secretary of State for Energy, I would be tempted to call "howls of anguish" over the disposal of BGC's oil assets. But we are doing nothing more than what was done by the last Labour Government when it set up BNOC. Among the assets transferred at that time was the public stake in the Viking field, which had previously belonged to the National Coal Board. So, as I say, we are doing nothing new here.
However, the last Labour Government went further than this and enacted a statute, the Petroleum and Submarine Pipelines Act 1975, which in Section 12 enabled the Secretary of State to call for a report on the rationalisation of the businesses of BNOC and BGC. That Government therefore envisaged that this rationalisation would happen, including the possibility of transferring BGC's oil-producing assets. So why now, in Opposition, have they had second thoughts? Why the screams?
The business of the British Gas Corporation is the distribution and supply of gas. There can be no possible justification for its involvement in the production of oil. That this should be stopped is to BGC's advantage, in that it will enable them to concentrate on their main business, which is the supply of gas to consumers in Great Britain. That apart, in the Government's view, as I have already made clear, the job of developing offshore resources is one that should be left to the private sector.
Before leaving the subject of gas, I should like to refer to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, about asset stripping in Clause 9. The use of the term "asset stripping" in relation to the disposal powers of Clauses 9 to 11 is, I suggest, rather emotive and ignores the history of gas legislation. There is nothing fundamentally new about the provisions of these clauses. They are an extension and development of principles which have been with us for a decade. The Gas Act 1972 already gives the British Gas Corporation certain powers of disposal and gives the Secretary of State certain powers to direct BGC to carry out disposals. Disposal powers are in no sense a matter of asset stripping: rather they are a sensible recognition that there is nothing sacrosanct about the present distribution of assets, and we make no apology for our view. But at present the distribution results in an unnecessarily extensive public sector.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Minister but perhaps I might intervene on a point of clarification. The term "asset stripping" was used—he himself just used it inadvertently before mentioning my name. The money from the sale of the oil assets of the Gas Corporation will not go back into the Gas Corporation. Where will the money go? In my view, the asset has been stripped because the money has left the corporation and gone elsewhere.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as I understand it, asset stripping happens in the conventional sense—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is poised to correct me—and it occurs where one company buys another company, strips off its assets and then sells it. This cannot happen here—no, my Lords, it cannot happen.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, the noble Lord has just described it happening. I will not argue with him now: just let us let it ride at that for the time being.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord is very generous. I think perhaps I will have to take up this matter with him afterwards. He also mentioned, as did other noble Lords, the matter of steam raising through the use of gas. I should like to draw the attention of the noble Lord and of the House to Section 14 of the Energy Act 1976 which governs the use of gas in power stations and is unaffected by this Bill. Section 14 implements our obligations under an EEC directive, which expresses the premise that in general the use of gas in power stations is undesirable. While some of our EEC partners use large volumes of gas in electricity generation, we in Britain have avoided this and have used gas in power stations only where, as the noble Lord said, such use has a particular value as an interruptible supply, assisting the security of gas supplies to non-interruptible consumers. There are, in fact, two—not one—power stations which are currently taking such supplies. At present, the gas comes from the BGC, but in future it could come from private suppliers. In both cases, Section 14 of the Energy Act 1976 will apply.
Our plans fully recognise the national interest, both in terms of the Government's economic strategy and in ensuring that the nation continues to benefit from our oil and gas resources. In particular, we are retaining BNOC's trading arm under state control, together with the participation agreements which are an important element in our security of oil supplies. Here I should like to pay a tribute to the last Labour Government for setting up BNOC's trading organisation which has since its inception been extremely successful.
I should also like to take the opportunity to pay a tribute to the work of successive chairmen and deputy chairmen of BNOC, three of whom have been here in your Lordships' House this afternoon. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made it clear in another place that the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, the present chairman of the BNOC, and a man of great experience, has agreed to have a special responsibility for overseeing the interests of the trading arm of the BNOC during the privatisation exercise, as it develops in the months ahead. We are all grateful to him for this.

