Sitting of 2 December 1982

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  HAMPSHIRE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 9 December.

  TRADE
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of Statistics relating to Overseas Trade of the United Kingdom for the year 1983 and for each month during 1983.—[Mr. Peter Rees.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Farm Expenditure
    Sir David Priceasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of farm expenditure is attributable to rates paid on domestic hereditaments on farms.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): The estimated rates attributable to farm businesses represented one quarter of 1 per cent. of farm expenditure in 1981.
    Sir David Price: What would be the effect on farm incomes, and ultimately on food prices, if the ill-considered proposal of the Select Committee on the Environment to rate agricultural buildings and the even more ill-considered proposal of NALGO to rate agricultural land were brought into effect?
    Mr. Walker: There would obviously be an impact on prices, and farm incomes would be reduced. There would also be a substantial increase in the bureaucracy required. That is why the Government will have nothing to do with agricultural re-rating.
    Mr. Buchan: Conservative Members are so predictable that I presume that the question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was really directed at the Opposition spokesman on agriculture, fisheries and food. I wish to make it clear—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) is here to ask questions, not to answer them.
    Mr. Buchan: I believed it to be an implied question, Mr. Speaker.
    380
    Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Labour Party's position, which is being criticised at the moment, is that the cost to a local community of the loss of potential rating power should be borne not by the local community but by the community as a whole and therefore should be charged by the local authority and the amount assessed in the annual assessment of farming costs, thus adding it to the equation in that way?
    Mr. Walker: If the Labour Party wishes to go through that process, it is welcome to do so. It would not be popular with the local community, local farmers, British agriculture, or anybody else.
    Sir Peter Mills: Does my right hon. Friend agree that to change the rating system would be wise, but unfortunate and unwise for the consumer? Will he confirm that the Labour Party's policy is to rate agricultural buildings?
    Mr. Walker: I cannot be responsible for the Labour Party's policy, which, in fairness to the Labour Party. it must be said varies every few months. The Conservative Party will have nothing to do with the re-rating of agricultural land.
    Mr. Cryer: Reference has been made to a Select Committee of the House. Has the right hon. Gentleman read a book by his hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body), which points out that farmers have received a considerable amount of public expenditure in the form of subsidies? Since that is the view of Members from both sides of the House, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that farmers should make a contribution by paying rates on agricultural buildings?
    Mr. Walker: I disagree with the premise and argument of my hon. Friend's book. The argument about world prices, irrespective of the volume of purchase, is incorrect. I notice that support for the book has come from elements in the Tory press and the Ulster Unionist Party with who my hon. Friend would not normally agree.
    It is based on a distinct, passionate anti-European feeling. I personally applaud an industry which currently has an inflation rate on food prices as low as 4·9 per cent., where increases in farm gate prices have been lower than increases in food prices and retail prices, and where this year our balance of payments will be £1,700 million better than if we did not have such a successful industry.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We have spent five minutes on question No. 1. We shall have to move more quickly.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Dykesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has had any recent discussions with his European Economic Community counterparts on the prospects of reinforcing the threshold quota system for the main common agricultural policy products.
    Mr. Peter Walker: No, Sir. The application of the guarantee threshold arrangements next year will be a matter for discussion in the context of the 1983 agricultural price fixing.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend feel confident that we can build on what is decided and create a system of almost automatic price reductions for items that are in chronic and recurring surplus? Is this not a means of reassuring those whose opinion, but for this issue, would not necessarily be anti-EEC?
    Mr. Walker: Yes. There are areas where the main element, based on calculations of current income yields from production and improvements in productivity in Europe, should be price stability. That is why the Government have consistently pursued policies that have produced far more stable prices in Europe and Britain than those that prevailed under our predecessors. We shall continue that process in the forthcoming price-fixing.
    Mr. Hudson Davies: Will the Minister give an undertaking that he will emphasise the need for a reduction in the quota intervention price rather than an increase in the co-responsibility levy, which would be less favourable to the British producer?
    Mr. Walker: Yes. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It makes more sense to keep the price low and to encourage consumption than to put up the price and have a co-responsibility levy, which discourages consumption.
    Mr. Deakins: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to strengthen the protective mechanisms of the CAP in regard to threshold prices in the forthcoming price negotiations? Is he aware that these mechanisms almost disrupted and sabotaged the recent GATT negotiations?
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman refers to the damage caused to the GATT negotiations. The United States provides substantial public funds for agricultural production. The system of most of the Western world, based on the desire to ensure stability of food supplies, is an important factor. I prefer to live in Western Europe with its system of stability and adequacy of food supplies than in Eastern Europe with its inadequacy of food supplies.
    Mr. John Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recent high barley crop has caused the Community to limit the import from third countries of all high-starch products? Is he aware that this has the unfortunate side effect of limiting imports of yams from the West Indies, which will have an adverse effect in the new year, if licences are revoked, on the trade that supplies ethnic minorities in this country?
    Mr. Walker: I shall investigate the matter. Yams are subject to the import quota arrangements introduced earlier this year for manioc. Imports within the quota attract a 6 per cent. ad valorem duty. Once the quota is exhausted, all products are liable to the full barley levy. I shall look into any problems that my hon. Friend brings to my attention.

    Lyons Maid Factory
    Mr. Parryasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has received any representations from the edible oil industry on Merseyside concerning the Lyons Maid factory.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): No, Sir.
    Mr. Parry: I thank the Minister for his reply. The closure of the Lyons Maid factory will represent a reduction of only 2,000 tonnes of edible oil a year on Merseyside, but is the Minister aware that there will be further job losses in an area that can ill afford them? Will he give a clear assurance that the Government intend to defend the edible oil industry against any EC regulations that could bring about more unemployment?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I share the hon. Gentlman's concern about the closure of this factory. It is a wholly commercial decision by the company concerned. On Merseyside overall it should not have any dramatic effect. The amount of edible oil involved is 500 tonnes a year—not all of it from Merseyside—compared with a total production of over 200,000 tonnes. It is not all that significant. However, any loss of jobs is significant.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned the possibility of a Community tax on the import of such oils from outside the Community. This was suggested a year ago. We strongly opposed it then and shall do so again if it is proposed in future.

    Foreign Fishing Vessels
    Mr. Hicksasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has that foreign fishing vessels are being registered as United Kingdom vessels for the purpose of fishing in United Kingdom waters; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am seriously concerned that some 60 ex-foreign, mainly Spanish, vessels have now registered under the British flag and are fishing in United Kingdom and Commmunity waters. Together with my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade I am urgently examining ways of eding this apparent evasion of Community restrictions on third country vessels.
    Mr. Hicks: Is it envisaged that United Kingdom law will be amended in the near future to prevent this real and growing threat to our fishermen, especially in the South-West? Alternatively, is the possibility of achieving a quick and effective solution more likely to follow an approach to the Commission with a view to the introduction of a regulation aimed at controlling and preventing the development of this practice?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I assure my hon. Friend that I shall not reject any opportunity to try to deal with the matter.
    In regard to primary legislation, the issue is extremely complicated. There is no simple solution. The basic legislation is embodied in the initial Merchant Shipping Act 1894, which has implications far beyond fishing vessels.
    Administratively, we have had success in a number of directions. Together with the Commission in Brussels, we are considering other ways which I hope will prove more effective in the shorter term. I also have under consideration one or two other measures.
    Mr. Maclennan: Will the Minister give an assurance that none of the £15 million of Government aid will go to any of those 60 vessels?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes. I am delighted to give that assurance. My right hon. Friend made it clear yesterday that the Government are excluding from the temporary aid scheme those vessels which do not meet the requirement that 75 per cent. of the crew are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom on 27 October. This is one example of how, administratively, we are making sure that the abuse is contained.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the main difficulty in amending the 1894 Act is that

    383
    the Spanish are largely using the proper system for registering British vessels? Is not the quickest way of achieving reform to bring in a regulation within the EEC?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. He has greater legal knowledge than I. There is no doubt that the fundamental redrawing of the legislation presents certain difficulties, especially in the short term. We shall therefore use every other means available to us. There should be some possibility of taking action, particularly through secondary legislation.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the Opposition are prepared to expedite either fundamental legal change or any statutory instrument that may be required?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. I sense that throughout the House there is support for the action taken by the Government and for any other action that we may consider necessary.

    Cattle and Sheep
    Mr. Mylesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to alter certification arrangements for live cattle and sheep.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: No, Sir.
    Mr. Myles: Will my right hon. Friend give a clear assurance that he has no plans at present to certify all fat animals at point of slaughter?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes, Sir.

    Butter
    Mr Knoxasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent the United Kingdom is self-sufficient in butter; and how this compares with the position in 1979.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Production of butter represented 57 per cent. of total new supplies in 1980, which is the most recent year for which complete information is available. In 1979 it was 47 per cent.
    Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this increasing self-sufficiency in butter is a tribute to the British farming industry? Is he satisfied that British dairy farmers are being adequately rewarded for this improvement?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The figures show that dairy farmers—through their efficiency, good management and for other reasons—have increased production. I believe that they are being sufficiently rewarded. It is significant that, over the past year, partly for climatic reasons, there has been a further increase in production. The contribution made by dairy farmers is creditable.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Has the Minister any plans to persuade his counterparts in Europe to sell our butter surpluses to the Third world, not to the Russians?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are provisions under the food aid programme for aid to be given. In that general programme the United Kingdom plays its part.
    Mr. Jay: Does the Minister agree that one of the benefits of Common Market membership is that the United
    384
    Kingdom taxpayer is again having to subsidise exports of butter to the Soviet Union at about one-third of the price that we pay for it?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman also welcomes the fact that the United Kingdom consumer already receives a subsidy throughout the year and that over the Christmas period there will be an even greater subsidy.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is still substantial room for enhancement in butter self-sufficiency by the United Kingdom dairy industry? Will he apply the same constructive approach to the marketing of butter as he has towards other commodities?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Although we have improved our self-sufficiency in butter, we are not completely self-sufficient, but the dairy industry is also a considerable exporter. It says a great deal for some of the firms involved, not least the Milk Marketing Board, that we have had success in exporting not only outside the Community but into the Community.
    Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question put to him by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) about the general export of surplus butter? Will he confirm that during the period when the sale of butter from the EC was banned by a decision of Ministers the Commission, over a four-year period, continued to sell food, including butter, to Eastern Europe? If so, will the Minister deplore it?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: At the behest of the British Government, the Commission, under the procedures of its management committee—which are the same as they were when the Labour Government were in office—suspended sales for a period. It is difficult to know the eventual destination of some exports, because they can be traded to other countries. That may have happened in recent years. It certainly happened under the Labour Government.

    Chrysanthemums
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smithasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further representations he has had about the importation of Dutch chrysanthemums infected with chrysanthemum white rust fungus; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I have received representations from the National Farmers Union and individual growers. As I have previously made clear, I have decided to allow the new Dutch control measures an opportunity to prove themselves, but if they are not effective I shall impose a ban immediately.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am delighted to hear what my right hon. Friend has said. Is he aware that eradication is a tenable policy only if all loopholes are closed, and that the Dutch plant growers have a disastrous track record?
    Mr. Walker: I am aware that the only way to eradicate the disease is to prevent any imports which cause its spread. The Dutch Government are fully aware of this. I have informed them in writing that if there are any further examples of white rust being imported from Holland, an immediate ban will take place.
    Mr. Newens: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the danger of the spread of this disease to our own plants by lorries that have carried infected blooms subsequently visiting nurseries owned by our growers? In those circumstances, why is he taking a risk by allowing imports to continue? We know that under the present system blooms infected with white rust are able to enter this country.
    Mr. Walker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that such imports must be prevented and stopped. However, the Dutch Government have put in a new system of surveillance which they claim will prevent any further exports to this country containing white rust. If that claim proves to be false and there is another import of white rust, I shall put an immediate ban on all imports.
    Mr. John Wells: The House welcomes my right hon. Friend's use of the word "immediate", but there is immediate and immediate. How quickly from the import of dirty material is "immediate"?
    Mr. Walker: Immediate.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: Has the Minister received evidence that on 3 November a consignment was imported from Holland to Covent Garden, some of which was sent to Hampshire and then to Gateshead, and that on 9 November 120 badly infected boxes were intercepted? How immediate is that immediacy?
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman should be clear that the system agreed by the Dutch has only recently been introduced. The consignment that he mentions, which was known to me, was not subject to the new system of inspection. The Dutch Government have been informed that their new system will be tested and that, if there are any examples of white rust, there will be an immediate ban.

    Green Pound
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present value of the green pound.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The present value of the green pound is 1·61641 European currency units.
    Mr. Miller: In view of the considerable benefits to the country from the improvement of the balance of trade in agricultural products, which affects all in the agriculture industry at a time of considerable difficulty and lack of profitability—except perhaps recently to those in the grain sector—will my hon. Friend confirm that there will be no change in the green pound?
    Mr. Walker: We are correct to pursue our green pound policy, which is in the interests of our balance of payments and of British agriculture. If the Labour Party's proposals to devalue the currency by 30 per cent. were implemented there would be negative MCAs of 33 per cent., which would be pretty destructive of British agriculture.
    Mr. Maclennan: Now that the transition of Community prices has been completed, and as inflation rates are somewhat more stable, do the Government agree that the time has come—at least from the agricultural point of view—to enter the European monetary system and thus assist farmers who are nervous about the pressure that will be put on this Government, and no doubt future Governments, about the green pound?
    Mr. Walker: That matter should be put to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not to me.
    With regard to the general operation of the green pound and the MCA system, I point out that under the Labour Government, when there were negative MCAs virtually the whole time, the cost of food went up by about 122 per cent. During the period of this Government, when there have been positive MCAs most of the time, the cost of food has gone up by 32 per cent.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the recent increase in the volume of exports is largely due to the fact that the MCAs are positive and that if there were substantial devaluation of the type recommended by the Opposition it would be wholly destructive to the pigmeat industry?
    Mr. Walker: Such a policy would certainly do great damage to the pigmeat industry. In 1978, the last calendar year of the Labour Government, imports were increasing and exports were decreasing. Under this Government, imports are decreasing and exports are increasing.
    Mr. Newens: Before the right hon. Gentleman decides to attack devaluation or anything of this type, will he recognise the great damage that has been done to agriculture and many other sectors of our economy by the very high interest rates that have been necessary to maintain the pound at existing parities?
    Mr. Walker: I know that the hon. Gentleman rejoices in the fact that interest rates have come down so much over the past year. I am sure that if he looks at the performance of British agriculture in terms of production, export, import saving and everything else he will know what a creditable and superb record it is.

    Fishing Fleet
    Mr. McNamaraasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now make a statement on his proposed aid to the Hull deep sea fishing fleet.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The form of the special £15 million aid is set out in a statutory instrument which was laid before the House yesterday.
    Mr. McNamara: I am well aware of that, but that is not an answer to my question. I asked what specific aid the Government are to give to the whole deep sea fleet. What part of the temporary life belt that has been thrown to the fleet will go to Hull and the deep sea fleet generally? When will the right hon. Gentleman announce measures to rebuild the deep sea fleet to ensure that we have adequate catches from third country waters and Hull can be a viable port again?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I cannot say how much aid will go to Hull. It depends on the number of applications that are received from Hull and how many of those applications are eligible and approved. I expect that about £800,000 is likely to go to Hull, judging by the way in which the money has been distributed in previous schemes. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that under the last three schemes, including this one, about £3·6 million has gone to Hull. We have already entered into informal discussions with the industry on future restructuring. We hope to have more formal discussions shortly on the future structure of the United Kingdom fishing fleet.
    Sir Patrick Wall: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Humberside distant water fleet has been compensated for its loss of third country fishing grounds? If not, will my right hon. Friend give that matter further consideration?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As my hon. Friend knows, the loss of third country waters was a considerable factor in the European negotiations and a positive element in the calculation of the quotas. Therefore, that was a real part of the negotiations. In the interim, various arrangements for fishing—for example, sectoral quotas, which the freezer sector of the British fleet alone has enjoyed, and access to the herring fishery, which that sector of the fleet did not have previously—show that we have not ignored the needs of the distant water fleet, particularly the Hull fleet.
    Mr. James Johnson: Bearing in mind that the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister are kept well informed of the battle that we in Hull, from the Lord Mayor downwards, are putting up to salvage our deep sea fleet, will the Minister say something about our share of decent quotas in Arctic waters? What are the possibilities of our ships fishing in Antarctic waters in the South Atlantic? Will the Minister say something about the work that he is doing to save the Humber research laboratory in my constituency? All those things are important, as is aid for the consortium and co-operative of the city council and the workers, dockers and others in the Hull Landing Company on the dock.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I was glad to have the opportunity yesterday to meet representatives of the industry from Hull. We had full and useful discussions with them. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the loss of distant water opportunities seriously affected Hull and other deep water ports. I am sure he will welcome the fact that, in the final stages of the negotiations on the common fisheries policy, we negotiated an extra 3,000 tonnes of Greenland cod above the original offer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that. It shows our concern for his section of the industry.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the Minister verify that the industry, both deep sea and near water, urgently needs a restructuring plan and aid? Vessels are earning enough money to keep going, but not to pay off debts or to finance new investment. There is an urgent need to ease the burden of dock charges on the industry so that British ports can compete for landings on equal terms with Continental ports.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands the problems of the fishing industry. One of the big problems of long-term structural planning is knowing precisely what the fishing opportunities will be. Once we have established what they will be, both in our waters and in third country waters, we can sensibly plan the structure of the fleet. Therefore, if as we hope, we have a common fisheries policy within sight, I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's support.

    Food Prices
    Mr. Jayasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the percentage increases in
    388
    United Kingdom retail food prices in the most recent five-year period; and in the periods 31 January 1968 to 31 December 1972 and 31 January 1973 to 31 December 1977, respectively.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The increases were as follows:

    Per cent.

    January 1968-January 1973

    49

    January 1973-January 1978

    136

    October 1977-October 1982

    54

    The right hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that over the past two years the increase has been only 14·3 per cent., and over the past year only 4·9 per cent.
    Mr. Jay: Do not those figures clearly show that the exceptionally steep rise in food prices in the four years after 1972 was due to the adoption of the common agricultural policy?
    Mr. Walker: Unfortunately for the right hon. Gentleman, as he should recall, the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my predecessor, announced a few months before the election that only 10 per cent. of the 100 per cent. rise in prices during the period of the Labour Government was due to the Common Market.
    Mr. Latham: Following that massive own goal by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), will my right hon. Friend remind the House that in 1974 and 1975 the Labour Government wasted hundreds of millions of pounds on completely unselective and useless food subsidies?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. Altogether, that Government's record was pretty disastrous.

    Farming Industry (Bank Overdrafts)
    Mr. Watsonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has received any recent information concerning the level of bank overdrafts incurred by the farming industry.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The latest information relates to mid-August 1982, when total bank advances outstanding to agriculture and forestry in the United Kingdom were about £4¼ billion. Survey data show that borrowing amounts on average to no more than one-tenth of total assets per farm in England and Wales.
    Mr. Watson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the considerable increases in productivity achieved by British farmers over the past five years have not happened out of thin air, but have been incurred at the expense of a trebled level of bank borrowing? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the increase this year in farm incomes is no more than is necessary to repay a small portion of those debts?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. I am pleased to say that one of the results of the increase in farm incomes this year is that there are signs of considerable increases in investment in British agriculture, which will benefit the construction and machinery industries, which are very much in need of those orders.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: I am sure that the Minister is well aware that all the political parties in the House are in

    389
    favour of setting up a land bank to help young entrants. In view of the opinions expressed by people of all political shades, will the right hon. Gentleman consider bringing forward proposals to set up such a land bank?
    Mr. Walker: That is not directly connected with the question, but there are plenty of facilities, including those of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, which can be of considerable assistance to people—including young people—who wish to inject capital into British agriculture.
    Sir Peter Mills: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures show that the cost to the agricultural producer of producing extra food for the consumer has been considerable? Will he comment on the absurd and stupid story in the Daily Mail the other day, by Andrew Alexander, condemning the whole set-up of British agriculture and what it was doing for British consumers?
    Mr. Walker: I disagree with many articles in newspapers, but I suppose that I disagreed with that article more than most. I can only comment that on the one occasion when Mr. Alexander started to practise politics instead of preaching it he lost his deposit.
    Mr. Buchan: The Minister might pay a little more attention to the chairman of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation. Does he agree with him and his hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) that the British farmer is now receiving over 60 per cent. of his income from direct Government aid in one form or another? Is he aware that the level of indebtedness has trebled? Is that not an indictment of the common agricultural policy, which he has been trying to defend? Does that not mean that certain sections have done extremely well, but that most farmers have done badly under the Minister's administration and the CAP?
    Mr. Walker: I look forward to the hon. Gentleman bringing forward proposals that will improve substantially the incomes of British farmers. We shall monitor the cost, because the last costs that the hon. Gentleman suggested were about £2 billion, added to which he wants to nationalise land, to have negative MCAs of 33 per cent. and to re-rate British agricultural land. That combination would be a disaster.

    Potatoes
    Mr. Michael Brownasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what degree the United Kingdom is likely to be self-sufficient for ware potatoes in the current crop year.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We expect that supply and demand will be broadly in balance this season.
    Mr. Brown: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he assure the House that the support arrangements for the home potato industry will ensure self-sufficiency, thereby retaining the confidence of potato producers? Will he also assure the House that greater steps will be taken by the Potato Marketing Board to assist farmers to market their potato crops in a better way than they have in the past few years, so that we do not have the massive potato imports that we sometimes have at the end of the season?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Potato Marketing Board, particularly with its contract scheme, has been successful
    390
    in evening out some of the market problems. I hope that we can continue to be self-sufficient in potatoes, although that crop is perhaps more subject than others to changes in the weather and other conditions.
    My hon. Friend will be encouraged to know that the current price is above the guaranteed price. However, we must look ahead-and I am delighted that both the National Farmers Union and the Potato Marketing Board have prepared proposals. I have had preliminary discussions with them and I look forward to carrying those discussions further.
    Mr. Freud: As the Potato Marketing Board is grower-financed, and therefore grower-oriented, does the Minister agree that it has a vested interest in keeping up the price of potatoes? Might it not be more helpful to have a Potato Marketing Board which collates correct and unbiased information, as does the United States Department of Agriculture?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If the Potato Marketing Board fails to fulfil its statutory responsibilities it is subject to questioning and control. In recent years the board has shown proper concern for outlets for potatoes other than those going direct for human consumption, such as through potato processors. It has also shown particular concern for the consumer. I encourage the board to follow that policy.