521
I was talking about the success of the BNOC's trading organisation just now; and, indeed, speaking from an oil industry standpoint, one oil company said in a seminar which I attended this last weekend that BNOC was often too successful. Good! In this regard it means that BNOC is making an effective contribution to the security of the nation's oil supplies.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, as the noble Lord has rightly paid tribute to various leaders of the oil and gas enterprises over the years, and to the valuable work that they have done, is that not a reason for leaving the thing alone to get on with the job it has been doing so successfully in the past decade?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, BNOC, as an entity, has been doing two jobs and we do not accept that the two jobs should continue to be done by one organisation within the public sector. I should now like to look briefly at some of the gas provisions in this Bill. The introduction of competition in place of monopoly in the purchase and supply of gas will benefit consumers, not only in the short-term, by allowing consumers, particularly large industrial consumers, a choice of suppliers, but also in the longer term by stimulating gas exploration and production.
We believe that being effectively a monopoly supplier to all types of consumers, as well as having virtual monopoly buying rights of offshore natural gas, there is a resulting air of stagnation throughout the gas industry, as illustrated by two facts. These are not only that a number of industrialists have been denied supplies even though they are willing and able to pay for them, but also that new gas industrial users have been charged a premium price for their initial three-year contract. This was mentioned by noble friends behind me. While we recognise the corporation's considerable achievements in the development of the gas industry, we believe that this has now reached a state of maturity where excessive monopoly power will be almost damaging and stifling. But we are not using unprecedented powers to deal with this.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, asked in his inimitable fashion for amplification of the comments of my honourable friend the Minister of State on pricing. One must be careful to distinguish, when discussing the future price of gas, between the effects which allegedly arise from measures contained in the Bill and those which would arise in any case. Over recent years, the gas consumer has benefited considerably from contracts negotiated by BGC before the 1973 oil crisis. Many of these contracts, at prices which by present day standards are low, are still running. Prices negotiated by BGC more recently are up to 10 times as great as pre-1973 prices. Prices to the consumer are, therefore, certain to rise as the proportion of gas from old contracts diminishes. It remains the Government's view that the measures contained in the Bill will not result in prices any higher than they would otherwise have been. Furthermore, the free competition for those suppliers outlined in this Bill will ensure that gas is supplied at a competitive price which is currently impossible to determine.
Thirdly, Part IV of the Bill contains important
522
amendments to the existing legislation on offshore safety. The Government recognise, of course, as did my noble friend Lord Bessborough, that safety is not just a matter of legislation or regulation. The state of mind of each individual worker is also highly relevant. This part of the Bill does not bring about fundamental changes in our safety practices, but it is nonetheless important for that. Naturally, as is the case with all such legislation, it has "teeth". One always hopes that they will not be needed, although it is right and proper that they should be there.
I recognise fully that the industry has invested considerable resources in safety. However, no matter how high the standard of self-regulation by industry, no Government can abrogate their responsibility for the safety of workers offshore. It would, for example, be completely unacceptable if workers housed on accommodation units did not have the same degree of protection as they receive when on drilling and production platforms. It is this thinking which underpins the proposals contained in Clause 23. My department is currently discussing with the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association the application to accommodation installations of the various regulations made under the 1971 Act and the time scale of their implementations.
My noble friend Lord Mansfield, in introducing this Bill, mentioned the Burgoyne Committee's Report on offshore safety. This was presented to Parliament in March 1980 by the then Secretary of State. It contained over 60 recommendations. The majority were of a technical nature and do not call for changes. In this Bill, we are implementing in full one of the major recommendations which called for clarification of the legal position of offshore accommodation installations under the 1971 Act.
Overall some 29 recommendations have been implemented in whole or in part. Work on some is complete; others are of the nature of a continuing remit for Department of Energy officials. Studies or consultations are under way in relation to 12 others, and there are prospects for a further 18 being implemented this year—by which time nearly 60 recommendations will have been dealt with. Therefore, nothing that is proposed in this Bill will prevent these recommendations from being put into effect.
I think that at this point I should, very quickly, clear up some misconceptions which have arisen during the course of this Second Reading debate. First, it was argued that our aim of achieving a wide spread of ownership was irrelevant, since only a small minority have an interest in shares. But the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, overlooked the importance for many ordinary people of their indirect holdings, through pension funds and other institutions, and was corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Balogh. Almost 2 million people, I am told, hold shares directly. A much larger number, possibly a majority of adults, have indirect investments in shares.
Be that as it may, what people are interested in is their own disposable income. Perhaps I should be grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, is not present to hear my homespun economics. If taxes are raised to pay for nationalised industries they will complain, because of the depression of their own disposable incomes. What about borrowings by the

523
public sector? Equally, these are taxes on the people. As my noble friend Lord Cockfield never loses an opportunity to point out, that is called inflation.
Secondly, I was asked about merchant bank advisers. I should like to make it clear that there was no truth in the press report about Rothschild's having already received £½ million for their work on the sale of shares in Britoil last year and this. The BNOC have issued a denial setting the record straight. I commend it to the noble Lord. Rothschild's are, of course, advising the BNOC. The Government's advisers for this exercise are S. G. Warburg and Company Limited. They will advise on key issues of timing and pricing. No decision has been taken on underwriting, let alone on underwriting arrangements.
Thirdly, it was said that the memorandum and articles of association were produced in another place only on the day of the Report stage. For the record, the noble Lord is not quite correct. They were made available on 12th March while the Committee stage was still in full swing, though I admit that they were received after consideration of the BNOC provisions was completed.
Another point referred to was the transfer of funds from the National Oil Account to the Consolidated Fund at the end of March. I must stress that this was a routine operation carried out in accordance with the requirements of Section 40(3) of the Petroleum and Submarine Pipelines Act 1975, an enactment of the last Government, and has nothing whatever to do with the winding up of the National Oil Account. The last Labour Government similarly transferred £75 million from the National Oil Account to the Consolidated Fund on 23rd March 1979. The sums have increased since then, largely because the flow of cash into the National Oil Account has grown with increased royalty receipts.
To sum up, we believe that what we are proposing provides fresh challenges and opportunities for the oil and gas industries. I believe that the principles underlying what we are proposing are sound and deserve the full support of your Lordships. If I may answer the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, I believe that this is the time to introduce the Bill. There is no time like the present, we are told. Furthermore, I believe that in one respect the Bill is already having an effect, even though it is not on the statute book. I referred earlier to the fact that new industrial gas users have been charged a premium price for their initial three-year contract. A typical price up to a month ago was 48p per therm. I have heard in the last three days of a new contract being made for 30·5p per therm—in other words, the normal non-premium price. This is an average decrease of over 30 per cent. in the price of a new contract. It is a remarkable achievement, and I therefore have no hesitation in asking your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading tonight.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Legal Aid Bill [H.L.]
7.22 p.m.
Read a third time with the amendments.
Clause 1 [Advice and assistance by duty solicitors]:
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 8, leave out ("barristers or") and insert ("persons practising as barristers or as").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 1 which is intended to give effect to a suggestion made at an earlier stage by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in order to widen membership of the duty solicitor scheme. It was pointed out that the wording of the amendments, as drafted in the text, would have prevented barristers and solicitors who are not in practice from being additional members of the committees. We think that they should not be excluded, and that is the effect of the amendment which I now propose.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, may I express my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 15, leave out ("barristers or") and insert ("persons practising as barristers or as").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) A magistrates' court shall comply with such directions given to it by the Lord Chancellor as he thinks requisite for securing that effect is given at that court to any such arrangements as are mentioned in subsection (4) above.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, we have had two useful discussions on the subject of the duty solicitor scheme. Both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, expressed some anxiety about a reluctance on the part of some courts to permit this scheme. I have now drafted an amendment, in co-operation with parliamentary counsel, which I feel gives sufficient effect to the anxieties which were expressed. It is in effect an enabling power, because it puts the obligation to make any directions which may be made under the amendment on to the Lord Chancellor of the time. It is therefore a power kept in reserve. It will not solve every problem. For instance, it will not solve the problem of accommodation. However, it will enable the Lord Chancellor of the day to retain a desirable element of compulsion behind his velvet glove which I hope will always remain firmly in place. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for acceding to the suggestion which emanated from more than one part of the House that the provisions for duty solicitors in magistrates' courts should be sufficient to enable them to do their work effectively and to have access to those seeking their aid and, generally, that there should be arrangements to enable them competently to perform their work. The value of the work of duty solicitors is recognised not only in your Lordships' House but generally. We are grate-