    Southall Horse Market
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with conditions at Southall horse market; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Walker: We have been monitoring all horse markets following the introduction in 1979 of the code of practice and we are writing to markets where breaches of the code have been noted. My officials have written today to the operators of Southall market. I stand ready to take further action, including the introduction of legislation, if the necessary improvements are not made quickly at the poorest markets, including Southall.
    Mr. Greenway: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's reply and thank him for what he has done to implement the 1979 code of practice. However, in view of the suffering of many animals at Southall and other horse markets, will he consider the introduction in any future legislation of powers to close horse markets where grave abuses continue?
    Mr. Walker: I know that my hon. Friend has taken an immense interest in this topic. He has informed me constantly of the situation at Southall. I am sure that he would be quick to point out that there are perfectly good marketing practices there, with plenty of people dealing fairly and reasonably with the animals. Alas, there are also places where animals suffer hardship. Therefore, I repeat the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend that, if necessary, legislation will be introduced to ensure that the code of practice is enforced.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Proctorasked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress towards fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy; and to what time scale he is working.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The Government have already made good progress in improving the operation of the common agricultural policy. The agricultural share of the Community budget has dropped from 80 per cent. when we took office to around 60 per cent. this year. We are determined to keep up our efforts for as long as necessary.
    Mr. Proctor: Is it not fair to say that the fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy is pure illusion?
    Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend should reflect upon the fact that over the past year British food prices have increased by less than 5 per cent., our exports have increased by £600 million in the past four years and our imports are £1,000 million down. He should recognise that Britain is now obtaining considerable benefit from the changes that we have achieved in the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Deakins: Will the Minister confirm that he has no intention of seeking any fundamental reforms in the common agricultural policy which would reduce the price of commodities to the British housewife?
    Mr. Walker: I repeat that under the Labour Government food prices went up by 122 per cent. Under this Government they have gone up by only 32 per cent. as a result of our handling of the common agricultural policy. The view of the Minister of Agriculture in that Labour Government was that the majority of price increases were due to factors outside the Common Market. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reflects carefully on that.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that in any reshaping or adjustment of the common agricultural policy he will not lose sight of the importance of the continuity of food supplies? That has gone largely unremarked during our membership of the Community, but it is valuable to the consumer.
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. In the 1930s we made the mistake of relying on world markets, and great sections of British agriculture and horticulture were destroyed. After the outbreak of war we recognised the terrible failure of that policy. I am pleased to say that under all post-war Governments adequate food supplies have been ensured, and under this Government our self-sufficiency in the goods that we can produce has increased from 67 to 75 per cent.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Duffyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Duffy: Has the Prime Minister noticed that Britain now imports more manufactured goods than it exports? If she thinks that her policy of industrial anorexia is not contributing to that deindustrialisation and to today's horrifying unemployment figures, how does she explain that the crucial factor in this week's savage job cuts in the
    392
    Sheffield steel industry was not her pet alibi of poor quality, productivity or delivery, but a lack of domestic demand, notably in engineering steel?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must have made a mistake in his reference to imports in manufactured goods being more than exports. The monthly figures give imports as cost, insurance and freight, and they give exports as free on board. If one excludes cost, insurance and freight—which come in invisibles—a proper comparison of imports with exports can be made, and if that is done the hon. Gentleman will find that what he said is not so. There is still a surplus of manufacturing exports over imports. The hon. Gentleman has made a common mistake.
    The unemployment figures are out today, and unfortunately the underlying trend is upwards. However, there is a deep world recession, which is affecting other countries in Europe and, of course, our industrial competitors further afield.
    The hon. Gentleman implied that we need not take any notice of quality and productivity. Of course we must want quality—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman suggested that he did not want another homily on quality and productivity, but both are vital. The hon. Gentleman went on to speak about demand. I point out once again that the import penetration of cars is above 55 per cent. If those cars were made here, we should have the steel trade here. That also applies to many machine tools. The problem is not a shortage of demand, but the fact that people choose to buy foreign goods instead of those produced here.
    Sir Paul Bryan: As the Government are about to come to a decision on overseas students' fees, will my right hon. Friend find time today to press the appropiate Ministers to accept the offer of the Hong Kong Government to share with this Government the cost of giving home student status to Hong Kong students?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that a scheme has been proposed by the Hong Kong Government, the cost of which would be shared fifty-fifty with this Government, and we are considering it.
    Dr. Owen: In view of today's NATO Defence Ministers meeting, the considerable public disquiet about cruise missiles and the regrettable position that might arise in December next year if there is no progress at the INF and START talks, will the Prime Minister assure the House that if it were necessary to deploy cruise missiles a system would be adopted similar to that adopted for the Thor missiles, whereby they could never be fired without the physical agreement of representatives of the British Government? Will the Prime Minister assure the House that no decision will be taken in December 1983 on their deployment without a debate in the House?
    The Prime Minister: We are already pledged to honour the NATO commitment, and I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman would wish us to go back on that. He wishes that there were no need to have cruise missiles stationed here. There would indeed be no such need if the Russians dismantled their SS20 systems. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman wishes that as much as we do. Should cruise missiles be stationed here—they will have to be unless the SS20 systems are taken down—the same rules will apply to them as have governed American nuclear weapons here for many years.
    Mr. Needham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the latest economic proposals of the Labour Party are unattainable and irresponsible? Does she agree also that their only beneficial side effect is further to undermine the credibility of the Labour Party?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that they are totally irresponsible and dangerous. They would lead to a rapid return of inflation, and that would be followed, once again, by increasing unemployment.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the deep resentment that is felt in the West Midlands at the flippant reply given last week by the Secretary of State for Employment over the mounting job crisis in the region? Is she further aware that a reply given to me shows that the highest rate of unemployment before May 1979 was 6½ per cent.? It is now 16½ per cent., and continuing to rise. Is the right hon. Lady proud of the fact that under her Administration the centre of manufacturing and engineering in this country has been brought to such a devastated state?
    The Prime Minister: What I said in answer to the first question is directly relevant to what the hon. Gentleman asks. If there had not been import penetration, or, to put it another way, if our car industry had been more competitive and less strike-ridden and produced goods and cars that were saleable to ordinary people in this country as well as overseas, the West Midlands would be much more prosperous than it is now. Incidentally, in that connection, I congratulate Jaguar on the excellent work that it is doing.
    Mr. Tony Spellerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Speller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that over the past 30 years the growth of the hotel and catering industry has provided many permanent jobs for young and unskilled workers? Does it not follow that we would be well advised to apply our grants and aid to a growing service industry rather than give them to the old, outdated and outmoded industries that claim too large a percentage of our national wealth?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that tourism and the hotel and catering industry are extremely important to our economy, and that in future more jobs will come from services. This year the Government spent about £56 million on tourism. We are having a review to see whether that money is being best applied, how best the Government can help tourism and the hotel and catering industry, whether there is too much bureaucracy in handing out that money, and whether we have the best structure for promoting tourism. We are anxious to do all that, because my hon. Friend is right to say that many jobs depend upon it.
    Mr. David Steel: Why does the Prime Minister continue to ascribe the appalling unemployment figures to the effects of the world recession, when world markets grew last year by 5 per cent. and our manufacturing exports shrank by 4 per cent.?
    The Prime Minister: That is because the greater part of the problems are attributable to the world recession. In
    394
    addition, there are further problems that are specific to this country—the overmanning and restrictive practices throughout the years and the habit and practice of overpaying ourselves, or paying ourselves nearly twice as much for producing the same amount, whereas our competitors' pay and output are much more nearly hand-in-hand. Those facts have made the recession deeper here than in a number of other countries.
    Mr. Alan Clark: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report, published yesterday, of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, in which, from its unique position of overseeing sentencing policy throughout the kingdom, it is unanimous in condemning excessive leniency in sentencing for crimes of violence? Does she agree that that supplies official confirmatiomn of an anxiety that is widely felt by ordinary people? Judicial and Executive functions cannot overlap, but does my right hon. Friend think it appropriate to draw that report to the attention of the Lord Chancellor?
    The Prime Minister: I have seen the report, although I am not completely au fait with it. I am sure that the Lord Chancellor will have seen it and read it in full. I share my hon. Friend's concern about remarks in the report, which I believe to be correct, that in certain cases sentences are nothing like severe enough. I share the view of Lord Lane, the Lord Chief Justice, who said that medium or long-term custodial sentences were appropriate for most robberies and most offences involving serious violence.
    Mr. Foot: Has the Cabinet had before it today not only the appalling unemployment figures but the evidence of the sheer grinding increase in real poverty? Did she study, for example, the figures that were given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), which showed that the number of people living on supplementary benefit in this country had increased by nearly 1 million during the past three years? Does she blame all that on someone else?
    The Prime Minister: The number of people on supplementary benefit has gone up as the threshold for supplementary benefit has risen over the years. [Interruption.] Of course it has. The number of people on supplementary benefit went up under Labour Governments as well. The number has increased from the early years as the level of poverty has been redefined by successive Governments—[Interruption.]—and therefore more people have qualified for supplementary benefit. Having been a Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance for many years, I am very well aware of that. Added to that, there is the extra burden on those who are unemployed. The way to get unemployment down is to get industry more competitive—[Interruption.]—but unfortunately the Opposition never understand the truth. The way to get unemployment down is to get industry more competitive and its products better designed, so that those who earn their living in this country will buy the products produced here.
    Mr. Foot: Is the right hon. Lady aware that this is a question, not of the redefinition of poverty, but of its intensification? Is she not aware that in the past three years the number of children in families living on supplementary benefit has gone up to nearly 1 million and that the figure has more than doubled during the three years for which she has been responsible? Does she have no shame about these matters?
    The Prime Minister: As I said, the numbers have gone up. One of the reasons is increasing unemployment. I have said what I think is the best way to get that down. The supplementary benefit scheme means that those who are unfortunately without work are catered for.
    Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Price: Will the Prime Minister spend some time today looking at reports that the European Commission has consistently been defying the Council of Ministers by selling butter to the Soviet Union? That is outside its remit. Is she aware that that process has been going on for some time? Indeed, it happened when the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), was in charge of the Commission. Does the right hon. Lady agree that the fact
    396
    that the right hon. Gentleman seemed less than assiduous at his Prayers today shows that he could not organise a harvest festival in a vineyard?
    The Prime Minister: I heard the allegation to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I do not know whether it is true. The matter is being looked into. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has just told me that butter sales to Russia reached their peak during the last four months of the Labour Government.
    Mr. Ward: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to study reports in the newspapers that the Inner London Education Authority is proposing to withdraw grant from the Scout movement because Major General Walsh, the Chief Scout, wants to increase discipline, self-respect and hygiene in that movement?
    The Prime Minister: Almost all hon. Members would say that the Scout movement is excellent and that Major General Walsh is a superb leader.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 6 DECEMBER—Opposition Day (2nd Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion on the failure to implement the findings of the Black report.
Motion on the Customs Duties (Personal Reliefs) (No. 1) Order 1968 (Amendment) Order.
TUESDAY 7 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Electricity (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill.
Proceedings on the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill.
Motion on EEC Document No. 10701/82 on fish guide prices for 1983.
WEDNESDAY 8 DECEMBER—Opposition day (3rd Allotted Day). Debate on an Opposition motion on the economic slump and its impact on women.
Motions on EEC documents Nos. 9415/82 and 9449/82 on foot and mouth and swine vesicular diseases.
THURSDAY 9 DECEMBER—Remaining stages of the National Insurance Surcharge Bill.
Motions on the Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order and on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order.
FRIDAY IO DECEMBER—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY I3 DECEMBER—Private Members' motions until seven o'clock. Afterwards, remaining stages of the Electricity (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill.
[Fish Guide Prices for 1983, Document No. 10701/82
See 2nd Report of European Legislation Committee, Session 1982–83, HC 34-ii, para 1.
Measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease and swine vesicular disease, Documents Nos. 9415/82 and 9449/82
See 30th Report of European Legislation Committee, Session 1981–82, HC 21-xxx, para. 3 and 4]
Mr. Foot: I have asked the right hon. Gentleman for a debate on fisheries for several weeks. May we have an assurance that time for such a debate will be provided before the Government come to any conclusions on the matter? May we have an assurance that the House will be given a chance to advance its views?
The Secretary of State for Employment announced the new training initiatives some weeks ago. As they will cost a considerable amount of money and raise many controversial issues, I hope that the Government will provide time for a debate on the subject.
Security is another matter on which I have asked the right hon. Gentleman to provide time for a debate. We should like to proceed with such a debate.
The Prime Minister is going to a summit meeting in Copenhagen in the next few days. No doubt she will report to the House next week. Will she also report how discussions on MX missile development and the United States' departure on the matter may take place? I hope that she will raise that subject with some of her colleagues in Europe. The Opposition would like such a report as, with many commentators in the United States and elsewhere, we regard it as a most serious development in the nuclear
398
arms race. It is essential that Britain's views should be stated clearly. As the right hon. Lady has so far said nothing on the subject, we hope that she will report to the House on the matter.
I am sorry to take a little time, but my next point concerns a change that the Government have introduced. I refer not so much to the need for a statement as to the way in which the House is now to be informed about unemployment figures by the Secretary of State for Employment. The new method is not satisfactory. If the Government wish to introduce such a change, surely the matter should have been discussed with the official Opposition and other parties. The presentation of such figures should have been discussed with the whole House. Therefore, the Leader of the House has an obligation, not only to his own party but to other honourable Members.
We should like two types of figures to be presented to the House for the next 12 months. That would be much fairer from the point of view of the country and the Government. If the Government have nothing to hide, the Leader of the House should say "Yes" to that proposition at once.
Mr. Biffen: I note all of the right hon. Gentleman's five points. Perhaps he will allow me to comment on them in reverse order.
With regard to the unemployment figures, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced to the House the basis of the change. He was subjected to many questions. No hon. Member can say that the Government have been less than candid with the House on the matter. It is a subject of some technical complexity that could commend itself to the appropriate Select Committee.
My right hon. Friend will make a statement next week, following the Copenhagen meeting of European Councillors. She will have heard the Leader of the Opposition's comments about the wider issues, including the MX missile. It is appropriate for me to point out that the EC is not a military organisation and that the right hon. Gentleman's comments are more related to a NATO gathering than to one in Copenhagen.
With regard to security, I understand that preliminary discussions have taken place through the usual channels. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have made clear their view that there should be a debate on this important issue. Nevertheless, the time for such a debate is when the Security Commission reports on its investigations and all the issues that arise from the Prime case have been concluded.
I note the importance that the Leader of the Opposition attaches to the new training arrangements. I hope and believe that I shall be able to accommodate his anxieties on that point.
I recognise that I have made it clear that there should be a debate on fisheries. Although I have not been able to announce such a debate in the business for next week, I note the right hon. Gentleman's view that one should take place reasonably soon.
Mr. Foot: I hope that the reply of the Leader of the House about a debate on security does not mean that he will try to postpone it until we receive a further report. I understand that many hon. Members felt that we should have had that debate at an early stage.
The unemployment figures are not a matter of "technical complexity"; they are a matter of human

399
tragedy and the way in which the Government treat the House and the country. The figures and the way which they are presented are matters of great concern. If two types of statistics are available, the Government cannot fear their presentation. We suggest that two types of figures continue to be presented for a while. We can discuss how long. If the Government want to carry any confidence in the figures, the Leader of the House should say "Yes" to that proposition at once. I hope that he will not rush in now but that he will consult other members of the Government to see whether the country can be treated fairly with regard to the presentation of those figures.
Mr. Biffen: I am not by nature ever disposed to rush into anything on the question of next week's or indeed next month's business. The right hon. Gentleman's point was covered by the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Certainly, the statement was the subject of disagreement, but my right hon. Friend did not hold back from the House the difficulties involved in trying to issue duplicate sets of figures. Nevertheless, I shall of course refer the right hon. Gentleman's comments to my right hon. Friend.
On security, the statement that I have already made was the product of considerable thought. I realise that the House generally is anxious that there should be a debate as soon as possible. I hope that that will concentrate the minds of those carrying out the inquiry.
Mr. David Steel: When will the data protection Bill be published? Can the Leader of the House assure us that the House will have rather longer between publication and Second Reading to study and consult on the matter than we have had on some recent Government Bills?
Mr. Biffen: My answer to the first part of the question is "Not next week, Sir". On the second point, I take on board the anxiety that the right hon. Gentleman has expressed and I hope that we shall be able to perform in such a way as to earn good marks from him.
Mr. John Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend make a statement next week about the Thames barrage? Is he aware that workers on the site have expressed the wish that the opening, which will be a national occasion, should be carried out by Her Majesty the Queen rather than by some local worthy or politician as has been suggested in some quarters?
Mr. Biffen: As my own abode is in peril whenever the Thames rises beyond a certain point, my main anxiety is that the operation of the barrage should proceed with as little impediment as possible. I cannot guarantee to make a statement or to make any arrangements on this matter next week, although I will certainly look into the difficulties and write to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will the debate on training be wide enough to cover the action of the Manpower Services Commission in giving a £600,000 advertising project to Saatchi and Saatchi for the community programme, with the perceptive slogan
"The answer to unemployment is to give them a job"?
Does not that constitute party political propaganda, as such advertising is entirely unnecessary for the scheme?
Mr. Biffen: I do not know, but I am sure that however the motion is drafted the hon. Gentleman's formidable debating skill will enable him to make the speech that he has in mind.
Mr. Julian Amery: In view of next week's business, will my right hon. Friend ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement in the House of Commons about the increase in personnel and expenditure of the security forces in Northern Ireland rather than making statements to an assembly which, so far as I know, has no responsibility in any of these matters?
Mr. Biffen: I shall most certainly pass that request to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. K. J. Woolmer: May I draw attention to the multi-fibre arrangement negotiations now reaching their conclusion and remind the right hon. Gentleman that 210,000 textile and clothing workers have lost their jobs under this Government? Will he ensure that a statement is made next week or, if not, that a full statement will be made to the House by the Ministers responsible so that the negotiations and their conclusion may be fully and properly discussed?
Mr. Biffen: I understand the anxieties expressed by the hon. Gentleman and I will certainly convey his comments to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade, who I am sure will wish to keep the House fully informed of the course of debates on the multi-fibre arrangement.
Mr. Tom McNally: Does the Leader of the House recall that when his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) suggested a general debate on trade he replied that it could be subsumed in the foreign affairs debate? Is he aware that that is unrealistic and that there is great concern about textiles, steel and the future of GATT? Will he therefore consider again the possibility of a full scale debate on trade policy?
Mr. Biffen: I accept at once that this is a very important topic, but it does not feature in next week's business. Clearly negotiations on the multi-fibre arrangement are very important in determining when it would be appropriate to hold a wider trade debate. All those factors must be taken into account.
Viscount Cranborne: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the inordinately increased scale of attrocities perpetrated by the Russian forces in Afghanistan in the past few months? In view of the outrage that should be felt by anyone in the Western world at those atrocities and the extraordinary lack of such comment in the Western press and media generally, is it not high time that the House showed its concern about the greatest humanly induced tragedy in the world today by holding an urgent debate on the subject?
Mr. Biffen: I am only too conscious of all the constraints on the amount of Government time available for debates of all kinds, including time for legislation. I should have thought, however, that many avenues were available to private Members to express the deep feelings that I know my hon. Friend shares, through Adjournment motions, early-day motions or other means.
Mr. Greville Janner: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on consumer

401
protection, especially the further implementation of the Consumer Credit Act, so that the public may be protected against doorstep sharks who are conning people into buying loft insulation, double glazing and other winter essentials by thoroughly unfair and undue pressure?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. and learned Gentleman raises a matter which I know excites considerable feeling, but I see no prospect of providing Government time for such a debate in the immediate future.
Mr. David Atkinson: I do not wish to anticipate the statement about the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, but may we have an assurance that the matter will be debated by the House before there is any question of ratification of the convention by this country?
Mr. Biffen: I must give a somewhat dead bat reply to that. I think that the House should first hear the statement and then consider the matter in the light of what follows.
Mr. Ioan Evans: Will the right hon. Gentleman take up the point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about the unemployment figures, as there is great anxiety that the Department of Employment seems to be massaging the figures? May we have both sets of figures, at least for a period, so that we may make comparisons? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, when it was proposed to introduce the tax and prices index as well as the retail prices index, both figures were given as the TPI rose higher than the RPI? Is he aware that it is generally believed that unemployment is now nearer 4 million and that our arguments for regional aid for our constituencies are weakened by the distorted figures now issued by the Government?
Mr. Biffen: I have already given a measured—perhaps too measured—response to the Leader of the Opposition on that. Having behaved in that respectful way towards him, I do not think that I can do other than repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I have said.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: In relation to the introduction of Ten-Minute Bills, will my right hon. Friend consider limiting the length of time for which hon. Members may queue at the Public Bill Office, if only to avoid the heart-rending sight of Opposition Members sitting up all night to do so?
Mr. Biffen: I do not think that that falls within my responsibilities. Sitting up all night, however, seems to be a way of life in this place.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May I endorse the request for a statement on the multi-fibre arrangement which, as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, is extremely important for textile constituencies?
May I also press the need for a debate on defence, as many people are bandying around figures about the number of missiles and it is time that we had a debate to show that NATO has a vast numerical superiority in every warhead classification and that the Government have no right of veto whatever over United States' use of the cruise missiles to be installed in this country? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that reliance on a form of words agreed in 1951 gives no assurance to the House and that the seriousness of this matter can only be brought out in a full debate?
Mr. Biffen: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said about the multi-fibre arrangement. He will realise that I cannot go beyond what I have already said to the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer).
There is no prospect of Government time being available for a debate on defence in the immediate future. I am certain that the hon. Gentleman is enthusiastic for the House to have a wide-ranging debate on defence so that the defence policies of the two main parties may be considered and compared. I am sure that he will use his voice to secure an Opposition day to deal with it.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been standing in their places.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: With the Black report debate in prospect and knowing the difficulties in obtaining copies of that report when it was first published, will my right hon. Friend ensure that either the official or privately published copies are made available?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend knows full well what a blockbuster of a question he has put. I shall see what can be done.
Mr. John McWilliam: Is the Leader of the House aware of the effect that the policy contained in a written answer given to the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Sir G. Johnson Smith) earlier this week will have on the finances of the British Broadcasting Corporation, the Independent Broadcasting Authority and the television manufacturing companies? Will he give the House the opportunity to debate the technical standards for broadcasting by satellite? If we do not reach the correct decision, there will be serious repercussions.
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue of public policy. I am sure that he will be able to use all available opportunities to ensure that that matter is ventilated during private Members' time.
Mr. James Lamond: As the Leader of the House has today again resisted demands for a debate on defence and disarmament, may I unilaterally scale down my request? Is it not reasonable, in view of the talks that are going on in Madrid, Vienna and Geneva about disarmament, that we should have regular and frequent statements by whichever Minister is responsible for those talks in the same way as we have reports about the discussions on the Common Market so that we can question him about Great Britain's position at such talks?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the hon. Gentleman's point. I am certain that the Secretary of State will agree with me that the time will soon come when we shall feel that we are saturated with statements and we shall look back to the good old-fashioned days when we had debates.
Mr. David Ennals: Is the Leader of the House aware that 300 hon. Members from all quarters of the House have signed early-day motion 44 calling for a ban on the import of baby sealskins and their products.
[That this House, bearing in mind the motion passed by the European Assembly on 11th March 1982 calling for the banning of the importation of the skins and the products derived from young hooded and harp seals slaughtered in

403
Canada, the subsequent reports of the Nature Conservancy Council, the recommendation of the European Commission and the support for Early Day Motions Nos. 342 and 344 in the last Session of Parliament by over 300 honourable Members, calls on the Government now to take positive action to stop the importation of these products.]
At the Commission tomorrow Ministers will be considering a draft regulation for a ban which will apply to all EC countries. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there will be a statement on Monday so that we may know the position and decision taken by the Government on an issue that interests not just hon. Members but people throughout the country?
Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman raises a point which has excited deep feeling not just within the House but generally. I shall see that the point is brought to the attention of the appropriate Minister.
Mr. Robert Parry: Is the Leader of the House aware of early-day motion 108 requesting a public inquiry into the use of CS gas cartridges in Liverpool last year?
[That this House calls upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department to institute a public inquiry into the use of Ferret CS gas cartridges in Liverpool, Toxteth during the disturbances in July 1981; notes that the support for a public inquiry comes from the Liverpool City Council, the Merseyside County Council, the Merseyside Police Committee, the Liverpool Trades Council, the National Council for Civil Liberties, the Transport and General Workers Union, the National Union of Public Employees, the National Graphical Association, the National Association of Local Government Officers and the Merseyside Community Relations Council; and feels that such an inquiry would allay public disquiet and remove any fears of a cover up into the use of such projectiles.]
The motion is supported by 125 right hon. and hon. Members and has the support of many national and regional organisations. As the Home Secretary has admitted to the House that the use of those cartridges at that time was a mistake, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Home Secretary to reconsider his decision not to call for a public inquiry so that we can say that the House has not been party to a cover-up of the use of those projectiles?
Mr. Biffen: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is helpfully sitting alongside me, and I am certain that he will have noted the points made by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. John Ryman: Will the leader of the House consider initiating a debate on the Office of Fair Trading and references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission because this subject has an important influence on unemployment? Is the leader of the House aware that last week the Director General of Fair Trading refused to refer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission a bid by Alcan (UK) Limited for British Aluminium which will make it almost inevitable that there will be further large-scale unemployment in the aluminium industry?
Mr. Biffen: I understand the point made by the hon. Gentleman and know what it means for unemployment in the North-East in the aluminium industry. I cannot offer Government time for such a debate. It is a natural topic for an Adjournment debate.