525
ful for the willingness of the noble and learned Lord to keep a watchful eye particularly on those courts where, for one reason or another, discouragement has been addressed in the direction of the introduction of the duty solicitors scheme. I will not say that I hope the noble and learned Lord's beady eye will be cast upon the magistrates' courts, but I hope that his beneficial supervision, which is contemplated in the provisions of this amendment, will strengthen the position of duty solicitors and will meet the anxieties that were expressed. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord—
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I apologise to the noble and learned Lord. I said "I beg to move", accustomed as I am to making suggestions which are sometimes not accepted by the noble and learned Lord. However, he has been most helpful during the course of the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, even for his description of my eye as being of a slightly heady character— which I am not sure is accurate. At any rate, the noble and learned Lord might well have begged to move because he was very largely the moving spirit behind the present amendment, and I am very grateful to him for the help he has given.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Appeals against refusal of legal aid order
. The Lord Chancellor may make such regulations as appear to him necessary or desirable to provide that an appeal shall lie against a refusal by a magistrates' court to make a legal aid order under section 28(2) of the principal Act and as to the manner of making such appeals.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment we considered in Committee and at the Report stage, though in a somewhat different form. It arises out of the importance we attach to the need for some appellate machinery to exist to enable those who have been refused the opportunity of legal aid to appeal against the decision. What has emerged in our consideration of this matter is the remarkable disparity of treatment of such applications as between one magistrates' court and another. Indeed, it has seemed from time to time that whether or not the applicant gets legal aid depends more on which petty sessional court area he lives in than on the needs and justice of the particular case.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor helpfully analysed some possible explanations of the disparity but at the end of the day one was left with the feeling that the system as it works at the moment is not right and that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction about it. Accordingly, we initially proposed that there should be a right of appeal to the Crown court against refusals of legal aid applications. I readily concede that the burdens placed upon the Crown courts are already almost intolerable and I am aware of the anxiety that I felt, when I was in the position now held by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, about the
526
blockage caused and the delay in bringing cases for trial because of the burden of work in the Crown courts. Certainly, we would not want to add to that problem. That is the reason why we did not fight strenuously against the refusal of the first idea—that the appeal should be to the Crown court. But that some form of appeal should exist is, we feel, of very great importance. That is the view of the Bar and of the Law Society. In the proposed amendment, we have left the matter for the Lord Chancellor to make such regulations as appear to him to be necessary or desirable to provide that an appeal shall lie against a refusal by a magistrates' court to make a legal aid order.
When we last discussed this matter, I expressed the hope that the Easter Recess might give the noble and learned Lord's mind time to address itself sympathetically to this matter. I cannot claim that that recess has given him much opportunity for peace of mind, if I may say so with great sadness, but I hope to hear good news from the Woolsack on this matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I entirely agree with the spirit of this amendment but I do not agree with the amendment itself. During the passage of this Bill and during the discussion on this particular amendment, my latent conscience has been very much awoken because I fear that, during the many years when a clerk would come to me and ask whether such and such a person should or should not be granted legal aid because of the facts before me, possibly I may have made a wrong decision. That is why I should like the possibility of an appeal against a decision, although perhaps not put into the Act itself.
I do not like the wording of this particular amendment. I should like to suggest, even at this late hour of the debate on this particular amendment, that the new Legal Aid Committee which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has introduced into this Bill should be used for appeals of this kind. I believe it right that there should be the possibility of appeals but I am afraid I do not agree with this particular amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I invite your Lordships to consider very briefly two questions? The first is, how can regulations provide for an appeal against refusal when, first of all, the grant is discretionary and, secondly, when there are no settled principles upon which such a grant is to be given? Neither Clause 2 of the Bill nor Clause 28(2) of the principal Act are anything other than discretionary.
The second question is, would your Lordships not think that it would be wrong on any showing, notwithstanding such discrepancies as may exist, to have a re-hearing de novo? This subjects the magistrates' court to a type of revisory procedure which does not obtain in other courts. It would mean substituting the discretion of the revisory court for that of the magistrates, and that, in my submission, would be undesirable as reflecting on the competence of the magistrates, and would be wrong.
Does it not come to this? The proposed amendment, by its drafting, recognises that the grant should be

527
discretionary. It is plain, is it not, that there are no settled principles upon which the exercise of discretion should run. It is wrong that you should have a rehearing de novo by way of appeal, and therefore, in present circumstances, would it not be preferable, I respectfully suggest, that the amendment should he rejected?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I shall deal very briefly with the points which have been raised during the course of what we all hope will be a short but meaningful debate. In the first place, we all welcome the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve. We well know of her experience in the courts. She very kindly gives us the benefit of that experience when these matters arise. We welcome, obviously, not only her latent conscience but also her patent conscience, which made her feel (if I may refer those remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway) that possibly on occasions she may have made the wrong decision. I am perfectly sure that when the noble Baroness has made a decision she has done so with a very good heart. But there are some cases which practitioners have come across in many courts where the good heart has been absent and where many a needy person who ought to have received legal aid has not got it, but of whom it has been said by my noble and learned friend in another court that he would have got it without any doubt at all. That is just the sort of exercise of discretion, if I may use the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, where an appeal is necessary.
If one did have fixed rules and regulations, one would not need to have an appeal because everyone could see what the regulations were, what the limits were, and whether or not a correct decision had been made. The noble Baroness was in doubt about one thing, if I understood her correctly. It was the type of tribunal that ought to hear this appeal. It is precisely in the hope that the noble and learned Lord will appreciate the openess of this amendment that it was worded in this way. The tribunal is not set out in this amendment. It leaves complete discretion for regulations to be made after proper thought and deliberation as to which tribunal should hear this appeal; but that an appeal should lie is obviously only just in these circumstances.
Lord Gardiner: My Lords, I ventured to say in earlier stages of this Bill that this amendment was one that needed careful consideration. In answer to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I wonder if he appreciates that this is a form of social welfare, and that it is the only form of social walfare regarding which there is no appeal against refusal of the grant. The basic facts are unchanged. It cannot be right that you are eight times less likely to get legal aid in Highgate than you are in Hampstead. The noble and learned Lord suggested that some degree of variation might be due to the fact that different courts had different classes of criminals before them. That undoubtedly is so, but it cannot account for cases of that kind. The same is true of Reading and Slough; and what about the remarkable case of Waltham Forest, where in March of last year the refusal rate on applications for legal aid was 5 per cent. and by September it was 25 per cent.? These courts need guidance.
528
The Waltham Forest case, as no doubt the noble and learned Lord knows, was due to the fact that in March of last year a new clerk to the justices was appointed. It was his first post in that position and he was a young man who perhaps took too seriously and enthusiastically a circular he received from the Lord Chancellor's office, to such good effect that the refusal rate was raised from 5 per cent. to 25 per cent. in the six months between March and September. I think that the degree of disparity is becoming a public scandal and something must be done about it. I believe that this proposal is the midest form in which it could be provided for, and l hope very much that the noble and learned Lord will be disposed to accept the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very grateful to all who have taken part in this pleasant and rather desirably concise debate. The noble and learned Lord who proposed the amendment said he hoped for good news. The best I can offer is that I hope there will not be bad news, not very bad news at any rate. As I think I pointed out in earlier discussions we have had on the same subject, I do not find this a very easy subject, nor am I implacably opposed to some of the thinking behind the amendment, but I am unattracted to this particular amendment in the particular form in which it is put forward.
As regards divergences between courts—we have been into this before—I quite agree that the courts need guidance whether or not this amendment is passed. I do not doubt that for a moment. I am trying to give it to them after I have ascertained the facts. I promised that before, and I do so again. I do not think the question of guidance completely solves the question because in the end you need a sanction of some kind, and I am very conscious of the kind of point which my noble friend Lord Campbell put forward.
I should rather like to explain, first of all, how my mind is working and then perhaps ask the noble Lord if he would possibly consider giving me indulgence. One does not usually ask for further time to consider a matter after Third Reading, but it is going to another place and so there will be ample opportunity. I would like to explain what it is I am thinking about. I think I have made it plain enough on the earlier discussions we had that I am not attracted to the proposition that we should give an appeal either to the Crown court or to any judicial body against a refusal by magistrates' courts for purely summary offences, because one of two things must ultimately be true in that class of case: either the verdict is one of acquittal or the penalty so slight that when the result is known the applicants will not be inclined to pursue the appeal for legal aid, or it is very serious, either by way of custodial sentence or a verdict of guilty at which they feel aggrieved, in which case they will wish to pursue their appeal to the Crown court, which is by way of a total rehearing and where the refusal rate is something under 10 per cent; I think it is probably rather smaller than that; well over 90 per cent. of applications for legal aid are granted. The fact of the matter is that it would turn out to be a fifth wheel to the coach if there had to be two resorts to the Crown court, one appealing against refusal of legal aid and the other appealing against the verdict when it comes. I would far rather leave that sort of matter where it stands for the moment.