Law of the Sea Convention
3.57 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The United Nations convention on the law of the sea will be opened for signature in Jamaica on 10 December, and will remain open for signature for two years thereafter. The convention deals with many aspects of the law of the sea. Some provisions are a re-statement or codification of existing international law; some provisions seek to make new law. Parts of the convention, for example, those relating to navigation, the Continental Shelf and Pollution, are helpful, but the provisions relating to deep seabed mining including the transfer of technology are not acceptable. They are based on undesirable regulatory principles and could constitute unsatisfactory precedents. A number of our friends and allies share our misgivings on those points. We need to obtain satisfactory improvements in the deep sea mining regime and will therefore explore the prospects with interested States. As the convention is open for signature for two years, there is ample time for revision before taking a final decision. It is our wish that there should be generally agreed provisions for regulating marine matters and we wish to continue to work with the international community to achieve that.
I should emphasise to the House that we could not participate in a seabed regime on the present terms, and for that reason we could not ratify the convention unless the provisions for the deep sea mining regime become satisfactory.
A copy of the convention and relevant resolutions of the conference have been placed in the Library of the House.
Mr. Denis Healey: The Under-Secretary's statement is utterly unacceptable to the Opposition. It is one more example of the Government behaving as President Reagan's poodle. The Under-Secretary must be aware that this matter has been under negotiation for over 20 years. The convention was supported by 130 countries when it was presented earlier this year, including the overwhelming majority of European and Commonwealth countries. Only the United States of America and three other countries—for different reasons—opposed it. The Government's decision not to ratify the treaty will be regarded as contrary to international and British interests.
Does the Under-Secretary agree that, as a maritime seafaring country, Great Britain has an immense interest in finally deciding the law of the sea on all matters to do with the sailing of vessels, as the convention does, and that there is no chance of any commercial undertaking attempting to explore mineral rights on the seabed unless the legal position is clear?
If the convention is frustrated by the Government's actions, there will be little chance of action in that area, in which the Government are presumably interested, being pursued. Through what machinery does he hope to persuade the 130 countries which have already agreed the convention to change the position that they have taken on the mineral regime? In any case, does not the convention come into force once 60 countries have ratified it" I hope that he will not tell us that the Government will defy a convention once it has come into force.
Mr. Rifkind: The Government's objective throughout the discussions has been to achieve a convention acceptable to the world community as a whole. Not only the United States has expressed opposition to the convention; a number of other countries have grave anxieties, particularly about the mining provisions. For example, the West German Government have not so far expressed an intention to sign the convention; it is possible that they will not do so. The same applies to the Italian and a number of other Governments.
The right hon. Gentleman is incorrect to imply that 130 countries will ratify the convention. So far only the German Democratic Republic has expressed an intention both to sign and to ratify the convention. A number of countries that have expressed an intention to sign have given no assurance about ratification.
It is important that, if at all possible, the maritime provisions should be acceptable to the world community. Those parts of the convention that relate to the free passage of vessels, the Continental Shelf and pollution are acceptable to the Government. As the convention expressly allows two years for countries to decide whether to sign, if it is still the wish of the world community as a whole to have a convention acceptable to all, we hope that further thought will be given to the parts which not only are unacceptable to ourselves and the United States but which have been criticised by a significant number of other countries.
Mr. Healey: With respect, the Under-Secretary is far too intelligent to be unaware of the fact that he has not answered any of my questions.
Does the convention not enter into force if 60 countries ratify it? Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government did not oppose the convention when it was discussed earlier this year and that we were one of a small number of countries that abstained? Is not the change in the Government's position, like that of the West German Government, due to excessive and intolerable pressure exerted by the United States Administration? Will not the hon. Gentleman stand up for Britain for a change? The matter is of immense importance to us as a seafaring nation.
Mr. Rifkind: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is incorrect. The United Kingdom was one of a substantial number of countries that abstained when the convention was concluded. A small number of countries opposed and voted against the convention; a significantly greater number, including a substantial number of West European and Soviet bloc countries, abstained.
The convention will come into effect if it is ratified by 60 countries. The United Kingdom will honour all conventions that it has ratified; that is what ratification is all about. If we have not ratified a convention, we shall be in the same position as any other country that does not ratify a convention: we shall not be bound by it.
Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman has made a serious statement. He is suggesting that a treaty which for the first time in human history regulates the law of the sea will come into force if ratified by 60 countries but that the Government reserve the right to defy its provisions. How will it help British mineral companies which want to explore the seabed to defy a convention that has entered into force as a result of ratification by the proper number of counties?
Mr. Rifkind: I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the fact that for a country to be bound by an international treaty it has to take the decision to sign and subsequently to ratify it. If it declines to ratify a treaty, it is stating that it does not intend to be bound by it. It is a normal and acceptable part of international law that countries that do not ratify treaties are not bound by them.
Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman still has not answered the question. Does he believe that any mineral company will be prepared to invest the hundreds of millions of pounds required to suck up nodules from the seabed if the Government defy an international convention determining the legal regime under which the activities take place? Has he met any international company that would be prepared to take that risk?
Mr. Rifkind: A country is not defying an international convention if it declines to ratify it; it is simply exercising its sovereign rights as a State.
One of our main anxieties about the present terminology of the convention is that the deep sea mining proposals would deter many international companies from contemplating the expensive investment required.
Mr. J. Grimond: Is the convention amendable, and, if so, how? Having been ratified, does the convention have to reconvene for amendments to be made? Will the hon. Gentleman tell us now or place in the Library the Government's objections to the convention as it stands?
Mr. Rifkind: The convention is open for signature but is unlikely to be ratified by the minimum requirement of 60 States for some time. Previous conventions have sometimes taken a number of years to be ratified. At the very least there will be a substantial gap before possible ratification. If there is sufficient will, there is the opportunity for changes to be made.
The Government's objections primarily concern the deep sea mining regime but also the compulsory requirements for transfer of technology and the limitations on production in deep sea mining which would be a substantial disincentive to mining. Those are the main areas of anxiety, although there are a number of other detailed points.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is not the official Opposition's position that vital British interests should be subordinated to the views of a majority of powers whose interests may conflict with ours?
Mr. Rifkind: Anxiety is caused not only by the fact that the proposed regime could have that effect; there is also a provision that the terms of the convention and the regime can be reviewed after 15 years. If there was not unanimity after five years of further discussion, a majority could take a decision, for example, to exclude all commercial private exploitation of the deep seabed, which would certainly be contrary to our interests.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: In order not to lose the benefit of the parts of the convention with which we agree and are prepared to accept, should we not consider at least signing or even ratifying the convention with reservations?
Mr. Rifkind: Under certain international conventions that is a possibility. Unfortunately, it is not an option under

407
this one. Party States have the option of signing the whole convention or declining to sign; they do not have the opportunity to accept only parts.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I say without bravado, as one who put parliamentary questions to Harold Macmillan 20 years ago on the subject and who has followed it ever since, that I am appalled at the Minister's attitude? Does he recollect the work of the late Lord Ritchie-Calder and the point that he often used to make about the extraction of manganese nodules from the seabed and the importance of getting the agreement of the riparian States in the Indian Ocean, the Pacific or elsewhere?
Mr. Rifkind: I do not dispute that, but I repeat that there is real reason to doubt whether the regime proposed would encourage companies which have the technology to invest the vast sums that would be required to extract the nodules from the deep seabed. It is in everyone's interest to have a regime acceptable to the world community as a whole and one that will encourage the private sector, which has the technology, to invest the vast sums required if the resources are to be utilised.
Mr. John H. Osborn: will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the Council of Europe and the European Parliament have looked into the matter? Does he recall that the Council has an excellent report prepared by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) and that there is an opinion by the European Economic Affairs and Development Committee, which I entered with the desire to support the United Nations convention but members of the committee found that the industrial and bureaucratic provisions were intolerable? What representations has my hon. Friend had from international mining companies and others to the effect that the agreement would be intolerable?
Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the study to the attention of the House. I believe that the mining companies' anxiety is that the system adopted by the world community should be an incentive and not a disincentive to deep sea mining. The production controls, the transfer of technology requirements and other similar factors constitute a substantial disincentive.
We hope that there will still be opportunity, especially over the next two years, for further thought to be given to changes that will enable the world community to unite and endorse a regime that will encourage deep sea mining. If such changes can be contemplated, that is something that we shall welcome.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Minister concede that the objections are being promoted by a small group of companies, which are based mainly in the United States, which have the technology to exploit the resources lying on the deep sea bed? Is he asking the House and the British people to believe that these companies would go ahead, under the supervision of licences granted by the United States, in opposition to nearly all the countries in the world? Is he asking the House to believe that that is the main stumbling block? Is he suggesting that the United Kingdom has no interest in these affairs other than in consortia with United States' companies?
Will he accept that we are being dragged into international disrepute at the behest of Reagan economics in the international sphere? Will he concede that this
408
attitude of mind undermines many areas of international co-operation which are essential if we are to get out of the slump?
Mr. Rifkind: American and British companies must speak for themselves. I am not aware of any public statements that they have made in the United States, in Europe or elsewhere in which they have called for the proposals of the law of the sea convention to be accepted by nation States. If they have great enthusiasm for the proposals, they have not given that indication.
Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that there is no urgency in this matter because deep sea mining is unlikely to take place before 2000 AD? Is he aware of the danger of recognising an international seabed authority, which would lead to the conclusion that there would have to be an international Antarctic authority and an international space authority, too?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to say that in any circumstances the prospects for mining on the deep sea bed are a good number of years ahead. It is a distant prospect rather than an immediate one irrespective of the attitudes that countries take to the convention. He is right also to say that our policy towards this convention could be used as a precedent in other discussions that might take place on other matters in future.
Mr. Tom McNally: Is not the Minister aware of the high priority given by successive Governments to the law of the sea conference? It was one example where order could be brought where anarchy could reign. Does he accept that the low level or even casual way in which the Government have brought this announcement to the House could suggest that they are beginning to enter a conspiracy to wreck the whole process on behalf of narrow vested interests?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect in making that suggestion. The Government do not desire to wreck international co-operation. We have said that there are large parts of the convention which we find acceptable, which are attractive and which are of interest to the international community. However, the deepsea mining provisions are not an incidental part of the convention. They form a major part of the convention, and one that has been most controversial in recent years. The British Government have never made any secret of their concern about and disagreement with these proposals. We did not endorse the convention when it was approved some months ago. We still hope to see sufficient changes made over the next two years by the international community, before a final decision on signature is required, to enable us to endorse it. We shall be delighted to do(so, but only if the terms of the convention are consistent with British interests.
Mr. David Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend accept that his statement will be warmly welcomed by all countries which have expertise in deep sea mining which are prepared to invest in it and to become involved in it? Of the many changes in the convention which I hope he will pursue, will he ensure that the membership of the executive council of the proposed authority will include countries that are involved in deep sea mining and will not be confined to countries which are land-locked and which do not even know how to deep sea mine?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct to say that many of the countries that have indicated that they are likely to sign the convention are not involved in deep sea mining, and would be only beneficiaries to the convention and would not have only obligations under it. He is correct also to say that it is desirable that those involved in the international seabed authority, if it is set up, should be the countries most involved. The United Kingdom will be able to be involved in the debates at the preparatory commission. However, it will not have a vote at that commission unless it has signed the convention.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising in their places to ask questions and then to call the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), before ending questions on the statement.
Mr. Joan Evans: Does the Minister agree that one of the problems that has faced mankind over the years has been conflicts about ownership of the earth's surface? The purpose of the law of the sea conference is to ensure that there are not the same conflicts in the development of the oceans' beds. If the Government are going along with the United States of America—the hon. Gentleman has not mentioned any other country that has seriously said that it is against the law of the sea proposals—will they introduce positive proposals with a view to seeking some international agreement? Is he aware that if there is a failure to do so there will be a danger of a serious conflict because of an inability to determine what areas should be developed by what countries?
Mr. Rifkind: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the British Government are not against international co-operation on the exploitation of the deep seabed. That is a desirable principle. We take exception to particular proposals within the convention, which if imposed through the international seabed authority and the various other structural innovations that are proposed could result in an unwieldy, bureaucratic and possibly unworkable system which would deter rather than encourage the investment and co-operation that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
Mr. Keith Best: Is my hon. Friend aware that the only effective international law is that which is achieved through unanimity, which, of course, involves acceptance by other major countries as well as our own? His caution in safeguarding British interests will be welcomed widely—we must proceed carefully in these matters—but will he accept that many will be looking for the Government and the United Kingdom to take a major part in ensuring that a fundamental step in international law is not lost for ever?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend has raised a valuable point. It is a harsh fact of life that any convention bearing on deep sea mining that did not have the United States as a party would be of relatively little value in achieving international agreement. That is because of the overwhelming and predominant contribution that the United States makes to technology and possible developments in this area of activity. I agree with the objectives that my hon. Friend has mentioned.
Mr. John Ryman: It is correct in law that there cannot be a breach of a convention unless there is prior ratification by the United Kingdom Government, but does
410
the Minister agree that his nonchalant attitude to this issue will create the impression, however unwittingly, that Her Majesty's Government are adopting an insular attitude and shirking their responsibility to the Third world by appearing to obstruct a comprehensive international agreement to distribute the wealth of the world among those who most need it?
Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for educating Members on the Opposition Front Bench. The United Kingdom cannot be bound by a convention that it has not ratified. It is not the desire of Her Majesty's Government to obstruct co-operation with the Third world. Much of the convention is acceptable. However, there is one major aspect of it which is unacceptable. It will come as no surprise to any Third world country that the United Kingdom disagrees with the parts of the convention to which I have referred. I hope that there will still be an opportunity for international discussion and co-operation that will lead to changes that will be acceptable to the United Kingdom and the world community.
Mr. Gary Waller: I accept that the convention as drafted is clearly flawed and in need of revision. However, does my hon. Friend agree that some form of treaty is necessary in future to give the world community, especially Third world developing countries, some hope that they can develop their own economic system and improve their performance? Will the Government work to achieve a more satisfactory solution that delivers goods and is acceptable to all?
Mr. Rifkind: I can certainly give that assurance. It is undoubtedly in the interests of the world community that there should be an international convention that is acceptable to it as a whole. So far that has not proved possible with this convention but we shall do our best to see whether it can be made possible during the next two years.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is not the problem that the Prime Minister, who is so renownedly ignorant about foreign affairs and so pitifully tied to Reagan's coat tails, has personally intervened yet once again?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's question is so absurd that it does not require a reply.
Mr. Healey: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the exchanges in the past half hour demonstrate that it is the view of a large number of hon. Members that the Government's attitude is just one more example of their indifference to international order, their hostility to the interests of the Third world and their subservience to the temporary commercial interests of American companies? The House will wish to debate the matter, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman can assure us that the Government will give us an opportunity to do so.
Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that his latter point is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. No doubt my right hon. Friend has heard every word of the right hon. Gentleman's contribution.
The exchanges that we have had do not suggest that the House overwhelmingly takes a different view from the Government. Perhaps not surprisingly, the Opposition take a different view; but that is not unusual.

Broadcasting (Cable Systems)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]
4.20 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): The object of this debate is to give the House, as the Government have promised, an opportunity to contribute to the wide-ranging public discussion that is already going on about the future of cable systems: both the broadcasting aspects covered in the Hunt report and the various other aspects of the question. It is also the Government's intention to use the debate as the occasion for indicating to the House and the public the broad framework within which we see cable policy developing.
I need not stress the significance of the subject of today's debate. Cable technology is with us. The question is not whether to adopt it, but how to adapt it to best advantage for our economy and way of life; how to gain the future benefits that new technology can bring, and yet avoid damage to valued national traditions and institutions.
As Home Secretary my particular concern with cable systems is where they impinge on broadcasting policy, but there is much more than that to cable policy. There is the whole area of interactive services such as teleshopping, telebanking, and burglar alarms. There are technological questions relating, for example, to the rival merits of tree-and-branch and switched-star systems, coaxial cable and optical fibre. I shall not embark on a detailed account of those matters, but shall leave them to my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology, who will conclude the debate for the Government.
In setting the scene for today's debate, I am struck by the rapidity with which public awareness of cable has developed. A year ago, perhaps few of us had any keen awareness of cable, of its existing function—largely broadcast relay—or of its future potential in both entertainment and advanced information services. The increase in interest and understanding over the past 12 months is indeed striking. Many conferences, seminars, articles in the press and broadcast programmes have made a big contribution to a growing public debate.
More specifically, the publication in March of a report on cable systems by the information technology advisory panel, set up by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, was an important stimulus. The panel foresaw welcome opportunities for this country—opportunities for employment, industrial growth, technological development and overseas trade—that could lie in an expansion of the extent and scope of broad-band cable systems. That report, welcomed wholeheartedly in some circles, prompted doubts and reservations in others, chiefly perhaps because it was seen as having profound implications for our system of broadcasting which the panel—as it freely admitted—had not been able to tackle.
Accordingly, on the day of publication of the panel's report, I announced the setting up of an inquiry, under the distinguished chairmanship of Lord Hunt of Tanworth, to consider those broadcasting implications. The inquiry was asked:
"To take as its frame of reference the Government's wish to secure the benefits for the United Kingdom which cable technology can offer and its willingness to consider an expansion of the cable system which would permit cable to carry a wider
412
range of entertainment and other services (including when available services of direct broadcasting by satellite), but in a way consistent with the wider public interest, in particular the safeguarding of public service broadcasting."
Mr. John Gorst: In the context of carrying all four existing channels, will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the Independent Broadcasting Authority that a fourth channel that is composed of bad language, political bias and many other undesirable qualities should not be carried by a cable television system?
Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend will know that that is not part of this debate. However, I recognise that there is widespread public concern about what my hon. Friend has said. No doubt the members of the IBA who are responsible for the programmes on that channel will note the widespread public concern expressed both by my hon. Friend and throughout the country.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: It is not widespread.
Mr. Whitelaw: That is the right hon. Gentleman's opinion. I can only say—from what has been said to me and from correspondence that I have receixed—that concern is widespread. I am entitled to my view, and I believe that that is so. I wish to leave the matter there, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the fourth channel has generated considerable concern and correspondence, as the Home Office well knows.
Concurrently, groups within Whitehall were set up to study other aspects—economic and industrial implications, technological matters, and the interaction with other parts of our telecommunications policy. The Departrnents concerned have consulted widely with industry and outside organisations concerned.
Lord Hunt, Sir Maurice Hodgson and Professor Ring deserve our thanks for the speed and diligence with which they worked in order to complete their complex task within the six months allotted to them. Their report was published on 12 October. Barely three weeks later, the Gracious Speech signified the Government's intention that
"Proposals will be prepared for the development and expansion of cable systems."
In today's debate, the Government take the first steps towards fulfilling that commitment. I say "the first steps", because today's debate has a dual object. The first object is to indicate to Parliament, and to others concerned, the broad lines of the Government's approach to cable. Secondly, we wish to give the House the opportunity to express its views both on the broad framework of policy and on the many matters of comparative detail, albeit important, that the Hunt report raises.
Mr. Phillip Whitehead: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that the Hunt committee was asked to accept, as one of its assumptions, that there had to be a split between the carriers of the cable systems and the providers of programmes?
Mr. Whitelaw: The committee was allowed to consider all the matters involved, as its terms of reference made clear.
On a number of these matters my intention today is not to announce a Government preference, but simply to identify the issue and focus discussion on it. Thereafter our aim is to publish, in the early part of next year, a White Paper. This will set out a detailed scheme for cable

413
systems as a basis for legislation as soon as possible, although clearly not in the present Session. As I shall explain later, that does not necessarily mean that nothing can happen until a Bill has been enacted. There are possibilities of interim action, to which I shall refer.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: It has been widely reported that the Prime Minister will make an announcement about that aspect of cable at a public meeting next Tuesday. How can it be said that we are being given the opportunity to consult and debate if the right hon. Lady intends to decide for us next Tuesday?
Mr. Whitelaw: Frankly, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will not decide for us next Tuesday. She will make a speech on the matter. I am sorry—I should have said Wednesday. However, whether the day is Tuesday or Wednesday, my right hon. Friend will not do so. I have made it clear that we are having a debate to hear the views of the House. I have said that the Government will publish a White Paper after the debate. If I say that, it is what I mean. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is the way in which the Government intend to proceed. It is important to make that abundantly clear. Otherwise, people may feel that this debate is not worth while. It is. By referring to some of the problems, I hope to show that I recognise the importance of discussing these matters in the House and of deciding on many of the extremely difficult issues involved.
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he intends to follow the recommendation in paragraph 98 of the Hunt report, about which many hon. Members are unhappy, which suggests that, in the absence of the time for legislation, progress should be made without the authority of the House behind it?
Mr. Whitelaw: I promised that I would raise that issue, and I shall do so later. The House will decide this matter. I shall listen to the views expressed today and a White Paper will be published in February. No decisions on how we shall proceed will be taken until the House has pronounced its opinion and has had another chance to look at the White Paper. That is surely a fair way to go forward.
Starting with the general aspects of cable policy, I begin by declaring the Government's belief that opportunities should be created for the development of cable systems and their intention to provide those opportunities. By providing opportunities, we mean removing unnecessary obstacles and restrictions; creating an appropriate statutory framework that encourages and does not constrict development; and laying down such minimum technical and other standards as are necessary for orderly growth in the general interest.
We want cable to be free to provide a wide range of programmes of entertainment, information and education, and interactive services, but we do not mean to prescribe a detailed plan or to create a new area of public investment. Here, as elsewhere, we believe that in many respects private investment and market forces should determine the pace at which and the directions in which there is development. The Government accept the Hunt committee's recommendation that there should be no mandatory separation between the cable operator and the cable provider.
Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the technical specifications are all important and that, if this development is to depend on market forces, we shall have a patchwork of cable systems that will not relate to each other? If so, we shall not have the interactive network that he mentioned. It is essential that the Government, apart from being neutral, should at least lay down some hard technical guidelines.
Mr. Whitelaw: As I said earlier, my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology will deal specifically with the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Secondly, we do not believe in totally random developments. There is a public interest to be asserted. There is the interest of consumers—those who will use cable services and those who will continue to rely on conventional broadcast services—and the interests of the cable providers and operators.
With the Hunt report, we believe that a statutory cable authority is needed—
Mr. Charles R. Morris: Bearing in mind recommendation No. 46 of the Hunt report and the fact that the envisaged cable authority will award franchises and monitor performance, to what extent will the duties of that body differ from the functions and powers of the IBA?
Mr. Whitelaw: The House and the Government will have a chance to consider the extent to which it differs when we debate the White Paper and, thereafter, any legislation. Part of the reason for the debate is to decide the sort of authority that we ought to have.
Mr. Whitehead: The Home Secretary said that the Government accepted the Hunt recommendation that there should be no separation between the cable provider and the programme provider, but he did not say why. Surely we have a right to know.
Mr. Whitelaw: I said "no mandatory separation", and that is what I believe—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Simply because I believe it to be the correct decision—[AN HON. MEMBER: "That is a circular argument."] It may be a circular argument, but it is none the worse for that, because circular arguments are sometimes very good.
With the Hunt report, we believe that a statutory cable authority is needed to consider applications to cable, to award franchises and to exercise sufficient but not excessive supervision over the services—programme services in particular—that cable operators will provide. Again with Hunt, we take the view that a new authority is required. We do not favour adding the function to those functions already exercised by the IBA.
In reaching that conclusion we are far from ignoring the willingness of the IBA to undertake this new function or the pointers in favour of its doing so. Nevertheless, we are persuaded that the regulation of cable will be a new task requiring a new approach, and we believe that this newness is best achieved and marked by setting up a new authority.
Mr. Gorst: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Whitelaw: Yes; but it is becoming almost impossible to make progress with my speech.
Mr. Gorst: I thank my right hon. Friend. Are there any estimates of the likely cost of a new cable authority

415
compared with the cost of the IBA? If my right hon. Friend were able to give such an indication, the House would be in a better position to judge what is being proposed.
Mr. Whitelaw: I am afraid that I can give no such indication. This will depend entirely on the type of authority that we finally decide to set up, on exactly what functions it will have, on exactly how many people it will need to perform those functions, and on many other matters. Were I to pronounce on them now, I would be denying the House the right to say what sort of authority we should have. I cannot, therefore, give my hon. Friend the answer for which he has asked.
Next, there is the framework in which the authority will operate, the tasks that will fall to it and the style that it should seek to establish. The Government are broadly in accord with the general approach and particular recommendations of the Hunt report.
On the authority's style and approach, we endorse the Hunt committee's view that cable should be seen—and we hope it will develop—not as another form of public service broadcasting, but as something different from but complementary to it. This will require a different approach to regulation from the form that the IBA exercises in relation to ITV. However, it would be a mistake to suppose, as some people seem to have done, that the Hunt committee or the Government envisage a "toothless" authority. Through its franchising and refranchising function, its monitoring of cable output and its reserve powers of intervention, if it became worried about an operator's performance it would be able to exercise very considerable influence.
Mr. Hattersley: The nature of such intervention is crucial to the debate. As I recall, the Hunt committee does not talk about the reserve powers of intervention between franchises. What does the Home Secretary mean by "reserve powers"?
Mr. Whitelaw: I stand to be corrected, but I think that Hunt does talk about reserve powers. It will be for the House to decide, after a long period of discussion, including discussion on the White Paper and the legislation, what powers the authority will have. It is important that we should not decide now exactly what we want the authority to do. As always, I stand to be corrected by the right hon. Gentleman, but on this occasion I think that I am right.
As I indicated earlier, it is not the Government's intention in this debate to take the Hunt recommendations in detail and give a decision or even a view on each. That stage will come later—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wednesday?"] I hope that I have shot that bird, if hon. Members know what I mean.
Mr. Clement Freud: I did not know she was in season.
Mr. Whitelaw: What I mean is that the argument that all will be announced on Wednesday is not true. I hope it is understood that way. We shall then promulgate our detailed proposals in a White Paper. But I believe it will be helpful to the House if I comment briefly on certain Hunt recommendations that have attracted particular interest, and on which the Government would welcome the view of hon. Members.
The specific task of the Hunt inquiry was to consider
"the safeguarding of public service broadcasting".
416
A number of its recommendations contribute to that object—for example, the whole framework of a franchising and supervising authority, which the Government believe is right. At a more specific level, we think it right that cable systems should be required to carry the public service broadcasing programmes transmitted by the BBC and IBA.
Another important safeguard for public service broadcasting is that cable operators, like broadcasters, should not be able to obtain "exclusive rights" for national sporting events. The mechanism of such a restriction, and the list of events to which it should apply, will need careful working out, but the importance of the principle is clear.
The Hunt report recommended a ban "for the time being" on "pay-per-view". That is a system under which the subscriber can be offered for payment particular individual programmes—for example, sporting events outside the ban on "exclusive rights". The public service broadcasters, who have to finance channels as a whole, see a particular threat in this kind of programme finance. They would find it hard to compete, so that either general programme budgets would be starved or the general viewing public would be deprived of particular key events or pieces of entertainment. Conversely, cable interests see "pay-per-view" as an important source of finance. They suggest it could be confined to programmes which otherwise would not be seen on the television screen at all. These are difficult matters requiring further thought, on which we shall welcome the views of the House. It may be that some way can be found of giving cable operators and subscribers the benefits of some limited form of "pay-per-view", but I stress that any such solution would need to add to what is available through public service broadcasting, not subtract from it.
"Pay-per-view" apart, Hunt recommended that cable should be able to finance itself by rental payments, subscription, advertising and—with safeguards—sponsorship. The Government accept this recommendation. The main point of controversy here is whether, as Hunt proposed, cable should, at least for the present, be unrestricted as to the amount of advertising shown. That would be in contrast to ITV and independant local radio, where the number of minutes in an hour allotted to advertising is regulated by the IBA. Clearly, on some cable channels—for example, one dedicated to "classified advertising"—a time limitation would be out of place, but other channels may be of a more general entertainment type comparable with ITV. Hence the ITV companies argue that they should not be placed at a disadvantage. We shall have to consider whether restrictions should be imposed on that sort of cable channel; whether the present restrictions on ITV should be modified or removed altogether; or whether different regimes can be justified.
We shall also have to consider how to give effect to what seems the sound Hunt recommendation that the IBA advertising standards and code should apply to cable advertisements. The IBA code is operated through pre-vetting of advertisements, in some cases by the programme company, but more usually by the Independent Television Companies Association, which takes much of the load off the IBA. It is difficult to see how it could work retrospectively, as Hunt suggests.
An issue on which a sharp divergence of view has already developed is whether there should be specific requirements regarding the amount of British and other

417
European Community material to be shown on cable. The BBC and ITV are obliged to show a "proper proportion" of British and European Community material—interpreted in practice as 86 per cent. Hunt considered that such a requirement would seriously inhibit cable operators and was inappropriate. However, the cable authority should encourage the production and use of British material on cable. Certainly the current BBC and IBA requirements could not, as they stand, be applied to cable. But if cable were placed under no restriction, it would be necessary to consider whether the present restrictions on the BBC and ITV—which undoubtedly add to their programming costs—could be maintained.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: This is the point about which I have received most letters. Many people are seriously worried that we shall be entering an era of wall-to-wall Dallas, which is a serious matter to contemplate. Will the Home Secretary give an assurance that this matter will be seriously considered? Compared with other industrial nations, we are good at producing television. The Japanese allow only five per cent. of foreign content in their programmmes. It is a pity that we do not insist on such a percentage of video recorders coming into Britain.
Mr. Whitelaw: In saying that there was a sharp divergence of view, I must make it clear that this matter will be studied by the Government and by the House with the greatest care. The position in other countries will also be considered. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asks.
In the area of programme content, attention has concentrated on the risk of pornography being carried on cable. The main Hunt recommendation here is that cable operators should be subject to the same requirements as the BBC and IBA to ensure that their programmes do not offend against good taste and decency, encourage crime, lead to disorder or offend public feeling. The BBC and IBA are required to take special care with regard to programmes broadcast when children are likely to be watching. Certainly there are considerable arguments about the success of the BBC and IBA in maintaining these standards at the present time. Be that as it may, it seems clearly right that no less a requirement should attach to cable programmes. It is an aspect of cable operation in which, no doubt, the cable authority will find itself taking a close interest.
The BBC and IBA interpret the taste and decency requirement, and their obligation to have special regard to programmes shown when young people are watching, as allowing the showing, late at night, of programmes which are unsuitable for children, including some—but not all—X-certificate films. Hunt recommended that this restriction as regards time need not be applied on a cable subscription channel which had an electronic lock embodying a personal code, such as to enable the adult subscriber to control the programmes that children could watch, even in his absence.
Mr. Freud: Does the Home Secretary agree that the only people who are capable of dealing with an electronic locking device are children?
Mr. Whitelaw: If I were to refer to my grandchildren, rather than myself, the answer would undoubtedly be
418
"Yes". The hon. Gentleman has a serious point. I was asked the question and I gave the honest answer. I am entitled to do that.
Furthermore, Hunt said that it was arguable whether, on such a channel, the ordinary taste and decency requirements need apply at all, provided that films could be shown only if they had been approved for public exhibition through the film censorship system. This proposal, which, like the rest of the scheme, can be seen as enlarging individual choice, has undoubtedly caused anxiety—not to say scepticism—in some quarters, and will require further consideration. It is not integral to the scheme as a whole.
There are other specific recommendations to which I could devote time, but it will probably be more helpful to the House if I look ahead towards implementation of a programme of cable expansion. I have spoken already of a White Paper in the spring; of legislation, though not in this Session; and of the establishment under statute of a new cable authority with franchising and supervisory functions.
That is an orderly way ahead, but it will take time. I recognise that there are those who will argue that we cannot afford to wait. There are consortia already working up plans. There are existing cable operators anxious to be relieved of their requirement to carry BBC and IBA programmes on their cable—they would provide off-air reception instead—so that they can offer revenue-earning services on their existing obsolescent systems.
The question is asked "Can we now go ahead on an interim basis?" Technically, the answer is "Yes, we could." There are licensing powers—those under which cable operators are licensed to relay BBC and IBA services and to provide the existing subscription pilot schemes, and the powers of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. However, these powers have been devised and used in a context very different from the one that now confronts us.
We now face the prospect of large and, it must be hoped, profitable investment, competition for franchises, and wide-ranging programming. The Hunt report is surely right to see it as the task of a cable authority to shoulder the responsibilities for franchising and programme supervision, thus distancing the Government from these decisions in much the same way as the IBA has successfully done with regard to ITV. If the cable authority approach is the right and necessary one, I see great difficulty, even for a limited interim period, in managing without an authority and doing it all through ministerial licensing powers.
There is a halfway house, hinted at in the Hunt report. Once a detailed scheme for cable had been published in a White Paper and given parliamentary authority, a future cable authority could be appointed in the form—technically—of an advisory committee. This advisory committee, with its staff, could begin work on some initial franchising of new systems and of new services for existing systems. Formal effect could be given to the advice of the advisory committee through the granting of ministerial licences.
While this approach would hasten work on cable franchises, it has obvious disadvantages. In particular, it would leave Ministers with formal responsibility for matters—both franchising decisions and programme content—which we, like Hunt, believe are properly

419
entrusted to an independent authority. The Government will be interested to hear the reactions of right hon. and hon. Members and others to it.
Our task today, as I said at the outset, is not to debate the pros and cons of whether cable systems should exist, but to accept the fact of the technology and to determine how to use it positively and to best advantage. The Government, for their part, are keen to develop plans for the expansion of cable that will enjoy widespread support and inspire investment confidence. I hope I have made the broad framework clear. Much of the detail requires further thought, but, backed, I hope, by support in the House today, we shall press ahead and bring a White Paper before the House in the early months of 1983.
4.53 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: I begin by echoing the classic understatement contained in the opening lines of Lord Hunt's inquiry into cable expansion and broadcasting policy. The document starts by saying:
"The decisions which must be taken in relation to cable expansion are of great significance."
No one will be disposed to argue with that. The expansion of cable technology and all that it implies for broadcasting, for industry, for communications and, therefore, for society as a whole, is absolutely irresistible. No one on the Opposition Benches has the slightest wish to stand in the path of history. The error of the Luddites was that they wished to smash the new machinery. We want to accept and welcome the existence of the new technology, but to make sure that it works on behalf of the community as a whole and not simply in the interests of a narrow group of speculators.
I must confess that I was initially prepared to express fears which my hon. Friends behind me have already offered to the Home Secretary that every decision has been taken and that all we had to do was to wait until Wednesday, the Barbican and the Prime Minister, and every dot and comma of this policy would be announced. I am delighted that the Home Secretary has unequivocally made it clear that this is not the case. I accept without reservation that if he says that that is so, it is so. The right hon. Gentleman will, however, forgive me for saying, as good naturedly as I can, that for a policy that is not decided, it contains a number of immutable elements that were announced to us today.
I give two examples. One is that there should be no statutory separation between cable companies and programme companies. I disagree. The other is that the statutory authority eventually created should not be the IBA. I agree. However, whether I agree or disagree, the Home Secretary will concede, I am sure, that some of the fundamentals of policy have been decided before the House was given the technical opportunity for the consultations that the right hon. Gentleman claims are taking place today. My fear about the policy is that the Government's fundamental position on operating a virtually laissez-faire cable system was decided before the Hunt committee was set up.
It seems to many of us that as soon as the Information Technology Advisory Panel which, described honestly, is simply a conglomeration of vested interests had prepared the way for unregulated cable systems, the Government decided to act within that framework. There was a brief and limited report from Lord Hunt. We are now going
420
through a token period of consultation. It is clear that the Government will press ahead along the laissez-faire lines which have been leaked to newspaper after newspaper and which the Home Secretary, in his statement, has confirmed categorically is the Government's intention. That is the only possible interpretation of the manner in which the Hunt committee behaved and the nature of its report.
I must say, with great respect to the three distinguished gentlemen who produced the document, that they so circumscribed their investigation that what they produced in the end was the most intellectually inadequate document of this sort that I have ever read—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Industry describes my comment as "Rubbish". I should therefore welcome a comment on the two points I wish to raise. The Home Secretary has been a great deal more reasonable and his actions a great deal more acceptable by democratic standards than the approach adopted by the Hunt committee. I refer to the possibility of introducing cable by the back door. The Hunt committee is the first statutory committee whose report I have ever read that has actually offered the Government the opportunity of bypassing Parliament. In paragraph 98, the committee actually says that, to fulfil all the obligations it thinks necessary,
"The new authority will need to be established by legislation."
It goes on to say, in broad terms, that if the Government do not feel that they can get the legislation this Session, they may choose to operate under powers that Parliament provided for quite different purposes.
If the Secretary of State for Industry regards that as the way in which official committees should behave, he will astound hon. Members on both sides of the House. I can only be pleased that it is the Home Secretary rather than the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of these things and that he has decided or has got near to deciding, I hope, that we are not to have cable by the back door but that if there is to be cable and the cable authority, then the Bill to provide that authority must be properly presented to Parliament.
There is another question concerning the Hunt committee's behaviour in this regard. Its report contains another example of what I must describe as its willingness to sing the Government's tune. In chapter 3 or page 8, paragraph 22, there is this extraordinary sentence:
"Although not within our terms of reference, the national common carrier model appears unlikely as it is inconsistent with the Government's policy".
Clearly the examination of a national common carrier model was within its formal terms of reference. Any hon. Gentleman who reads page 1 of the report will find the terms of reference laid down by the Prime Minister, which make it clear that had the Hunt committee wanted to consider the national common carrier model it would have been entitled to do so. It did not do so, because it knew that that was not what the Government were after. It seems extraordinary that we have an official committee of this type saying in its report that it produces for Parliament that it did not examine some options because to do so would have displeased the Government.
The Labour Party is in favour of a national common carrier. We believe that it should be run by British Telecom. That is the way to ensure that eventually we have a system laid that is appropriate to the nation's future needs rather than having a system that produces a quick profit in

421
some areas, and a diminishing return in others. That is the way to ensure that eventually, although not within the next five to 10 years, a national network is available for all the country.
I shall ask the Home Secretary a specific question about the national network. Can the Government tell us whether it is their belief that, under their laissez-faire scheme, the whole country will be covered by cable? At the Edinburgh international television festival, I had the pleasure and good fortune to hear the Minister for Industry and Information Technology. He said repeatedly that the Government's private enterprise scheme would eventually result in the entire country being covered. I must say in defence of this proposition that nobody at the conference believed it—not the programme makers, or those who wanted to make large profits out of cable.
The Minister's question time was made up almost exclusively of questions about how he could come to such a conclusion to which he blandly replied—the best description for the Minister in general is bland—that he was more optimistic than the rest of us, and had hope, confidence and faith.
I hope that between 9.30 and 10 o'clock we may have a little more than hope, faith, confidence and optimism, and that the Minister will tell us whether he thinks that his scheme will one day cover the entire country, or whether the Government are embarking on a cable system for limited parts of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Gorst: I hope that I can set the right hon. Gentleman at ease on this matter. He has nothing to worry about because if the Government are determined to accept the recommendations from Lord Hunt, the length of the franchise will be only about eight years and no one in private enterprise will come forward with any type of investment. The franchise needs to be at least 15 or 25 years.
Mr. Hattersley: At half-past nine the hon. Gentleman will find that the Minister is a good deal more optimistic and confident, and has a good deal more faith and hope, which he will wish the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) to emulate. However, I wish to hear what the Government believe about these matters, what they think will be the outcome of the scheme, and where they think cable will be laid.
My fear is that cable will be laid in only a few limited areas, where it is immediately profitable for cable to be put down. That will be particularly so if the Government will allow franchises to be given without requiring those companies that choose to lay cable in the most profitable areas to extend their enterprises into other areas nearby where the profit may not be as great but the need is virtually the same.
Mr. John Browne: Surely that is the answer. If an area is likely to be unprofitable, then it is likely that people in it do not want cable. Why lay in areas where the cable is not wanted? That is the whole point, and it is the freedom of choice that is being offered to the individual.
Mr. John Golding: Game, set and match.
Mr. Hattersley: I accept that what the hon. Gentleman describes is a rough approximation of what will happen,
422
but I wish to know whether the Government support that view, whether that is what they want and whether they are with the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) in his abrasive view that cable is for those who can afford it and for those companies that are prepared to market a cheap product in areas where it can be bought expensively.
Mr. Tim Brinton: I am interested in the development of this argument, because, if we think back to the arrival of BBC television and then of ITV, we remember that many people could not receive either for years. Many could not afford colour television for many years either. Will the right hon. Gentleman limit advancement and progress on the basis that everyone has to have it at the same time?
Mr. Hattersley: That is wrong in two different ways. It is factually incorrect because only a very small proportion of people were unable to receive ITV after five years. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman must attempt to understand that the provision of cable in some areas, as I have attempted to demonstrate, not only denies the areas that do not have cable the programmes that cable is putting out. Because of the way that cable is likely to be financed, it will, in some areas where cable is not installed, deny listeners the programmes that they presently receive from BBC and ITV.
I give the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton) credit for having read the report, but from what the Home Secretary has said, both Hunt and the Home Secretary are only offering a cable limitation on national sporting events. That will mean that cable in prosperous South-West England will purchase some broadcasts that are normally transmitted to all the United Kingdom, and the broadcasts will not be available in areas where cable does not exist. The choice that the hon. Member for Gravesend is advocating is a denial of choice for some who already enjoy it.
Our fear is that if we are to have this patchy laying of cable in area by area, with no attempt at network, and our wish for a national common carrier run by British Telecom is the way to obtain the national—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah".] Hon. Members must not sigh as if I had given away some extraordinary secret. I gave that extraordinary secret away 10 minutes ago.
Of course the Labour Party wants a national common carrier owned and run by British Telecom, because it will meet the needs of the community rather than meeting the needs of small areas of private profit. If we do not have the national common carrier, there will be two problems. One, which I have described, is the creation of two television nations, the prosperous areas having cable and the prosperous companies buying programmes that would otherwise be nationally distributed, and the non-prosperous areas being denied them.
There is a second problem, which company after company has honestly admitted when it has taken part in the innumerable seminars on this subject that have been a characteristic of our lives for the past six months. There will be some areas where the profitability of cable is so marginal that the companies after a year or so are teetering on the edge of viability. Then they will have to buy more and more low-cost, low-quality foreign films. That will happen if we do not have a national system but one that operates in various parts of the country according to the demand provided commercially in different regions.