529
The second point is that, where the thing is going for trial to the Crown court in any event, whether because the case is a hybrid one and is sent for trial or because the case is indictable only, again I think that, in the case where there would now be a double order, if any, there is very little advantage in doing what is now proposed. But I do see that, in the case where there would be, as we wish to encourage, a through order covering both committal and indictable proceedings, there is something to he said for further recourse.
I deliberately used the word "recourse" in the earlier stage of our discussions on this matter and not the word "appeal". I did so for a particular reason. The thought that was crossing my mind was not quite the same as but rather similar to that of my noble friend Lady Macleod. One of the difficulties about the grant or refusal of legal aid in these cases is that a body granting or refusing legal aid will very often come to a different conclusion if it knows the nature of the case which the legal aid applicant wants to present. The legal aid applicant is very slow to present the case he wants to present on an application for legal aid for the precise reason that he is afraid that it may get about to the body which may try the case. That I think is a very real difficulty.
I then took advice of Parliamentary Counsel about this amendment, because it was an enabling power and because it could be said against me that an enabling power was a very harmless kind of animal and therefore I need not use the powers if given them. But I was then told by Parliamentary Counsel that, if I accepted this amendment as drafted, I should not be able to refer cases of refusal to a committee of any kind because it would not strictly speaking be an appeal; it would be something which could be called recourse against refusal. My thought at the moment is that, before this Bill reaches the Statute Book, there may be classes of case in which in certain circumstances I would wish to allow an unsuccessful applicant for aid before the magistrates' court recourse to some of the committees which do dispense legal aid.
This is not a promise. I have found this an intractable problem. It will not be an alternative to guidance, because guidance will be necessary in any case in order to create some body of doctrine about the principles on which legal aid is granted or refused by magistrates, and indeed by other courts, in addition to, or supplementary to and more than, the so-called Widgery criteria, which are somewhat imprecise and which will, I think, need amplification and sophistication after the experience we have had.
My thought would be that if the noble and learned Lord will not press this tonight, I will give it further thought. That is the good part of the news. The bad part is that I am not prepared to accept this particular amendment in the form in which it is drafted. I hope I have gone some way to help, though not all the way to give complete satisfaction.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I wonder if I could encourage the noble and learned Lord to go a little further. I take the point that the words, "an appeal shall lie" contemplate a court procedure and not the possible informality of a committee procedure by a competent body that might he set up under the direction of the noble and learned Lord. I wonder whether
530
he would be better disposed to the amendment if it were to read,
"The Lord Chancellor may make such regulations as appear to him necessary or desirable to provide for a review procedure against a refusal".
of a magistrates' court to make a legal aid order. That would get round the formal language of, "an appeal shall lie" and might provide the very flexibility that the noble and learned Lord and the noble Baroness were suggesting was desirable. We contemplated in the drafting of the clause that there should be a fairly free rein to be held by the Lord Chancellor in dealing with this problem. I wonder whether he would be disposed to give an encouraging response to that suggestion, so that when the message goes to another place it would have his qualified blessing, or preferably his unqualified blessing.
In view of the lateness of the hour, I do not think it is necessary to re-cover ground that has been debated twice before. I do not think we had the advantage of the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, on previous occasions. If I may say so, he gave me the impression of not taking on board the seriousness of the kind of discrepancy that my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner mentioned, which is giving general concern. But one of the difficulties, which my noble friend beside me mentioned earlier, is that the readier availability of legal aid in the Crown Court is resulting in more cases going to the Crown Court for the very reason that the chance of getting legal aid in the magistrates' court is so much less. So the effect of increasing the availability of legal aid in the magistrates' court might well reduce the burden on the Crown Court. I put that forward as a factor to be considered.