423
If it is simply left to the free-for-all, the best understanding of what will come about is demonstrated and exemplified by the extraordinary lobbying that hon. Members from all parts of the House have had to endure during the past six months.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: By the BBC.
Mr. Hattersley: Of course, it is the duty of the trade unions and British Telecom to express their opinions on the matter. However, on no other subject have hon. Members on either side of the House been subject to the number of glossy booklets, offers of hospitality and promises of good things to come that they have been offered during the past six months while the cable franchises were discussed.
To those who are lobbying so hard I want to say two or three things on behalf of the Opposition. I suspect that the Government will go ahead with undue and irresponsible haste and encourage the creation of a generally unregulated cable system. What the Home Secretary said this afternoon made that clear. I suspect that the outdated coaxial cable will be preferred to modern fibre optic because it can be rushed in more quickly. I suspect that foreign technology will be allowed to dominate the market as it has a head start. I suspect that the most profitable areas will provide programmes that poach from the national network. I suspect that the providers of programmes and the providers of cable will, as the Home Secretary says, be allowed to have concentrated power. I suspect that the content of programmes will be subject to virtually no effective supervision.
However, the prospective companies ought to know that a Labour Government intend to rectify those mistakes. We want to see a successful cable system. We want to see the jobs that it can create. We want to see the social and technical benefits that it can bring about. However, we want all the benefits to be enjoyed by all the people, not to be exploited by a handful of foreign-based companies and not used to dilute the standards and content of British television.
Anyone who doubts the outcome of the present system as envisaged by the Government needs to do no more than look in his or her file for a letter that he or she has almost certainly recently received from the hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd). His writing paper was headed with the proclamation that cable was "a great opportunity for British industry." The only thing that slightly diluted the message was that it was written on the paper of the Sony television company. If one wants to comment on what it is pretended will happen as distinct from what will really happen the hon. Gentleman drew our attention to it exactly. That is what we fear and that is what a large proportion of people concerned with standards as well as employment prospects fear as well.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman gave me notice that he would raise that point. The arrangement for the Sony people to come to the House of Commons and tell us what they thought was in the interests of British industry was one that I made on my own decision. An all-party group of Members turned up to hear what the Sony people had to say, which was thought by all present to be in the interests of British industry. The Sony people said that, whatever happened, they would do
424
well out of it, which is fair enough. However, there was one way, which they advocated openly, by which the advantages to British industry would be substantially greater. As employers of 1,500 British people in Wales they took that view. I have no reason to regret asking them to come here. Let us have the benefit of their judgment.
Mr. Hattersley: I am not questioning the hon. Gentleman's intentions or integrity. I am merely saying that few hon. Members believe that Japanese assemblers are normally prepared to provide their time, money and resources to offer advice to British industry on how we and they can beat the Japanese. I believe that the Japanese are almost certainly in favour of something other than the greater success of British industry. They were right. What the Government are doing will be of immeasurable benefit to Japanese industry. The Government are rushing in in a precipitous way.
The Government are encouraged in so doing by the Hunt report, which generally recommended neither supervision of programme content nor supervision of the behaviour of companies. I make it clear that it is our view that it is absolutely essential that supervision be provided. That is supervision in two senses—supervision of the companies that lay the cables and supervision of the companies that eventually broadcast the programmes.
I shall deal with what I mean by supervision. I accept, of course, that with a number of channels and buttons to press it is not possible to have a new authority, perhaps modelled on the IBA but separate from it, previewing and prevetting the output of every channel. That new authority should be given the right, when there are constant complaints and difficulties, to require a broadcasting company to submit all its programmes for a limited period for previewing and prevetting.
The Home Secretary and I had a genial dispute as to whether he or I was wrong, both of us conceding the likelihood that we were wrong. The Home Secretary seems to believe that a residual and back-up power is recommended in Hunt that would enable, if the recommendation is carried out, the new authority to excerise the supervision that I have described. I cannot find that in the appropriate paragraphs. Perhaps the Minister of State will tell us not so much whether that power appears in Hunt, because my fallibility in these matters is well known to the House, but, more importantly, whether the Government intend to implement such a power. The important thing is not whether it is in the report—I am probably wrong—
Mr. Raymond Whitney: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong.
Mr. Nigel Forman: May I assist the right hon. Gentleman? Paragraph 89 of the Hunt report refers to the approval subsequent to the initial franchise. It states:
"The approval of the franchising body would however be needed if it was subsequently proposed to modify the basis on which the franchise had been granted".
The report continues in that vein.
Mr. Hattersley: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he has helped me, I must tell him that he has not. That is not the power that I hoped for and that the Home Secretary hinted existed. I want a power that allows a body such as the IBA to say to a company that there is so much concern about its programmes, the quality appears to be deteriorating and there are so many complaints about their

425
nature and content that it requires that company from now on to submit each programme to it before it is broadcast. Apparently, that does not appear in the Hunt report. I want to know whether the Government find any merit in and have any sympathy for that point of view.
Mr. John Browne: Is not the right hon. Gentleman confusing an important fact? Broadcasting over the air must not be confused with narrowcasting over cable. Therefore, his general concern is not appropriate. How much does he think it will cost for the whole country to be cabled by British Telecom, and who would pay?
Mr. Hattersley: There is great confusion because of absurd conventions of Treasury accounting. If it is possible to do so profitably in some areas privately, British Telecom could do it on the same basis over the same period—
Mr. John Garrett: In the same way.
Mr. Hattersley: In the same way, as my hon. Friend said. The difference would be that British Telecom would have the intention and aspiration to go on to cover other parts of the country—
Mr. John Browne: Where would it get the revenue?
Mr. Hattersley: Initially it would get the revenue that was available to, and apparently to be received by, private companies.
The second point that the hon. Member for Winchester made is equally important. I do not concede the point that because it is narrowcasting there is no reason why there should be any supervision of programme content. Anyone who has seen the programme content in other countries on cable must have a legitimate concern about the material put out.
Mr. John Browne: It is not the same type of cable.
Mr. Hattersley: I do not mind giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I wish that he would not talk to me all the time from a sedentary position. I want to explain to him why he is wrong.
There is a romantic view about cable that as long as we have the concept of freedom of choice, which in my view is not freedom of choice at all, all sorts of desirable things will come about, such as a 24-hour news service. If the hon. Gentleman considers the New York experience, he will see that the major 24-hour news service has collapsed through bankruptcy, but a gentleman called Ugly George prospers by transmitting low quality pictures of girls whom he has persuaded to undress in Central Park. I do not mind whether it is called broadcasting or narrowcasting. I do not want transmitted on British television low quality pictures of girls who have been persuaded to undress in Regents Park.
Before I am interrupted, let me say that nothing in the Hunt report, or in the Home Secretary's speech today, has convinced me that there will be adequate supervision. There is clearly a confusion between the standard expected of independent television companies and the need to have a key which theoretically enables some unpleasant programmes to be switched off. We have not had a clear statement from the Home Secretary whether the standards that we expect from the BBC and ITV will be required of the cable companies.
Mr. Julian Critchley: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, whereas Ugly George succeeded in Manhattan, he failed in Edinburgh. That was not because of the girls' rectitude, but because of the prevailing east wind.
Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman has more faith in the British climate than I have. My suspicion is that in warmer climes, in the sort of place that he inhabits, Ugly George might be very successful indeed. I do not want to name any of those military towns where he might find himself but—
Mr. Sheerman: Hon. Members may make light of this, but a serious point is being made. I was quite chilled, as I am sure other hon. Members were, by what the Home Secretary said. He said that the traditional safeguards on advertising, on British content and on taste and decency will go. If that is not what he said, I hope that I shall be corrected.
Mr. Hattersley: I understand exactly why my hon. Friend is confused. I have already tried to say, and I shall now say again, that it is by no means clear what the Home Secretary did say about the traditional standards of taste and decency. On the one hand he said that he wants them preserved and on the other that he will make some arrangements whereby people who do not want low standards and indecency can switch the television off by a mythical device. We are not clear what he believes.
Mr. Whitelaw: I stand, as the House knows, as firmly as anybody else for decent standards in our television programmes. I can be shown over the years to have done so. When I put forward various proposals for the House to consider, I am supposed to answer everything. If I do, I am told that I should not be prejudging the matter and if I do not I am told that I should. I cannot do both.
Mr. Hattersley: Let me try to explain why Labour Members think that the Home Secretary is remiss. I understand why he argues both sides of the case. However, when he appears to close down the option of all pre-vetting, he is making it clear that some undesirable programmes will be allowed. That is against the beliefs, wishes and principles of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself.
Mr. Tim Rathbone rose—
Mr. Hattersley: No, I shall not give way, I have given way about 11 times and I must continue.
Mr. Rathbone: The right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House.
Mr. Hattersley: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that I am misleading the House, I had better let him intervene.
Mr. Rathbone: It is not critical, but I think what the right hon. Gentleman has just said could be misunderstood. Just because prevetting is done away with does not mean that lower standards are condoned. There can be postvetting and franchises can be withdrawn for any period. That can be done for any transgression of the rules. There is no parallel between prevetting and the lowering of standards.
Mr. Hattersley: I am not sure of the sort of world in which the hon. Gentleman lives. Let me give him an example. A company with a 10-year cable franchise which has been running for five years may have two

427
options—one to go bankrupt immediately, and the other to risk the renewal of its franchise in five years' time. What does the hon. Gentleman think that it will do? It will lower the standards, bring in cheap and nasty material from outside and it will hope, as happens in the United States, that it can survive for another five years. To say that the possibility that a company will lose its franchise in five years will cause it to maintain its standards is romantic nonsense. To say that the renewal of the franchise is a sanction is the same as saying that there is no sanction.
Mr. Whitehead: If there are to be split franchises, as has now been widely leaked, and the longer franchise is for the operation of the cable system and the shorter one is for the provision of programmes, surely that will remove the sanction if the provision of programmes is inadequate.
Mr. Hattersley: Of course it will. That is why Labour Members want a statutory distinction between the cable layers and the programme companies. I made that clear 20 minutes ago. To allow them to operate in tandem is to give them an enormous power that will enable them to defy the standards that we attempt tentatively to lay down.
We want to see a regulation, not simply of the standards and quality of output but of the effect that cable will have on the established national programme producers. That is the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman). Some form of regulation is essential if the BBC and ITV are not to suffer appallingly as a result of the freedom given to cable.
The Home Secretary gave an example. He said that the BBC and ITV are required to transmit 86 per cent. of British material. I think of that as being allowed to transmit only 14 per cent. of foreign material. If they are to compete with cable companies which can buy low budget, low quality foreign films which they can run for 100 per cent. of their time, the problems for the BBC and ITV will be enormous. I was going to say that they are so enormous that I fear that the next step will be that the BBC and ITV will start pressing for the right to show more foreign material. However, that is not the next step; it is today's step. The Home Secretary has announced already that he will consider the possibility of more foreign material going to ITV and BBC. I can see why, if they are to compete with the cable companies, that is necessary in equity, but the disaster that that would mean for the home industry is incalculable.
I am horrified that instead of that being a prospect for the future, about which we should all be afraid, the Home Secretary should have floated the idea today that there shall be more licence for more foreign products on the BBC and ITV.
Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the point that he has just made about equity is reinforced by what the Government are doing to the film industry? Again, the floodgates are being opened to foreign films and the Eady levy is being removed.
Mr. Hattersley: That is only obliquely relevant to what I have to say this afternoon, but the hon. Gentleman has made a fair point.
My next point is intimately and directly related—the control of advertising. I hope that the Home Secretary was saying—it was not altogether clear, but perhaps that is because of the nature of today's consultation
428
exercise—that the advertising regulations which apply to ITV will apply to the cable companies. Again, it would be intolerable if the ITV companies, attempting to maintain adequate programmes, were forced to compete with cable companies which could flash advertisements on at any part of a programme and which could produce the sort of advertisements which the IBA would not pass for a moment.
If there are to be several advertising channels, whether broadcast or narrowcast, they must fulfil the same advertising criteria. Great problems will arise in the raising of advertising revenue for cable in any event. The evidence of the Advertising Association that there was an unlimited amount of advertising waiting to spring out and finance all sorts of desirable projects was pathetic and does not bear a moment's analysis. The fear will be that the only advertising that cable gets will be the sort of advertising no hon. Member wants to see, at times in a programme when no hon. Member wants to see it. I hope that the Home Secretary was saying that he will ensure that there will be some regulations to put both ITV and the cable companies on a common footing.
I hope that the Home Secretary has got his ears open—I believe that he has—not only to wishes and expressions of opinion from Labour Members but to those from people outside—the growing number of people—who are becoming more and more concerned about what cable will do to Britain if it is allowed to go on unregulated.
The claims for cable are made by people who insist that it is an addition to our traditional freedoms, who frankly confuse the idea of pushing buttons with more choice. The way that many companies will develop will not increase choice. I personally find something distasteful in all the vested interests surrounding cable's laissez-faire development, dressing up their case as if it were something to do with the liberty of the subject and the freedom of the individual. In my view, it is nothing to do with that. It is to do, very often, with promoting cable in a way which meets sectional—not community—needs, which does not improve the quality of choice but improves the profits of some limited companies.
We want the cable revolution to meet the country's needs. That requires an amount of regulation, regulating the companies that lay the cables, the companies that transmit the broadcasts, and the broadcasts and advertisements themselves. We shall go on pressing for that to the White Paper and beyond.
5.30 pm
Sir Paul Bryan: I declare my interest as a director of Granada Television.
Since our debate on cable on 20 April much has happened. Hunt has reported and, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, we have been to countless seminars and we have been saturated with cable lore from scores of interested parties. Some of us have looked at cable in America. From what we have gleaned, we now have to decide whether we want cable television to be the means by which a cable system is established in this country.
My answer to that would be "Yes", provided, first, that our cable programmes can be as superior to American cable television programmes as our television is to its television, and, secondly, that cable television does not have the effect of lowering the quality of BBC and ITV. By that, I do not mean that they must be entirely insulated

429
from any technological change, any more than the BBC could be insulated from the healthy shock of the advent of ITV 25 years ago.
In the long run, we need cable for the reasons often and admirably expounded by my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology. We must keep ahead in technology so that we can establish a modern industry, giving direct employment to thousands and indirect employment to many more. In the short run, cable should improve the lot of the viewer.
Before a recent visit to America, I was convinced that British television was the best in the world. Having been there, I remain so convinced. However, I have also discovered that, with the addition of cable, the American viewer is better off than his British counterpart here.
Andrew Neil, in a booklet, recently published and edited by him, called "The Cable Revolution", says:
"It may hurt British pride to hear that the average American Cable viewer now has a far wider choice of quality programming to choose from than the average British viewer."
He then reviews in detail the choice available to a viewer in Manhattan at 9 o'clock on 7 June 1982 and that available to a viewer in London at that moment. In London he was offered the 9 o'clock news on BBC1, on BBC2 "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"—repeat—and on ITV "Minder"—repeat. The viewer in Manhattan had a choice of 27 programmes, which included five movies, three sports programmes, two plays, one ballet, one opera, one variety show, two documentaries, a soap opera, and three educational channels, plus two news channels and a programme on cooking.
Mr. Critchley: My hon. Friend has left out of his list soft porn, hard porn, and adventure, which I am told is the best of the lot.
Sir Paul Bryan: My hon. Friend may have studied these matters, but I shall continue with my speech.
As one flicks the switch through such a mass of programmes, one's general impression is that one never wants to see it. However, the viewer soon knows which channel he likes, and the net result, on a fully developed station, is a remarkable choice of programmes. One cannot get away from that.
Mr. Hattersley: Perhaps I may point out that the hon. Gentleman has also left out, as did Mr. Neil, what is available to the viewer in Des Moines compared with the viewer in, say, Coventry. The great advantage for the viewer in Coventry is that he gets as good a programme as the viewer in London. That same rule does not apply in the United States.
Sir Paul Bryan: That is correct. I said earlier that our system has to be better than the American system. In that, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman.
Nevertheless, one is still tempted to ask whether there would be a demand for such a choice in this country. To my mind, the answer is given by the quite astonishing explosion in video tape recorders, which are now to be found in one in six British homes, according to the latest figures. No one doubts that within five years these will be as common as colour television sets in this country. One buys a video tape recorder for only one reason—more choice: more choice of the times at which to see programmes, and more choice of programmes.
Mr. Whitehead: Research shows that 85 per cent. of the use of video recorders is for films which are hired in the high street. That cuts into the home box office market, which Hunt believes will be the most profitable for cable television.
Sir Paul Bryan: I shall expand on that later.
I want to say a word on the important question whether cable television would damage the high standards of BBC and ITV. Financially, I do not believe that they would be substantially affected. The BBC would still be financed by the levy.
There remains the question whether ITV would lose significantly in advertising revenue to cable. American experience and every survey carried out in this country show that advertising revenue from cable is derisory, compared with the income enjoyed by the television companies here, with their monopoly franchises. On ITV, an advertiser has a shrewd idea of how many viewers will see his advertisement. On cable, with its many channels, the audience is fragmented, and presents an uncertain and therefore unattractive proposition to an advertiser. What is more, the very appeal of many of the cable channels is that they do not carry advertisements.
The main income of cable comes not from advertising, but from subscriptions: subscriptions from the viewers who take the basic service of 10 or 12 channels; premium payments from subscribers who are willing to pay more for a particular extra channel of their choice; and—where the cable system is fully developed—"pay-per-view" payments for individual programmes selected by the viewer. The business objective of the cable operator is to increase the number of subscribers rather than the number of advertisers.
To placate the BBC, as we have heard, the Hunt report has banned "pay-per-view" for the time being. That decision is based on the misconception that a cable company might outbid the BBC or the ITV for a national event.
Mr. Michael English: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says, and I thank him for giving way. He said that the Government had given way to the BBC's view. I understood that the Government had given way to the broadcasting organisations—that is, the ITV companies and the IBA as well.
Sir Paul Bryan: I suspect that the BBC is fearful of the effect it will have on its satellite programme when it comes on in a few years' time.
I come back to what I was saying about cable possibly outbidding the ITV and BBC on a national event such as the Cup Final, thus denying to the general public events that they are accustomed to seeing without charge.
There is no difficulty in specifying events of that type for retention by the BBC and ITV. Moreover, there are many ways in which "pay-per-view" can be valuable to the cable companies without damaging the off-air companies. For example, the distributor of a feature film might be willing to let it be seen pre-release to a limited audience through "pay-per-view" for publicity purposes, whereas he would certainly not allow it to be exposed on a general network before it was shown in the cinemas.
Manchester United fans would be delighted to pay for the showing of away matches, but that would not be attractive as a general proposition to the BBC. The cable

431
operator might sponsor or produce his own programmes. At the moment, public broadcasting services can give most individual sporting events only limited coverage whereas, by "pay-per-view", that could be full coverage.
"Pay-per-view" in America is in its infancy. Only about 5,000 homes can receive it. Nevertheless, it is a rapidly expanding method of cable financing and it will be a major factor in future. Gus Hauser, the chairman of Warner, forecast that 20 million homes would receive such a service in five years' time.
Mr. Freud: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that whereas that may be true in America, where the sentence for piracy is $45,000 or three years in jail compared with a maximum fine of £50 here, there seems little future for that type of market in Britain until there is a radical change in our law?
Sir Paul Bryan: I shall deal with that point a little later.
I should like to stress once more that too little has been said in the general debate on cable about the place of the video tape recorder. By the time cable gets under way, the video recorder could easily have penetrated 80 per cent. of British homes. In other words, the penetration of those machines will be several times greater that that of cable.
It is impossible to forecast what effect that will have on the development of cable, but it is bound to be considerable. By the time video libraries are built up, the video tape recorders will be the perfect "pay-per-view". The viewer will be able to take his pick from literally thousands of titles and take them home for the weekend at no great cost. Moreover, the titles will not be confined to feature films and the like. They will cover every conceivable aspect of entertainment, education and "do-it-yourself". There will be choice on a scale that has never before been available on the television screen.
With regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), piracy and the explosion in demand have thrown the video tape industry into temporary disarray. However, the Private Member's Bill that is to be introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) will put an effective check on piracy. It will be a question only of time before the trade is organised to offer the type of service that I have described.
When I was in Washington, I asked the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission what controls he would impose at the outset of a new cable television service. He answered "I would impose the absolute minimum. I would then add any regulations that experience proved to be necessary." That was the result of his experience.
That is also the approach of the Hunt committee. I applaud it. Paragraph 89 states:
"We have already made clear the extent to which we think that cable programmes should conform to the traditional requirements as to taste and decency, and also that advertising should conform to the IBA code of advertising standards and practice."
It is a good start and an answer to those who complain that the BBC and ITV are being asked to compete with an utterly deregulated service.
I shall now deal with the difficult problem that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook raised. The regulating authority must consider how much overseas material should be allowed on the cable television channels. The 14 per cent. rule that operates fairly satisfactorily in the off-air services cannot be imposed across the board on a
432
cable station with, for example, 20 channels. A sports channel would probably be 100 per cent. home product, whereas a channel of the American box office type will be mostly American. I agree with the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that a system that allows sufficient American material to sustain its programmes but which stimulates rather than kills our film industry must be worked out. That is not out of the question.
When trying to foresee the shape of things to come in Britain, we should take note of the American scene, but we should not be overinfluenced by it, for the two situations are very different. The cable television explosion in America was based on the use of an already existing cable system that had been put there for other reasons. We shall be starting almost from scratch with the consequent advantages and disadvantages.
The absence of advertising on many cable channels has proved attractive to an American audience already frustrated by the grossly excessive quantity of crude advertising that afflicts its television network. That will not apply here. American cable has much less competition from the video tape recorder which will affect the cable system in Britain.
One substantial advantage that we shall enjoy over the Americans is a simpler system of franchising. There a complicated mixture of State, city and FCC regulations can mean delays of literally years in the granting of franchises. It can involve reams of paperwork, legal presentation and far too much corruption.
The American system of having 30 low-powered satellites, from which a channel can be beamed down to the 4,000—plus cable operators, is a much cheaper way of distributing programmes than the trunk system for which we shall have to pay.
I look forward to my hon. Friend's forecast of the pace at which he hopes to see our cable system develop. One school of thought opts for caution, pilot schemes and so on. I believe that speed within reason is essential. It is a case of the chicken and the egg. While there are no programmes, there will be no subscribers; while there are no subscribers, there will be no programmes. Until the number of subscribers reaches a critical level, much money will have been lost on programme production; and many will have been discouraged from going into programme production.
The first years will be difficult ones. The sooner franchises can be allotted, the better. I suggest that in these early stages everything should be done to attract the vast investment that will be required. For example, until there is practical evidence that profits can be made in a reasonable time, the franchises should be for longer than the 10 years recommended in paragraph 87 of the Hunt report.
Mr. Whitehead: How long should they be for?
Sir Paul Bryan: I do not know, but longer than that.
At this stage it would be rash to lay down the obligation that some people have suggested—that a cable operator should be obliged to take on an unpromising area as well as a prime one. The condition dear to the IBA—that stations should be locally owned—should be avoided as it is both discouraging and ineffective.
Experience may show, as cable develops, that more rules, regulations and conditions are necessary, but my advice at the start is "When in doubt, cut them out".
5.49 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: The debate on cable and satellite broadcasting has been marked by considerable confusion. Whether that confusion has been deliberately fostered is for hon. Members to judge.
There has been confusion between questions relative to cable and satellite technology and the rival merits of certain systems and questions relating to the future of broadcasting and the social and political implications of the revolution in communications that we are told is about to burst upon us. False dichotomies have been drawn between primitive, reactionary Luddites and backwoodsmen who are suspicious of the new technology and progressive, dynamic entrepreneurs who welcome change and expansion with optimism and courage. Coming from Huddersfield, where the Luddites were very strong, I hope that I shall not immediately be accused of being firmly in one camp.
There is also an undertone of fatalism—a sense that the coming of cable is an inevitable act of God to which we must accommodate as best we can. To believe that is to believe that Parliament is powerless, and if we convince ourselves of that democracy is a frail flower indeed. We are not the victims beneath the juggernaut of technological progress. If communications services in this country develop in a way that is detrimental to the public good, it will be because we have taken the wrong decisions.
If we are to act rationally and responsibly, however, we must allow time to acquaint ourselves with all the issues involved, both technological and social. This is at the heart of most of my hon. Friends' questioning of the Government's undue haste. If we are really at the beginning of a new age, we should not be called upon to create the world in six days. We must make haste very slowly. There are very good arguments for taking more time. That is not something that we on the radical side of the House often urge—we usually want to do things very quickly—but in this case more time is needed.
We must ask ourselves what we intend to achieve before we decide on a particular course. Does the British public want an expanded communications service, and, if so, what kind? We have heard very little from the Home Secretary or from any Conservative Member about whether anyone actually wants the new technology, diversity and competition that we are assured will benefit all mankind. Indeed, a recent survey showed that there has been a decline in television viewing in Britain recently. We have not yet even assessed the cause of that.
Mr. John Browne: There has been the advent of the video recorder. It is a new industry, so how can anyone give accurate figures?
Mr. Sheerman: I take that point. I am simply saying that the demands of the consumer have not yet been gauged. Viewers may be dissatisfied with the quality and variety of material at present offered. The advent of the video recorder may have made a substantial dent in the market for traditional television. Indeed, I was told recently that 70 per cent of the Asian community in Bradford now have their own video recorders and watch films in their own languages most of the time. To some of us, that is a disturbing change in viewing behaviour in this country. On the other hand, people may have switched to less passive interests, which is surely to be welcomed.
Steps must be taken to ascertain the facts. Viewing needs may be adequately satisfied by the existing four
434
channels. The proposed satellite channels coming on stream in 1986 may meet all the requirements that we can envisage. There may be a demand for data transmission services, two-way communication systems and commercial transactions that could usefully be provided by cable while leaving the provision of programmes of entertainment, news, current events and so on to the existing television authorities.
Unless the appropriate consumer research is carried out to discover what people really want, how can we answer those questions? I do not think that they have been seriously considered at all. Are we to be ruled by vague intuitions or, more probably, by crude commercial interests in reaching these decisions, or shall we allow reason to prevail and to govern our decisions? Hon. Members will no doubt have noted that a recent small-scale survey showed that, although the public were mildly interested in the idea of an expanded television service, they were not at all interested in footing the bill for it.
It sometimes seems all to easy to invent a new technology but very difficult to invent a need for it. We are in danger of forgetting that now, and in the future, the entire broadcasting network must exist for the benefit of the public. Television services must develop and adapt to public needs. It is not for the public to be moulded to the needs of a wildly proliferating television network that they did not want in the first place. The new technology was invented to serve the public. Yet we behave as though the public had been invented to serve the requirements of the new technology. The Minister is a leading advocate of information technology, but he sometimes seems to get those two aspects of the question somewhat out of kilter.
Mr. Gary Waller: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting argument, but before the existence of the telephone there was no great demand for such a service. Indeed, even when it was introduced, many people thought that it had no real future. It is only after a great new technological development has arrived that people see the benefits offered by it. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, there is a great deal of doubt about the future. That being so, should we not try to be as nonrestrictive as possible and allow as many developments as possible to proliferate so that people can choose? Those services for which there is no demand will surely wither away.
Mr. Sheerman: Sometimes when I am sitting in a room I wish that I could disinvent the telephone, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am trying to get the balance right. I shall return later to that point and to the social and political implications of the new technology.
First, however, I wish to examine more closely the technical and commercial considerations, which are very complex. We face a multiplicity of choices at a time when technology itself is developing at a bewildering rate. The crucial point is that development is taking place at such a rate that a wrong decision now will probably put this country in the wrong technological age for the rest of the century. Even with careful and painstaking consideration we may find that we have made the wrong choice, but without such consideration we are almost bound to do so.
In satellite technology, we have the choice of adopting the multiplex analogue components system,, favoured by the Part committee, or the PAL system favoured by the BBC. The PAL system has already been adopted by many

435
European countries. If the MAC system, which I understand has already been accepted, is adopted in this country, it will isolate Britain from the rest of Europe. That would have serious financial implications as it would limit the BBC's scope for exporting its services. I believe that the choice of that system will seriously undermine the viability of satellite television before it even comes into operation.
A choice must also be made between individual reception of direct broadcasting by satellite through home receiving equipment and community reception via the cable system. In the short term, individual reception might be cheaper, but ultimately community reception would probably be more cost effective, especially in the more densely populated urban areas. Community reception would also obviate the need for the unsightly proliferation of dish aerials that one sees in the United States and which are certainly no blessing to environmental beauty. On the other hand, the facility to provide for individual reception of DBS could stimulate industry to produce increasingly sophisticated and effective household receiving equipment. Handled correctly, that could be of great benefit to the British economy as a whole.
One thing is certain. The introduction of satellite and cable technology will not by itself drag the British economy out of the stagnant mire into which the Government's policies have sunk it. I believe sometimes that the Information Technology Year and the tremendous gung-ho attitude towards cable is an illusion designed to take our minds off the reality of the grim fall of 15 per cent. in our manufacturing production since the Government came to power.
American experience shows that the provision of cable services is costly and there is no guarantee of success. The Prime Minister may like to believe that the British economy will be revived by the simple expedient of running copper cable across half the country. That is touchingly naive. CBS Cable folded this year having sustained a loss of $47 million in 11 months. Only one company in the United States, Home Box Office, which is a film subscription company, is making a reasonable profit. British entrepreneurs will doubtless take note. The Prime Minister's goose is unlikely to come up with any golden eggs at either the next election or the one after.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: It might be cooked.
Mr. Sheerman: That is correct. The unseemly haste with which the Government are precipitating us into this new electronic nirvana is likely to prove disastrous in the long run. If we are to adopt a system of cable technology, we must ensure by all the best possible methods that it is right. The system that we choose will have to last for a quarter of a century.
The choice is between coaxial fibre cable and fibre optic cable. Vested interests seem to support coaxial cable. By showing a preference for that system, the Government are demonstrating once again their capacity to gaze fearlessly as far as the end of their nose. The fibre optic system is more expensive because of the cost of amplifying signals in optic form. It is reliably predicted that that will soon cease to be the case.
Fibre optic systems are technically superior and may soon prove to be the right answer. They carry no fire risk, are more compact and versatile, are easier to route round difficult corners and less susceptible—I am sorry that my
436
hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) is not here—to bugging, are practically impervious to electrical interference, can carry a greater volume of traffic than coaxial cable systems and will also allow the introduction of an inter-active communication system.
The most important point is that Great Britain leads the field in the manufacture of optic fibre. If we choose this technology for our national network, we shall boost our export market in fibre optic technology, and that would be profoundly important.
Mr. Brinton: Has the hon. Gentleman considered that one can perfectly well combine coaxial cable and fibre optic in their present state of development anc achieve inter-active operation, as he has described? When fibre optic catches up in three or four years' time with its switching mechanism, which is the problem at the moment, the system can be converted comparatively cheaply.
Mr. Sheerman: I take that point, but all the information I have from the experts is that that would be a clumsy and difficult way to do it. It is better to start as one means to continue and choose a fibre optic system.
Mr. Wrigglesworth: What switching facilities are available on fibre optic?
Mr. Sheerman: The technology is complex and fast moving. The experts who advise me suggest that that is a problem that will be solved in months not years.
Mr. John Garrett: Within the next few weeks British Telecom will place orders for switches capable of operating through fibre optics to groups of 30 homes at a time. That is a useful step towards a fibre optic system.
Mr. Sheerman: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
The choice of coaxial cable would not benefit our economy. The export potential of coaxial cable is virtually non-existent. There are two ways of distributing cable services. The pilot schemes which have been carried out in this country have utilised the American tree-and-branch technology which is extremely limited in its application, and which I do not think will be considered seriously.
The alternative is the star system, which was developed mainly in this country and Japan. It is far more adaptable and has a far greater capacity. If research discloses a genuine demand for inter-active communication in Great Britain, we should clearly need to engineer a cable system on the star pattern.
If we are to secure for the United Kingdom the economic and commercial benefits which can be derived from the introduction of cable, we should choose a system capable of expansion to meet future demands. With their precipitate and myopic commitment to copper cable, the Government seem once again to be about to impair the export potential and long-term prospects of British industry and to dissipate the prospects of future economic success. I do not believe that the Government intend to do that, but that will be the result of their proposals.
There are a number of fundamental matters underlying the debate. Are we convinced that in planning the introduction of the technology we are fulfilling a public need? If so, are we confident that the proposals contained in the Hunt report will provide adequate safeguards for the

437
welfare of all sections of society? It is blatantly clear that the Government are not interested in the public's opinions and desires.
The proposed cable network is not designed as a public utility. It is to be financed wholly from private money and consequently it will be governed solely by commercial criteria. The hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton) said that commercial television could not be received by all houses in Great Britain for some years, but the enterprise was pioneered with the intention that they all would. The present proposal is different. If we have 30 channels available to us at any time, will our freedom of choice increase thirtyfold? No one is deluded to that extent.
Most channels will offer the cheapest, imported trivia that they can get away with. The market will eventually colour the output of the entire television network, including that of the public service channels. When we speak passionately about this matter, we do so because we have the best broadcasting system in the world. That fine achievement and output is at stake.
A comparison was made recently by a producer in America who said that the difference between American television and British television was that in Great Britain money is provided to make television but that in America television is provided to make money. That is an important fundamental difference between the two systems. The Government's proposals will not serve audiences in all their diversity but will maximise them. The IBA will fight for advertising revenue with the cable sector. The BBC will struggle to justify its licence by maintaining its place in popularity ratings. It will be expedient to provide material which is broadly acceptable in a superficial way rather than risk the transmission of programmes which are deeply satisfying to the various minorities.
The future is gloomy for British actors and writers who work on television. Unless a strict quota is imposed on the import of foreign programmes, outlets for British talent will be restricted to a crippling extent. Nick Mellersh of Rediffusion states that cable will not generate enough British production to fill one channel, let alone 30.
The Hunt report, with its deceptively open-minded, laissez-faire approach, has not suggested any mechanism that might actively promote diversity, creativity and flair. It merely gives hope and sustenance to the people who would provide us with an undemanding diet of old films, soggy soap operas, repeat sit-corn and commercial claptrap, perhaps leavened by a little pornography which we can lock away from the children or the domestics, according to our social class—or perhaps our children, being more at ease than we are with electronic gadgetry, will lock it away from us.
The television actor Peter Bowles suggests that we might charge a levy on every foreign programme transmitted on all television networks to go towards a development fund for independent programme makers based in this country, who would then be adequately funded to compete in the market place. We should seriously consider the suggestion. Let us hope that we have time to do so. Even with the assurances that we have been given, the Government still seem hell-bent on pushing the change through. Let us hope that we also have time to
438
consider other suggestions from actors, writers, producers and other creative contributors to the British media who have made it the best in the world.
Let us not be under an illusion that the regulatory body envisaged by Hunt will effectively guard the public interest. Now is the time for an ancient relative in need of a quiet sinecure or a Tory tired of the responsibility of being a wet to offer his services to the new cable authority. The duties will not be onerous. There will be no fuss about exerting control over the quality of programmes and advertising matter; the authority is merely to
"keep in touch with what is going on".
It will not have to supervise a quota for imported programmes, foster British talent or encourage innovation; it will merely
"keep an eye on the amount of foreign material".
It will not have to attempt to ensure that programme content is not offensive; it will wait patiently to receive complaints. We are told—unnecessarily—that it will
"remain in the background".
There are no requirements for balance, but local authorities, religious bodies, political parties and foreigners—who are all inclined to be dangerously unbalanced—will not be allowed directly to participate in the ownership of companies operating cable systems. With that proviso, cable will be free to air whichever prejudices it chooses, unhampered by authoritarianism.
I said that if we were to embark on the massive and costly enterprise of cabling the entire British Isles we should choose a system that allowed the development of inter-active services, if that is what the public demand. That is commercially and economically right. It is impossible to tell how demand will develop. But before we rush to embrace the new technology, we should think a little about what it might mean. Peter Ackroyd recently wrote:
"Every revolution has its victims and casualties".
The new two-way technology could replace the postal services, make shopping excursions a thing of the past, enable people to transact business from home and abolish the communal workplace. It could totally obviate the need for social contact. I am reminded of E. M. Forster's novella "The Machine Stops", which depicts a society where
"The clumsy system of public gatherings had long since been abandoned".
We are on the edge of a revolution; it may greatly enhance our economic well-being and our capacity to communicate, but this may be the start of a black time, where the artificial replaces real information and where the standards and qualities that we most value are sacrificed. We must steadfastly refuse to be precipitated in the latter direction.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. At least 16 hon. Members wish to catch my eye. If every speaker takes 26 minutes, only a few will be called.
6.15 pm
Mr. Julian Critchley: I am not a liberal—not even a Hampstead liberal. I shall never be described by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence as a nineteenth-century liberal, which is the flavour adopted by our great party since 1974. I am a high Tory.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Only today.
Mr. Critchley: I have been everything in my time.
As a high Tory at this moment, I believe in the defence of our institutions, in which, for the purposes of the debate, I include the BBC, the IBA and the programme companies. I fear that entertainment-led cable might be the end of broadcasting as we know it.
I wish to focus on four points—regulation, equipment, programming and production. The other night I attended the Granada lecture at the Guildhall. It was dinner and not lunch, and I was pleased to have it. Lord Hunt stated that if we want cable it will survive only with the minimum of regulation. For that reason, I am in favour of more regulation than he has proposed. I wish to keep the standard of the cable programmes similar to that which we at present enjoy in what is, with some exceptions, the best broadcasting service in the world.
I agree with those, including Lord Weinstock, who assert that were we to go ahead with existing technology foreigners would become rich at the expense of our technology and of British manufacturers. That may be an argument for delay.
I suggest a quota of 30 per cent. for foreign programmes, with no more than 10 per cent. coming from any one country. Cable operators should be obliged to order programmes from British producers. They should not just broadcast; they should inspire and commission programmes to be made here.
Mr. Gorst: Is it practicable to expect the British film industry to produce 70 per cent. of the films required?
Mr. Critchley: Whether my proposals are practicable is for the House to decide. I am suggesting amendments to the Hunt proposals which might at least improve the standards of cable television.
I read to my horror that 11,000 American television programmes are stored in a Californian Fort Knox ready to be sold to British cable operators—a lifetime of "Starsky and Hutch". Were the 11,000 programmes to be unloaded upon a virgin Britain, only rich Americans would become richer. There is a strong argument for a quota.
I revert to my high Toryism in the defence of institutions. We wish to defend the broadcasting institutions from those who might devalue the services that they offer. No fair comparison can be made between broadcasting and Fleet Street newspapers. Newspapers have never been accorded the regulation and control that Parliament has always exercised over the broadcasters—BBC and IBA. We cannot argue "Give the people what they want". I do not believe in giving the people what they want. I am sufficiently Tory and sufficiently Reithian—although I am not a Scot—not to fall for that element of the Liberal heresy. One newspaper of the character of The Sun is one too many, and I wish to see our broadcasting standards maintained.
6.20 pm
Mr. Clement Freud: I welcome the Hunt report. Unlike the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), I think that it is good because it is clear and, unlike the speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman), it is short.
The report is a good thing because British industry can benefit from cable television at a time when the creation
440
of jobs must be a priority. Not only will cable television create jobs—a conservative estimate is above 20,000—but it has already created a substantial number. Those of us who have been invited to lunches, dinners, seminars and meetings and received letters, circulars and glossy catalogues about cable television have provided opportunites for chefs, waiters, printers and designers as well as for doormen, who tell us to go this way or that. If that is a foretaste of what cable television will provide, I welcome it. Let me tell the House that no one will become tremendously rich as a result of cable television. If one goes to the other side of the Atlantic, as I did recently, one learns that the disenchantment factor with cable television is exceedingly high. About 30 per cent. of those who subscribe one year opt out the next. The industry in America has not yet covered enough ground to create a long-term boom.
I have always listened with interest to Opposition Members who complain bitterly about "licences to print money" and who oppose measures because others might become inordinately rich as a result of them. I have never found any reason why people should not become rich, especially because, as they do, others mount the bandwagon and gather wealth as they go.
Quality—a word on which much verbiage has been spent so far—is crucial to this debate. If cable television shows the four existing channels and the quality of the programmes is poor, so will the viewing figures be poor. I was astonished to hear the Home Secretary's contention that he received many letters about Channel 4 and that much anxiety was expressed when we all know that nobody watches Channel 4. We seem to be being persuaded that the viewing figures are nil and that for nobody who watches there are 1,000 who write Letters to the Home Secretary complaining about bad language on Channel 4.
I wish to see a minimum of regulations because we already have sufficient laws. Cable television will be bound by the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981 and by the Obscene Publications Act 1959. I can never quite understand the anxiety of those who complain about seeing something on television which may be offensive when they can see page 3 of The Sun and walk through Soho and see obscene pictures; there is genuinely overt obscenity in our towns and villages. If someone buys cable television, pays to have his house linked to the system and finds the porno-channel, which Heaven knows is not easy to find—unless one is a bright child—I cannot see that we have much to worry about in the way of perverting public morals.
I hesitate to support the origination of yet another controlling body. The IBA has done a great job after a difficult start. If it is the will of the House that there should be yet another quango set up to control this new industry, I hope that it will be similar to the IBA, which has expertise. Vigilance is required, and the IBA knows about viligance. It knows also that promises that are made in franchise applications tend to be breached. The IBA found out how to deal with that. What is crucial is that the authority retains the ultimate sanction —to withhold or to withdraw a franchise.
I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) to draw attention to the ludicrously ineffectual punishment that we have for piracy. The hon. Gentleman referred to a Private Member's Bill that seeks to deal with the problem. That is true, and I am a sponsor

441
of that Bill. However, I still think that it is wrong that piracy, which is as rife in Britain as anywhere in the world, is punished in so paltry a manner. I am surprised that the Department of Trade, the Home Office or the Department of Industry, in the form of the Minister for Industry and Information Technology, who is now on the Government Front Bench, choose not to introduce quick, effective legislation. If ever there was a cause which was wrong for a Private Member's Bill, with all the difficulties, queues and problems that they face, this would seem to be it.
Installations must be independent of programme making. I was fascinated to read the speech which was delivered in another place by Lord Glanusk, who has been in the other place for 34 years. He made his first speech last Tuesday. Presumably one looks forward to the year 2016 when he will make his second speech. He said that 96 per cent. of all houses in this country are connected to the main drains. He asked whether anyone had considered the viability of putting cable through the sewerage system. That is not necessarily an ideal method but it is one that should be considered. Lord Glanusk's speech, after 34 years of silence, is probably not a bad speech to read once more.
I know little of the relative merits of coaxial copper cable and fibre optics, but I know that fibre optics are made in the United Kingdom. It is high time to introduce some United Kingdom input into the many forms of television. Video tapes and video recorders come to us from other countries. If we use fibre optics, they will come from our own national industry and we shall be helping to increase the prosperity of Britain.
Liberals believe in choice. We have heard talk about 11,000 programmes being held in some televisual Fort Knox. But each of us can watch only one programme at a time. There are now four good channels of British television. We need have no great fear of having no quality programmes to choose from. The marketing of video tapes will be extended. Quite soon, we shall probably be able to obtain them in filling stations, just as people can in other countries, so I am not too worried about the great amount of bilge that might come to us, because I doubt whether it will find a ready audience. If private enterprise is prepared to put up the capital and take the commercial risks, we should not stand in the way.
6.30 pm
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: It is not often that I can say that I have much more in common with the liberal view of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) than with that of the newly discovered high Tory on these Benches, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley). It is about the only subject upon which I find my hon. Friend a high Tory, and it is a rum do. This sort of debate leads to strange bedfellows.
I thoroughly agree with the Government's intention to introduce cable. I do not regard it as an exercise only in television. Judging from the debate, one would imagine that that was the sole reason for having cable in Britain. However, it is not. The only reason for cable television is that it is one way of helping to finance the cabling of Britain. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) no doubt wants the cabling to be carried out by the State, or by British Telecom. That suits him and his Socialist Luddite mind. With all his
442
fears, he sounded very like someone warning us of the awful terrors of commercial television. The same rubbish also goes for the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman).
We are not talking about something that is completely unregulated. I am surprised at my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot—the high Tory—for thinking that we shall be flooded by rubbish from California. Such an organisation is not being set up. As it is a British system, there will be an authority. An authority will say that someone can have a cable provided that certain criteria are satisfied. The cable operator will then make an offer. If he transgresses that offer and floods the screen with porn or goes back on the programmes that he said he would provide, he has had it. His programme will be watched and he will have to submit everything in advance. That is tedious for him, and he knows that at the end he will be for the chop.
Mr. Austin Mitchell rose—
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I do not want to be interrupted, because I am making a serious point. Mr. Speaker asked us to be brief, and I have far too much too say anyway. The hon. Gentleman will only lead me astray.
Mr. Mitchell: I want to know what happens to that person's cable. Does he have to dig it up and take it home with him?
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I would not have given way if I had known what the hon. Gentleman was going to ask.
I think that the television system in Britain is pretty good. I have worked on both sides of it. Indeed, I must declare an interest that I should have mentioned earlier. I am a non-executive director of London Weekend (Holdings) Ltd., and a consultant to Philips Business Systems. Having got that off my chest, I remind the House that I have seen both sides of British television at work. I have been employed by them.
The system is pretty good, but we should stop the awful trumpeting—"Britain leads the world"—that reminds me of Lord Beaverbrook of the Daily Express. We are pretty good at leading the world in good trash or rubbish on television. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is really an old-fashioned Socialist about such matters. I thought that it would be interesting to look in the New York Times and to see the type of fare offered to the poor downtrodden American viewer in New York City. There is no mention of porn in the Monday prime time cable highlights and there is no mention on Tuesday, and so on. We are on short commons compared with the variety offered in America. The Americans can get Sadlers Wells twice a week. On Monday, a typical night, there were four arts programmes, two plays, eight films, and sport is on two channels. There was also ordinary off-air television, including "Smiley's People", "The Charterhouse of Parma"—something to do with a Stendhal novel—and, for good measure, "MASH".
Mr. Critchley: A great novel.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The Americans have got a great series. Nothing in Britain can possibly compare with the rich variety and quality offered to those in New York City, through both ordinary off-air broadcasting and cable. That is pathetic. People are probably becoming bored with British television, because it pumps out too many boring programmes. We are discussing not only