However, the critical matter—I hope that I am not pressing the noble and learned Lord too much—is whether the noble and learned Lord will go a little further than he has gone and indicate acceptance of some amendment, which obviously I am not in a position to move tonight, on the lines which I have suggested in my own amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I can only utter by permission, which I hope I receive. I do not know that I can go very much further tonight. I take on board the kind of point which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has just made because it would cover, or might cover, the point which I made in my remarks a few moments ago. As the noble and learned Lord knows, I am under various constraints and have to acquire certain consents and concurrences before I can make more than a qualified promise. What I can promise is that this matter will be considered along with others. The noble and learned Lord will not, of course, be oblivious of the fact that I have in the legal aid field various other causes to promote and they may have a higher priority for me than this and, indeed, in the interests of justice. I shall not go into any greater detail than that.
As regards the noble and learned Lord's last point, it is said that some cases go for trial owing to the chance that the Crown Court will be more generous in legal aid. I am not quite sure how far this genuine belief, which is held in some quarters, is correct because, of course, if one goes to the Crown Court in a hybrid

531
case—and it will only apply in hybrid cases—one can, of course, receive a bigger sentence and sometimes one does so. This is one of the countervailing factors which sometimes operate as regards the less optimistic type of defendant. But at any rate I am not unfavourable to the noble and learned Lord's suggestion. I would rather he did not press me to give an unqualified undertaking tonight. It was a nice idea of his to give effect to my point and certainly his suggestion is well worth considering. I do not want to be more hopeful than that, but I shall do my best to see that it is properly considered.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I am naturally most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I am bound to say that I was a little dismayed by the low priority which he seemed to be giving in his final observations to what is proposed. Of course, there are many other things that need to be done. But I cannot repeat too emphatically the feeling that this right of appeal is an essential need in the whole legal aid set-up. My noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner has indicated its unique position as an important branch of social welfare and the only part of it where there is no form of recourse—to use the word mentioned by the noble and learned Lord—least of all an appeal. I am bound to confess that the slight weakening in the final phrase of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said, tempts me to test the feeling of the House. However, there is not an abundant number of noble Lords present, and so I count upon the goodwill of the noble and learned Lord to see that what we have represented in various parts of the House on this matter will be effectively conveyed to another place. In these circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
An amendment (privilege) made.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. Perhaps I ought to say "thank you" to all those who have played a part in these discussions because I am very grateful to them. If it were a little earlier I would have thanked them at greater length. I think that we have improved the Bill together, and I hope that all noble Lords who, in all parts of the House, have played a part, will feel that they have had their due meed of attention from the Government, at any rate on this Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I should like to express gratitude on behalf of those who have been present during the various stages of the Bill, for the assistance that we have received from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, both by way of explanation and occasionally by way of concession, although not as often, of course, as we should like. What Opposition has ever been pleased fully by what has gone on?
We take pleasure in some of the important changes that were made—for instance, the provision in Clause 7(3) of the Bill, that where the revocation of
532
an order is contemplated, the person affected shall have:
"an opportunity of making representations",
before such revocation is made. The additional presence of three more lay persons on the new committee which is to administer the system of legal aid, is a valuable addition in increasing perhaps public confidence in the set-up, and providing for the consumer interests—that I think is the fashionable phrase. And in other respects also there have been improvements as a result of the suggestions that emanated from the Opposition, and indeed, other parts of the House.
It is a temptation to go further, but I note also the time of the clock and accordingly wish good progress in another place to this Bill, which is a helpful Bill in a very important social field.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for what he has said. I shall do my best "to continue to give satisfaction", as Jeeves might have said.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  ROTHIEMURCHUS: PINEWOOD GRANT LAND AND SSSI CRITERIA
  ROTHIEMURCHUS: PINEWOOD GRANT LAND AND SSSI CRITERIA
  THE MEDITERRANEAN ACTION PLAN
  THE MEDITERRANEAN ACTION PLAN
  ILEA SCHOOLS: ETHNIC MINORITIES
  ILEA SCHOOLS: ETHNIC MINORITIES
  LEAD IN PETROL: CHILDREN'S HEALTH
  LEAD IN PETROL: CHILDREN'S HEALTH
  REMEDIAL GYMNASTICS SCHOOL, WOOLWICH
  REMEDIAL GYMNASTICS SCHOOL, WOOLWICH
  ANIMALS: ILLEGAL POISONING
  ANIMALS: ILLEGAL POISONING
  GIBRALTAR: THE LISBON STATEMENT
  GIBRALTAR: THE LISBON STATEMENT