443
television, but cable, and the entertainment that it can provide. I agree with Peter Jay when he invites us to look at the provision of entertainment on cable. An analogy can be drawn with bookshops. Indeed, Hunt does not close his eyes to that point. Cable releases us from the tight control that we would not tolerate for a moment if it were applied to the printed word. Indeed, it was once applied to the printed word. Church and State told us what to do. The country was full of high Tories. At that time, the Church of England was the Tory Party at prayer. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot will remember that. The great British public was allowed to read only certain things.
Someone remarked that my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology should go down in history as the Caxton of modern information technology, because he has made it more possible for the ordinary British citizen to exercise his choice about what he wants to look at and at what time he wishes to do so. After all, he is allowed to go into a bookshop without being censored by a guardian authority that tells him the books that he should buy and the time that he should read them. Therefore, there is an analogy.
We deal appallingly with our minorities. As has been said, the people in Huddersfield cannot see programmes in their own languages. If someone in America wants to see an Italian programme, he can do so. In my wife's home town of Fresno, California, there are many people from Mexico. They like to hear their own language. They like to watch plays in Spanish. They can jolly well see them, because they have their own programmes. There are no programmes for minority groups in Britain. I think not only of Asians and the black community, but of many others.
I am desperately fond of fishing. There are no decent sports programmes in Britain that cater for those who are interested not only in watching the programme but in being instructed on how to improve their skill. There should be more fishing programmes on television.
That is not so say that I do not believe that everything that Hunt proposes is right. However, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook repeated one of the most ridiculous canards— probably principally inspired by the BBC—that cable will be socially divisive, unfair to rural areas and favour the rich. The BBC is so nice and has so many intelligent people at the top that it would be churlish of me to take such criticisms seriously. However, it comes up in funny forms.
The BBC never hangs back. Before the Second World War television was for the rich and for those in London. After the war, when people wanted better quality radio in remote areas the BBC scattered its licence money plentifully on the local radio stations in our more densely populated uran areas. What is more, it competed with ITV for the ratings. Ultimately, the BBC gradually caught up with the needs of the minority groups. That is true of anything. However, that will not happen if it is planned. If people say that such things must be managed by the State and at the time of the State's choosing, it is like saying to Mr. Morris that the car is a very powerful machine that will kill people and that we must plan its use.
Everything that has benefited modern society began by catering for a minority. That minority has largely been composed of those who have got the money to spend on what they want. To begin with, refrigerators were expensive. Indeed, motor cars, washing machines and television sets were also expensive. As with tape
444
recorders, so with cable. If time is allowed for demand to express itself, the wider needs of a greater number of people will eventually be served.
Some reasonable fears have been expressed by those whom I have come across in industry. I am concerned about the lack of limit on the amount of advertising. There is not an endless crock of gold at the end of the advertising world. I agree that new sources of advertising will be attracted. Indeed, the Sunday supplements attracted new sources. However, Hunt has doubts about this issue. I ask the Government not to rule out "pay-as-you-view". If the existing companies find themselves short of revenue, it will be serious. Whatever code is adopted, it should be flexible enough for the cable companies not to be wholly dependent on advertising.
I am not keen on the proposed no limit on the amount of overseas programmes. ITV is limited to 14 per cent. of foreign programmes, and it should not be put at an unfair disadvantage. The proposed ban on ITV companies becoming owners, or at least majority shareholders, of cable companies should not necessarily be adopted. At any rate, ITV should be allowed to seek opportunities in this area.
We should not deny to ITV companies the right to enter into commercial arrangements with the cable operators as providers of programmes. The BBC has told me that there are areas of overlap between broadcasting off-air services, DBS and cable. They overlap because the programme providers want a share in the money generated by all three services. Therefore, the BBC and ITV will need to be involved, particularly ITV, which, unlike the BBC, has no licence fee to buttress its finances and which must operate within entrepreneurial financial disciplines.
Most of what the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East said about the technology of cable is wrong. It is important that the Government should encourage an early start, but on the right technological basis. A balance must be struck. If we go ahead too quickly on the basis of, say, the American tree-and-branch technology, which is now ready and could be ordered off the shelf, we shall be swamped, because it will be a cheap technology that will soon be out of date and bang will go any opportunities for British industry. We are all pretty well united on that point. I know that Rediffusion does not want to go ahead on the basis of such technology. Standards must therefore be set that prevent that.
On the other hand, if we delay until all these wonderful problems are sorted out, we shall be left behind. As in all things, perfection is the enemy of the good. Nothing is more likely to stimulate investment and lead to the development of fibre optics than for a start to be made. Paper plans prepared by politicians are just the stuff that lead to procrastination—and this country certainly knows how to do that. In such a climate, industry and private finance will wait until the politicians have sorted things out.
The economic development committee for the electrical engineering industry says some wise things in its report, which we ought to heed. If we do not, we shall make some serious mistakes. It states:
"We note the Hunt Committee's recommendations; we do not comment on them, except to say that the worst decision would be to procrastinate. To delay the start of cable TV systems might give United Kingdom manufacturers time to do some more development work; but without the opportunities of an expanding

445
United Kingdom market, and the knowledge of the administrative framework determining the characteristics of that market, progress would be half hearted."
The people on that committee are in the business, and they should know. The committee adds:
"Immediately, the benefits of fibre optic cable do not outweigh the costs except for a minority of cable TV systems applications … For Government to make the use of optical fibre cable mandatory throughout would be to raise the cost to uncommercial levels, and unreasonably delay the introduction of cable TV systems … We would not, therefore, advocate a rigid approach on the lines reported to be being developed in France where it seems likely that a 'star' system with the maximum use of optical fibre cable will be mandatory. We would, however, expect all cable TV systems to meet certain requirements."
One of our requirements should be the star system, subject to certain definitions of what that means. Although this is extremely technical, it should put us on the right road.
Mr. Gorst: Will my hon. Friend say something about the length of the franchise?
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Yes. I shall quote from a letter that I received from a gentleman who was general manager of the European operation of the United States Jerrold company and who is now manager director-designate of a new company being established by well known companies in the United Kingdom. He is concerned about the recommendation that the franchise should be eight to 10 years, and he adds:
"A cable system typically takes five years to build and an initial ten-year franchise will only provide the operator with a maximum of five years' full revenues while many of his costs will have been incurred at day one … A second, and potentially far more damaging, effect of a short franchise period will be that this will encourage the construction and installation of the cheapest systems possible since no commercial organisation will be able to take a longer view. This is certain to lead to a flood of imports of cheap conventional technology".
Let us establish the technological requirement and give those who are prepared to invest their money a fair crack of the whip. If it means a franchise longer than eight to 10 years, we should be prepared to give it to them.
I congratulate the Government on the initiatives already taken. I hope that they will adopt some of the suggestions that I and other hon. Members have made. They should certainly take them into account, because they reflect the genuine concern that has been expressed by those who work in the broadcasting industry and who have rendered good service to our country. If those suggestions are adopted, it should be possible to create new investment in the cabling of Britain—one of the more exciting ventures now facing us.
6.46 pm
Mr. Michael English: I fear that this is bound to be a somewhat superficial debate; most of us are restricted because of the time available. The very nature and complexity of the subject compared with one debate on the Floor of the House also leads to the conclusion that we shall be somewhat superficial. I therefore hope that, between now and the publication of the White Paper, the Select Committee on Home Affairs will take an interest in this complex matter, to which in this debate none of us can refer in any great detail.
The Hunt report is also rather superficial, even though it took longer than we can today. I do not blame Lord Hunt for that. He reached the highest rank in the British Civil Service and is now a high ranking French civil servant in
446
his capacity as British chairman of a French nationalised bank; he is a functionnaire. It was asking much to expect three people to cover the complexities of this subject in much less than a year, because I believe that the committee was set up only in April.
The Government seem to be proposing that we go about this matter in an almost opposite way to the French. I understand that the French are swamping the town of Biarritz with all sorts of equipment and trying out all sorts of ideas, so that at the end of two or three years the French Government will say "All France will do this". I do not think that they have yet decided on a particular system, but they will do so. If, as a result, they are able to tell French industry what it can sell to Germany and the rest of the EEC, and if we cannot, we shall know whose system is the better.
The Government are taking a tremendous risk. They are making the assumption that if we go ahead quickly without that depth of investigation, we shall be able to sell our technology to Europe, but, in the light of all that has happened to British industry in the past, I have an awful feeling that they may get it wrong. In the debate, we do not seem to have made a sharp enough distinction between the technology and the ownership and programming implications of what is undoubtedly a somewhat new world.
We cannot stop the advance of cable television and I do not want to do so. I do not want to stop the advance of cable broadcasting, narrowcasting—or whatever one may wish to call it—nor do I want to stop the advance of inter-active cable. I have good reasons. In television, cable can provide what has not been provided in the past. In Britain, we have absolutely failed to provide local programmes. We had local radio stations in the 1920s, but they were abolished by the BBC because it was set up as a unitary corporation covering the whole country. Local radio stations did not appear again until the 1960s.
We have never yet had local television in the way that the United States has it. As a result of the setting up of the ITA, as it then was, and the independent companies, we have regional programming but we have never yet had local programmes. In the United States, a city the size of Nottingham would probably have two local television channels apart from being able to use the national network. We have failed in this respect.
Local broadcasting is popular—at least among people outside central London. People are listening to their local stations—be they public service or commercial—and they are taking a large share of the total radio audience. It is not so much whether Covent Garden opera is broadcast but whether the Huddersfield amateurs can be broadcast. People should be able to watch Rochdale Hornets rather than only a "rugger" match at Twickenham. All those programmes are highly desirable, but people should be able to decide for themselves whether they want to see a national match or their friends playing in their own locality. Local broadcasting expands choice and it would be foolish for hon. Members to say that it does not.
I am in favour of getting on with cable as quickly as we can, but I am not in favour of completely ignoring what is a change in society. After all, it took about 50 years to introduce the printing press into Britain after it had been invented in Germany. We need not take so long with cable. There is a balance in these matters.
I should like to consider some of the points about ownership and licensing in the Hunt report. Again, typical

447
of the highest Governmental and Civil Service minds in our land is the suggestion that licensing should be done centrally. We are back to centralism again. I can see the desirability of not having the great wayleave arguments that occur in the United States whereby local authorities battle it out to give franchises. Surely there is a happy medium in these matters. Surely the local authority should not be totally excluded. The Association of District Councils does not think so, and there is no reason why it should be so.
A local authority knows more about what lies under its streets than any person. We have every reason for involving local authorities in what is proposed. On the engineering aspect, the local authorities know what cables and pipes lie under their streets. I offer the Minister planning authority as an analogy. Local authorities deal with the initial planning application, but there is a right of appeal to the central authority, in that case the Department of the Environment. It would seem to me not beyond the wit of man to create a dual system which would allow some share of influence to the local authority and some share of control to central Government.
No one can be completely happy with the present way in which the IBA hands out its franchises. It is done almost secretly. It does not hold public hearings, as happens in the United States.
Mr. Wrigglesworth: It does.
Mr. English: The IBA holds consultative meetings at which the people it invites may speak. The IBA then discusses the matter with the franchise applicant in total secrecy. It then goes away again, and in total secrecy from the franchise applicant it decides what to do. The position is different from the United States, and if the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) does not realise it he should go away and check before he takes part in this debate. There is no doubt that there is room for improvement in the present method of giving out franchises. If that is so, let us work out a rather better method.
With regard to ownership, Hunt, because it is rather a superficial report, has not distinguished between the reasons for some of his decisions. He says, for example, that a local authority should have no share. If we mean the ownership of the cables, I can see every reason for a local authority having a share. I do not mind whether it is a Conservative-controlled or a Labour-controlled authority. Local authorities are not incapable of dealing with the engineering involved.
An interesting analogy is the commencement in Britain of electrical distribution, the commencement of the telephone service and the commencement of the gas service. They began in the way that the Government propose for cable, higgledy-piggledy and all over the place. Some started in central London and some in other cities. They were put together as a nationalised network not by radical Socialists but by Conservative and Liberal Governments because they needed to be a complete national network. Some were started by local authorities, and some of those services continued to be operated by some local authorities until well after the war.
There are good reasons for allowing local authorities to participate. Hunt says "No", because he does not want churches, political parties or local authorities in on the act but he has in mind programmes. I am thinking of engineering. Hunt did not make the distinction.
448
The Secretary of State went out of his way to say that the Government would not require cable operators to be separate from the programme providers. That is well and good, but if they happen to be, what is wrong with local authorities taking part in cable provision?
Another important point is minority interest, even if it were the programme company. Surely a local authority is at least as well informed about its area as any other organisation. I cannot see the objection to a local authority having a minority interest. If we are to allow foreign minority interests, why can we not allow domestic minority interests, even if they happen to consist of elected representatives and their officials?
I should like to know what minority interest is proposed. Technically, a minority interest is up to 49 per cent. and some local radio companies are 40 per cent. owned by foreign interests—English-speaking foreign interests though they may be but foreign in the technical sense of the word.
It is usually held in industry that if somebody holds between 10 and 20 per cent. of the company he has the beginnings of a powerful interest. But 40 per cent., especially when all the other shareholdings are smaller in individual amount, would usually be considered to be a dominant interest. It is not desirable that cable, with all its social implications, should be dominated by foreign interests.
Hunt has completely missed out the issue of local press monopolies. Hunt did not see any reason why the press should not have minority interests in cable companies. I agree with that, but Hunt never discussed local monopolies. I do not mind in the slighest if the Leicester Mercury has a share in Nottingham cable. If the Leicester Mercury wants to protect its share of advertising revenue by having an interest in a cable company, I see no reason why it should not. I see every good reason why it should. If, however, the Leicester Mercury wants to have its shares only in Leicester where it already has a dominating influence, that is a different matter.
The situation in Nottingham is even worse. Our only local daily in Nottingham, the Evening Post, has been flung out of its own industrial employers' association for not obeying the rules, amongst other things, of Conservative industrial relations policy. Is the Nottingham Evening Post, which even the Minister's industrial colleagues will not have as a member of the Newspaper Society, to be the only supplier in Nottingham? If that is so, it is highly strange.
On the content of programmes, hon. Members have talked about pornography but there has been no reference to violence. We do not talk about violence in relation to existing broadcasting, either commercial or the BBC. In the United States, a 10-year study, recently completed, shows that the influence of violence displayed on television is adverse to the community as a whole. There has been no mention of this subject by the Government. What will be their controls on the display of violence? It is possible that the display of a couple engaged in the sexual act on television will not have nearly the same evil effect on society as the display of violence, even though some violence associated with the sexual act may be shown.
Hon. Members have talked about foreign material in terms of this being solely a question of encouraging British suppliers against American or other suppliers of material. That is not solely the issue. It is a question whether we

449
wish to encourage our own British culture as opposed to the culture of other countries. It is not simply a case of subsidising British producers. I hope that they are not subsidised. I should like to think that they are good enough to make a profit on their own. It is a case of keeping out undesirable foreign material—for instance, material from the United States that shows a much greater use of guns than is permissible in Britain.
There is a need properly to examine the issue of copyright. We should start to think about creating a distinction between the man who creates and the man who is merely the executant. I can see every reason for the works of composers and authors being protected. I cannot see why Agatha Christie's nephew should have her works protected because she was bright and he inherited them.
Copyright is a strange world. It is neither one thing nor the other. It is neither a heritable property in perpetuity nor does it expire with the lifetime of the man for whose benefit it is supposed to exist. It continues for 50 years, which seems an odd period to choose. A more sensible period of 20 years was chosen for public lending right. It is not sensible to have a massive blanket set of copyright laws that protect everyone down to the least efficient musician or actor in the world. There is a difference when a man is merely executing the thoughts of others. The matter needs to be examined.
I can understand the BBC's feelings about "pay-per-view". If the screening of the World Cup was sold to the highest bidder, it is fairly obvious that certain organisations, public service organisations and ITV companies would be almost wiped out. I am not sure, though, why one cannot have "pay-per-view" for subsidised performances. Why cannot some of the taxpayers' money being spent on subsidising opera at Covent Garden be recouped by allowing those operas to be broadcast more readily? I agree, however, that because of copyright laws there are many restrictive practices of the Musicians' Union that would stand in the way. All these issues need to be examined together.
It is extraordinary that we probably cannot have "pay-per-view" for subsidised performances which do not make money because of copyright laws that lead to restrictive practices. We cannot have "pay-per-view" of things that make money because it would destroy our existing broadcasting quality. I hope that the Minister will investigate this more seriously than Hunt and recognise that "pay-per-view" is a complex subject requiring a complex answer. It requires more than the simple answer of "Don't do it" or "Do it".
There is another issue that has not been mentioned. A few years ago the Russians decided to embark upon cabling for the good reason that it enabled them to control more readily what the population was watching. Anyone can pick up broadcasts. With cabling, it is different. Those sitting in the Kremlin can decide not to show in central Asia, where there are Moslems, some things which are shown elsewhere in the USSR. There are all sorts of advantages for an authoritarian State.
It is interesting that a Conservative Government should be advocating the cabling of Britain as fast as possible. I hope that the Conservative Government will remember that, once Britain is cabled, it will provide anyone who wishes to act in an authoritarian manner with a weapon that
450
hitherto has not existed. That is only one of many implications that have to be considered. There is not much time.
I was glad to hear that the Government are not proposing to legislate this Session. They are presumably proposing to legislate in the next Session if they can. It does not seem to me that all the social implications have been considered. Printing led to the Reformation. I do not know what cabling will lead to. I suspect strongly that television throughout the developed world is one of the causes of the rise in crime. This is general on both sides of the Atlantic. Cable will lead to a different society. The march of technology should not be stopped. Its advance should, nevertheless, be considered carefully.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I understand that Mr. Speaker drew attention to the fact that a large number of hon. Members wish to speak. No fewer than 10 hon. Members have been present throughout the debate and are anxious to take part. If speeches last for rather less than 15 minutes, it will be possible for all those hon. Members to be called.
7.7 pm
Mr. Tim Brinton: I shall endeavour to speak for less than 15 minutes, although that may be an ambitious statement. The remarks of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) take me conveniently to the point that I wish to emphasise. I read with great interest the report of the debate in the other place and the wise words expressed about many of the problems associated with extension of cable television. What strikes me about that debate and about our proceedings today is that insufficient emphasis has been given to all the ramifications of cabling. We have talked almost entirely in terms of further television channels as they have been known.
Many hon. Members have stated rightly that we have the best broadcasting system in the world. I agree. Now we are beginning to work out how to achieve the best narrowcasting in the world. It is not sensible to start by assuming that we shall follow everything that has happened in the United States. In the next 20 years television pictures as we know them will be a minor part of the cable system. There may be 10 or 20 channels. Many more channels will be performing other functions. There has been mention of banking and shopping. It is an awful thought that progress towards the videophone might be achieved quite quickly by this means.
If one looks back over the past 20 years of progress in technology, I do not think that one would have imagined 20 years ago that we would have reached anywhere near the stage that we have reached with our broadcast television. As the whole process of technology moves faster and faster, it is unimaginable to see where cable will have taken us in 20 years.
As I understand it, the urgency that has been criticised by many Labour Members is an urgency to be started before we are beaten. As a nation, we have a choice which is quite simply to opt out of the race and not go in for cable. However, if we go in gradually, slowly and hesitatingly and over a period of longer years so that British Telecom can cable the whole country, we shall be doomed to be beaten on technology by other countries.

451
That is an inevitable part of the process. France, Germany and even Argentina have recently pressed the trigger to go on cable. I used that word unintentionally. It is essential to start the momentum, but that does not mean that we cannot spend a great deal of time talking about how we shall control the issues that are involved and how we shall allocate the franchises.
I listened with great interest to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I hope that the Government will not delay the introduction of starting this important process. Even if, like Biarritz in France, we start only one or two towns going urgently, we shall then be able to test the technology, find the answers and the adaptation between proper coaxial and fibre optics and so on. The two things will link together in a way that will sell British technology all over the world, which is the objective.
The BBC sees a threat. The IBA also spoke of a threat, but it was more a wish to be able to control cable. Like my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir G. Johnson Smith), I should have declared an interest. I am a broadcaster and I have recently been involved in a failed application for an IBA radio station. It is not because of that failure that I have believed for months that to give control to the IBA of the operation of cable would be wrong.
I mean no criticism of the worthy work that the IBA does, but I see cable as a different animal. To expect the IBA, which has grown up with its own traditions of fairly severe and stringent control and—to echo the hon. Member for Nottingham, West—of matters being decided in secrecy with no reason being given to the applicants is the wrong approach. Cable should be intensely and openly competitive. Everyone should know what is going on. When spoke before on this subject, I was a little grudging about control but I now see that we must have some type of quango to control cable. This should, as the Hunt report suggests, have an oversight role rather than anything more elaborate.
I hope, too, that the other interested parties in the television performance of cable will not be quite so grudging and hesitant as they are at the moment. I am thinking of the trade unions of which I am a member—the Actors' Equity and the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians. They have both taken an attitude of extreme caution. When I think of the number of their members who are unemployed at any given time, I believe that they should be more forward thinking and realise that cable television, if it is to compete and succeed with broadcast television, cannot get away with presenting continually "Dragnet"and "Dallas". We must remember that the subscriber has to pay extra if he wants cable, and people will not pay extra for that type of programme. They will pay because they get a good quality and variety of programme. Therefore, more British technicians and performers will be employed by cable.
There is a general level of standards, and there has been in the film industry since it began. Out of this, great films come, and the same will apply as television, in whatever form, multiplies. The position of the British film industry in this exercise is also something that deeply interests me. I am a member of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts and was associated with its recent report. In it we made strong suggestions that television, cable television and video tape showing of feature films should be included in some form of Eady levy to recreate the basic capital that is needed in the British film industry.
452
At the moment, we have no British film industry, and hon. Members who ask about quotas put everyone in a difficult position. If we insist on quotas we shall find that we have no feature films for a home box office channel that are of British origin. We must somehow create a fund to get that going again.
The BBC resists "pay-per-view" strongly. I accept that the great national events should be specified and expected, but I fail to understand the suggestion that all "pay-per-view" is bad. Certainly, as one or two hon. Members have suggested about opera and other programmes such as plays, "pay-per-view" would be the ideal way to recoup money. I do not see why it should not extend itself to football matches. Where major sports events are taken at length on cable, the edited highlights could be provided for the broadcasters if they wanted them. At the moment, because of the limitation of channels, all one gets on broadcasting are almost always edited highlights or the final furlongs.
In bringing a very delicate child into this world in the shape of cable television, we have nothing more to fear than we had all those years ago when ITV was born. Fearful voices will be raised, and it is astonishing how the scripts from the BBC and others are almost the same as they were 30 years ago in the early 1950s, except that they now say "cable television" instead of "commercial television". The moment that cable television comes in, we shall find the BBC and everybody else anxious to get in with it and get on with it.
That cable television is an advance in our civilisation is undoubted, and we should think more about what that will do and perhaps a little less about a Reithian concept of controlling moving pictures and sound on a television screen. Let us impose controls gradually, because this is a highly expensive investment, as many hon. Members have pointed out. We must ensure that investors are prepared to put their money into cable.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) at one stage implied that cable would be a get-rich-quick scheme. At the next moment, he was saying how difficult it would be for the cable companies to make money. In the short run, it will be hard for cable companies to make money, and they will not make money by putting on low-quality stuff. Therefore, I support the longer franchises.
The display of porn and such things is a temporary phenomenon. In Denmark when the laws on porn were released, people became bored within a year. It no longer happens to the same degree in Denmark. Porn is not the popular, long-term money maker that has been suggested. The appeal is that porn is faintly illicit, illegal or whatever. The moment that that ceases to be, it ceases to be interesting.
I hope that the Government will allow cable television to advance into and towards the twenty-first century, and to start soon and effectively. It will create some jobs, and it will create a new spirit because we shall have something very magical to look forward to.
7.19 pm
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: It is unfortunate that the slant of the debate has been so much towards broadcasting and all the aspects that have been raised in the Hunt report.
I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that the terms

453
of reference of the Hunt report were broad enough. What the debate is and should be about is this country's future communications strategy. That is about much more than just our broadcasting. I remind the House that if one looks at existing television and video text distribution systems one realises that one is talking about much more than most of the matters that have preoccupied the attention of the House in the debate.
We have four UHF channels, and two VHF channels, currently carrying 405 line black and white television. We have the possibility of low power television. DBS is coming along, with a potential of five channels. There is the possibility of small master antennae television. We have multi-point distribution services. As hon. Members have mentioned, the video cassette recorder has burst forth. We have video discs. These matters have not been mentioned, but they are germane to the issue. We have teletex, viewdata and telex. It is unfortunate that cable is not being discussed in the context of all the distribution systems that are available to us at the moment and that may come on stream in future.
The future distribution and communications system of the country is the central nervous system of the modern economy and is vital not only to the future of our business life but to our social life and virtually every other aspect of our lives. It is not surprising that the Home Secretary said that in recent months this matter had stimulated interest and understanding. There has been the information technology advisory panel report, which dealt with one part of the issue, and the Hunt report, which dealt with another part of the issue, and the Part recommendations. The debate has been bitty. No broad consensus has developed.
I am in favour of speedy action by the Government in this and other matters. The great criticism that the British people have of the Government and the House is that it often takes too long to get things done. It is welcome to see the speed with which the Government have attempted to move. They have set going a juggernaut. There is a danger of its getting out of control, running too fast and doing considerable damage.
I have no doubt that we must go ahead as speedily as possible. Irrespective of anything else, if we do not go ahead, we shall lose out in the race against the other countries. We are talking not just about broadcasting but about the central nervous system of the whole modern economy. Industry, commerce and every other aspect of our lives will be dependent on the future communications system. If our communications system is second rate compared with the system in France, Germany, America and Japan, our industries will be disadvantaged as a result. We cannot ignore the developments in other countries. We cannot hold back. With regard to the pace of the development and the sort of development that we must have, we must try to ensure that as far as possible we get it right both technically and in terms of broadcasting standards.
There is no doubt that we should have our sights firmly set upon establishing a national electronic grid. My colleagues and I have great sympathy with the arguments that were put forward by Lord Weinstock in the Financial Times the other day. On the other hand, I see no reason
454
why we should follow the course advocated by the official Opposition of giving British Telecom a monopoly in laying down the national electronic grid.
Mr. John Garrett: That is what Lord Weinstock said.
Mr. Wriggleworth: That may be what Lord Weinstock seemed to imply but he did not explicity say that.
We should have a national electronic grid, but we should not exclude the possibility of other people providing parts of the grid. What BT almost certainly will provide is the inter-city switched network that will be the whole basis of the national network. It is important that the terms of the franchise that is given to cable companies, which lay cables that will be attached to the grid, lay down standards and conditions that ensure that we have compatible systems that will build up eventually into the national grid.
It is difficult at this stage for hon. Members to determine what is the best technical system. I guess that there is broad consensus that we should go as far as possible for fibre optics, for obvious reasons that have been stated. Listening to what has been said by some of the most senior engineers over recent weeks and months, I have become slightly bemused about what potential there is and what technical possibilities there are.
There seems to be considerable argument between the technical experts about what can be done both by fibre optics and a combination of fibre optics and coaxial cable. We do not need to follow religiously one or the other. There is no doubt that a substantial interactive cable network could be provided on coaxial cable. I hope that that will not happen as there are great advantages in fibre optics. Perhaps a combination of the two to start with is the way forward to get ahead speedily. We can ensure at the end of the day, when the technology is available, that we can move over entirely to fibre optics.
There has also been a great deal of confusion in discussions over recent months between the needs of the domestic market and the business market. Much of the interactive work that could be done on the cable network will almost certainly be predominately for the business market and not for the domestic market. However, some facilities—for example, security services, which could be provided in people's homes—will be welcomed by many people, particularly those who are living by themselves.
One of the powerful arguments for introducing a cable system with those facilities is that it would ensure that those who are home-bound, some of the most underprivileged in our society, have available shopping, bank and other facilities to enable them to live a much easier life than if the facilities were not available. Many would welcome security facilities for old people.
The services that some people envisage are already almost here. I have mentioned some that are in existence. We have the interactive Prestel service. Through the Prestel service one can make orders for a variety of things. We will need considerable convincing that there will be an immediate vast market for that service. However, one can see its enormous potential. There is great advantage in going ahead with cable as quickly as possible.
I am much less enthusiastic about, but not opposed to, the development of the new entertainment facilities that are being suggested. I agree with the hon. Member for

455
Nottingham, West (Mr. English) that it will be good to provide some of the local television services that he mentioned for people.
There are undoubtedly gaps in the market that are plain for all to see. Video tape has filled them to some extent but gaps remain that an entertainment service could fill. The British market is different from that in other countries, not least because of the vast and rapid development of video. That has provided people with the opportunity not only to look at tapes but to use the time shift facility which is a great attraction to many people, not least to hon. Members.
We shall shortly have breakfast television and the satellite services, as well as the existing channels. There is a wholly different broadcasting ethos from that in other parts of the world. If people wish to invest their money in providing a wide range of services, it is wrong that they should be stopped from doing so. As hon. Members have said, we must ensure the maintenance of good standards and services.
I do not want to talk at length about quotas, but it is important that we should seek to protect the British film industry. The Government are already removing much of the film industry's protection. They are removing the Eady levy and are reducing quotas in British cinemas. It would be a retrograde step if the 14 per cent. quota were removed. That has protected our industry in the past and has given us what is widely acknowledged to be one of the best facilities in the world.
In order to ensure that standards are maintained at a reasonable level, we need a slightly tighter control than that envisaged by the Hunt report. I do not accept the arguments against the IBA carrying out such a supervisory role. I want to see not the control that IBA exercises in relation to television companies—that is relatively simple to exercise with the number of companies that we have—but the type of control which the IBA exercises over local commercial radio stations. If the Government are anxious to press ahead quickly in introducing this service, it seems to me that that is a ready-made system for monitoring cable television which could quickly come into operation and create public confidence in the services that will be provided.
I sound a note of caution. There has been a substantial reaction against the prospect of low standards and pornographic services. That was particularly drawn to the public's attention by the idea of the electronic lock. That is a silly proposal which I hope is not implemented. It has created a great deal of opposition to the introduction of cable, networks which, I hope, will not be justified. However, in order to restore confidence to those who are anxious, one hopes that the regulatory body will have slightly tighter control than the Hunt report envisages—the same sort of control as the IBA exercises over local commercial radio stations.
We have been told, rightly, that cable is potentially important in maintaining, and possibly providing, jobs. It is unlikely that unemployment will be reduced unless the Government change their economic policy. The introduction of cable however, will ensure that we do not lose more jobs because of the competition that will inevitably come from other countries.
There is a case for proceeding relatively rapidly, even if we slow down the juggernaut from the speed that it has picked up over the past six months. The speed with which the Government have come to a conclusion on the
456
recommendations of the Part committee is staggering. I am in favour of quick decisions, but to make such a decision in 48 hours on MAC rather than PAL without. as far as I am aware, any consultation with our European partners is potentially disastrous. I do not know whether the decision is right or wrong, but there have been few opportunities for it to be discussed in a wider forum. To make a decision in 48 hours seems to me to be dangerous.
I hope that, while proceeding as rapidly as possible, the Government will concentrate their efforts on developing a strategy for communications and not rush headlong into something that may be regretted later.
7.35 pm
Mr. Kenneth Warren: I listened to the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) with interest because he got half the story right. He is correct to set the debate within the context of Britain's whole communications needs. However, he is wrong to make the reservation that we must not rush headlong. I do not suggest that we should, but we need to move ahead a bit faster than perhaps the Hunt report appreciated.
It was said that the Hunt committee would study an expansion of cable systems, including, when available, services of direct broacasting by satellite. That was one of the terms announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 22 March 1982. One wonders whether his Department, as opposed to the Department of Industry, had appreciated that direct broadcasting by satellite had already been available for a decade. It is within the context of direct broadcasting by satellite and cables that we must consider the Hunt report. They must be considered together. Only in paragraphs 56 and 57 of the Hunt report is there any reference to our ability to use satellites as a complement to cable services.
If we do not take those into account as complementary means of communication, we are ignoring the experience of the United States, from which it would be to our advantage to learn. We recognise that the United States has large areas across which to communicate and that therefore a satellite immediately appears more viable, particularly when it can be rooted back into local area networks for cables.
The Hunt report then dismisses the American experience as irrelevant. Paragraph 57 says:
"The need to use satellites for this purpose is less in a country the size of the United Kingdom".
The Hunt Committee has not taken the technologial advice which it should have done about the problems of communicating within the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology told me this week that he had at the forefront of his mind the need for workable legislation to be available in order to ensure that communication systems using fibre optics could be laid along public ducts using existing services such as the routes of telecommunications, the water mains and even sewers. Those are essential below-the-surface communications.
However, Britain is crossed backwards and forwards with so many forms of communications that would be interrupted that there is a strong case for using direct broadcasting satellites to communicate not only between London and Glasgow, between Huddersfield and Penzance, but from one side of the street to the other.
When one reads the Part committee report, one becomes even more gloomy about the understanding of the

457
technology that should be available. That report came down heavily on the side of the MAC system. It is supposed to be a unique British system. I have been involved in many heroic engineering works in this country, which in the end do not seem to tie up with what customers throughout the world want, to make the market base viable. Information about the MAC system that I and my other colleagues received recently shows that to use that system would cost £100 more per domestic television set than to use the extended PAL system. Furthermore, the MAC system would not allow access to and from Europe. It is further suspect in that it would allow the Irish to put into this country—if we can have the cheaper system offered by extended PAL—the very items of American programmes that many hon. Members fear will be the prime motivation of cable television producers. Lastly, one has only to look at the advertising style that is required in the United States to promote those poor quality programmes to see that, by going just for the MAC system, or by putting it foremost in our minds, we could end up with a one-off which no one in the rest of the world wants to buy.
On the question of whether cable should be coaxial or fibre optics, I suggest that if my hon. Friend cares to search through the lower regions of the Department of Industry he will find records of work done in the British aerospace industry in this country 10 years ago, when fibre optics were used not in the quiet environment below the streets of London but in aeroplanes. Those aircraft, operating in temperatures between minus 70 degrees centigrade and plus 150 degrees centigrade, well outside the environment of our homes, proved that fibre optics were a satisfactory signalling system. It was found to be a satisfactory signalling system 10 years ago. However, engineers in this country did not stop at using analogue signals, which are of poor value, for a fibre optics signalling system. They used digital signalling which can carry much more information and can time share various types of information.
It would be useful, therefore, in the time between now and the promised White Paper, if the Department were to look carefully at the kinds of technology that are available, and to study carefully the impact of the implementation of the Part report on our ability to establish a viable export market base in this country.
There has been much talk about the quality of programmes that will be available on cable television. Most people see it primarily as an entertainment system. As my right hon. Friend said earlier this afternoon, there is a growing market demand which probably could only be satisfied by the ability to use cable and satellite for the transmission of data.
CIT Research Limited produced a report recently which had 33 sponsors, including the Cabinet Office, NEDO, the BBC, and most of the European PTTs. The report concluded that only one in 20 consumers would be prepared to pay £8 a month for a cable service, and only one in four would be willing to pay as little as £1 a week. To paraphrase what an infamous young lady said a while ago, "They would, wouldn't they". It depends what one gets for the money one pays.
I asked a young man what he, as a young person, would like to see in cable television. He had no problem at all. He quickly listed six items, some of which have been
458
mentioned here today. First, there was sport—the ability for an enthusiast to watch a whole programme and, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir G. Johnson Smith) said in a very fine speech, the ability to learn something about how to play a sport. He mentioned fishing, and Opposition Members laughed. The largest single sport in this country is fishing. More people take part in fishing than in any other sport. Open golf tournaments have been mentioned, and the possibility of seeing a whole tournament. That is where pay television comes in. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead said, we must consider what people want, not what we believe is good for them.
The second item was films. Networks usually show only one film a day, while a cable operator can show five or 10. Many of us never have a chance to see high quality foreign films, which are available in only a few cinemas in London.
The third item was education. Old and young would have the chance to see what was being taught and to learn for themselves, particularly as the time scale of technology is getting shorter all the time, in their own time about new opportunities, and to build up expertise. Cable television could provide a valuable school service. Most school programmes are aimed at the under-12s, because it is more time-consuming and complicated to aim at O-level and A-level students. Cable could give the opportunity for people to broaden their education, discover the finer aspects of learning, and listen to the best teachers in the country. Adolescents do not get much time on television now. If Channel 4 is anything to go by, the "off' switch is the thing to use.
Major foreign events were the young man's fifth choice. He talked about the Royal wedding, which got major cable coverage in the United States. Certainly we should like to have more coverage of important speeches in various parts of the world—perhaps those of the United States President—or even to watch the latest military equipment in Red Square in Moscow. That would be not for entertainment purposes, but to learn about the nature of people or important occasions abroad.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has already stolen the sixth item on my list, theatre productions, so that people need not come to London, and could see good plays, operas and ballet in their homes.
I should like to add only one more item, at which I am sure no one in this place will laugh, but at which people outside will certainly laugh, and that is the ability to see Parliament. One may not want to pay to see Parliament, but it would be valuable to see a debate such as the one we are having on communications, and hear, on the basis of a whole debate, what people on both sides of the House feel in a discussion which to me, at least, does not seem in the least acrimonious.
We have here a big opportunity, and we should move forward as quickly as possible, using the best of our technology. If people are afraid of what will appear on 44 channels, I commend to them the magical critical ability that they have of using the "off' switch. The IBA should be a perfectly satisfactory regulatory agency, and there is no need for us to invent another. We are faced with a technical challenge that is worthy of parliamentary encouragement. It will give job opportunities, the ability to export, new ideas and, above all, a better choice for the individual.
7.48 pm
Mr. Philip Whitehead: I agree with the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) that cable television and all the other adjuncts of the communications revolution can be either a threat or a promise. The hon. Gentleman chose to concentrate on the promise, and rightly so. There are many things on the shopping list that he gave the House which we, too, would find desirable. However, we must also concentrate to some extent on the threat.
This is a crucial debate. If the House and the Government get it wrong in the next few months, we shall be stuck with decisions, the consequences of which may well throw out necessary development in technology in this country over the next few years.
The debate is not, as some hon. Members have tried to suggest, on the one hand, baying Luddites, knuckles thumping on the floor, determined to smash the machines and drive us back to the Stone Age, and, on the other hand, heroic entrepreneurs trying to bring sweetness and light to the general population, if only we give them a sufficiently long franchise. The reality is rather different.
I wish that the Prime Minister had been here to listen to the arguments that have been put forward. Whatever the Home Secretary may say, we know that the speech at the Barbican next week will be crucial. Gloriana will appear, suspended no doubt from glittering coaxial cables as rigid and obsolescent as she is herself, to give the speech that will determine the thrust of the Government's policies. Much has been pre-empted before today's debate.
The least that the House can do is to express an alternative view which has some force. The decisions that we are now being asked to take could mean a bonanza for American programme providers rather than for the British, for Canadian entrepreneurs and hucksters rather than for the British, and for Japanese peddlers of out-of-date technology, however efficient at peddling it they may be, rather than for the technology of the future that the Minister of State, like me and most other hon. Members, would like to see given an advantage and a competitive edge.
My first point is about the central issue of regulation. It is at the heart of the matter. However Lord Hunt's committee regarded the matter and however some people may wish to believe that, in the wide society of electronic publishing and other easy phrases and slogans, we do not need regulations, we do need them for both negative and positive reasons. Television will be only a small part of the cable revolution.
The television set is already used by my children—and probably by the children of other hon. Members—for many other purposes than watching the box. It is a VDU for their home computer, and soon it may be the screen for the new viewphone system. If we are to examine the cable element of the broadcasting system, we should examine the interactive element. Many hon. Members have babbled glibly about interactive systems without knowing what they are. I shall deal with the interactive nature of what we have at the moment and the choice that that offers as against what we are being told we might need, and what that, in turn, offers.
The development of the broadcasting system in Britain has proceeded along the route of public service under
460
public regulations, because that is the best way to ensure that all citizens in the country get there in the end. They all get the same range of choice.
The hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton) and others have said that, of course, these things begin with the luxuries. He said that in the beginning came the luxury device that sooner or later became accessible to other people. Cable television is not quite like that. There is no analogy with the systematic provision of a nationwide system of transmitters and the emphasis upon them that brought the broadcasting services over the air to the whole country. Nor is there any easy analogy with the way in which the Government have set about introducing DBS services. If we consider television channels—channel 4 having just started, breakfast television about to start, and competition for advertising—and the enormous investment for genuine programme-making and the intrusion into that scene of an essentially parasitic group of cable entrepreneurs without regulation, we can see some of the dangers to the system. That is why protection is needed for genuine choice.
The Home Secretary said that cable television is complementary to public service broadcasting. I suggest that it is a form of public service and that there must be a public service element within it. There must be controls on the proportion of foreign ownership and programming for reasons with which any hon. Member would be familiar if he had witnessed what has happened in the United States and elsewhere where the principal multinational cable entrepreneurs are dominant.
Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), said that franchise operators want 25-year leases. They believe that is what they need. Why? Franchise operators want 25-year leases because they suspect that what is on offer in the Hunt proposals, which the Government may accept, is not sufficiently profitable. Therefore, they want rather more.
Professors Ehrenberg and Barwise of the London Business School conducted an interesting survey of the system's profitability and what it was likely to offer. It was given in evidence to the Hunt committee. They suggested that it was predominantly mass entertainment programming that would make money for the cable operators. Many of the other matters that have been referred to wistfully today were considered unlikely to be so lucrative. The operators know that well.
Professors Ehrenberg and Barwise also said that an unregulated cable system would produce largely unwanted social side effects, among which they included the social divisiveness between cable subscribers in profitable areas and the rest and the desperate struggle for market share and revenue by and with the networks. We should look at those matters when we consider how long the franchises should be and how much regulation—whether at a distance or much more direct—there should be.
Revenue for the cable stations will, as the Home Secretary said, come from a mix of subscriptions, advertising, pay television, "pay-per-view" and sponsorship. Some of those sources of revenue are under threat from the outset. No one knows how much revenue can be generated by advertising. In the immensely richer United States, cable systems that have relied on advertising have shown a loss. Some of them, including the prestigious CBS cultural service, mentioned by hon. Members who obviously believe that it is still offered to the people of Manhattan, has gone bust. What is more, as I tried to

461
explain to the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan), the video explosion in Britain does not necessarily mean that there is a terrific appetite for films by subscription cable television. If one hires a film for a video recorder, one does not necessarily want to pay a large subscription to a cable company to get the same service.
The companies may soon demand two things. The first will be much longer licences than the proposed eight or 10 years. The second will be a rapid relaxation of the rules about "pay-per-view" services.
The Ministry has been extremely diligent in his attendance. As he is here, I should like to ask him a question. There was a leak in one of the Sunday newspapers that the Government are now attempting to lure the hucksters back into the system by suggesting that they may have 25-year franchises and that those franchises will enable them to carry out data transmission services and television programmes. If so, where does the sanction lie if the provision of the cable television service is unsatisfactory? Like the Minister, I am familiar with paragraph 22 of the Hunt report and the suggestion that if in those circumstances a cable operator were providing unsatisfactory programmes he could be made to sell off his cable system. It is extremely difficult to do that once the operator is providing other services, which he may be producing efficiently, and once he has made the initial investment in hardware and software. We are left with a weakness in the proposals for the regulations, and it should be examined closely.
The problem is that operators are likely to give us a mix of programming. Mass entertainment will predominate. This is the home box office concept—films and so on. There will be a determination to move towards the type of programming that will draw in the viewers, whatever reservations hon. Members may have about some of it.
The hon. Member for Hendon, North and others have been bleating about Channel 4. They want it switched off after only two or three weeks because they do not like some of the programmes that appeal to minorities. Yet they want 25-year licences for the cable operators and they pray in aid some of the same minorities who, they say, may be well served by the system. I shall tell the House who will be served by the system if profitability is in doubt—those who want re-runs of old movies, old television programmes and pornography.
I am sure that the Minister will not try to tell us that the magic electronic key suggested by the Hunt committee will stop any 10-year-old watching pornographic programmes. It certainly would not stop my children, who can work the machinery far better than I can. By the time I came home, they would not only have watched the programme but recorded it in slow motion on video tape so that I could have an action replay. That is how useful such safeguards are when children are about.
Cable operators ask for long franchises, saying that they will not take the risk without them. They will not take the risk because there is no public service element in what they are required to do. That leads me to the conclusion that we should have a national system. I think that the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) did Lord Weinstock a disservice in suggesting that his proposals simply handed over the installation of cable to British Telecom. I believe that Lord Weinstock wanted—rightly—a consortium in which British Telecom
462
would be the market leader, providing the national electronic grid and able to see that it was transferred to optic fibre as soon as practicable.
Mr. Wrigglesworth: Perhaps I may clarify that point. I certainly did not intend to give the impression that that was my understanding of Lord Weinstock's proposals. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.
Mr. Whitehead: Yes, I accept that. Lord Weinstock saw a role for British Telecom and I believe that he was right. It is no use Conservative Members simply attacking British Telecom and Opposition Members attacking private industry. Unless there is a partnership in the best spirit of a mixed economy, the kind of national grid that I wish to see will not be installed.
I hope that the Minister will tell us that at the very least a convertibility stipulation will apply to the systems introduced, so that we are not stuck with out-of-date coaxial systems when we could transfer to switched-star and optic fibre, in which this country could be a market leader with a high export potential for years to come. If those assurances are given, if there is some glimmering of understanding that some of the people going into cable intend not to enrich public choice but merely to enrich themselves and that that is not a necessary corollary to the kind of public service input that we want, today's debate will not have been wholly in vain.
8.3 pm
Sir Philip Goodhart: The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) always brings great expertise to debates on broadcasting and television. He was, of course, a member of the Annan committee. If there is any common ground between those who have taken part in debates on cable television within and outside the House, it is that in considering the matter several years ago the Annan committee entirely underestimated the pace of the technological revolution that was to overtake television. It is a pity that that comittee did not turn its mind to these matters then, as these debates could have taken place at any time in the past three or four years and we should now be further along the road.
I go at least part of the way with the hon. Member for Derby, North in his comments about the problems of franchise control. It is understandable that those contemplating applying for franchises want a franchise longer than eight or 10 years. Nevertheless, I share the misgivings of the many people who do not want them to have 25-year or lifetime franchises.
The amount of capital that will have to be invested, however, is clearly very much greater than in the case of an ordinary independent television franchise. In the latter case, if the franchise is removed after a few years, the studios, cameras and other equipment can be disposed of fairly simply. In the case of cable television, however the cable, switching equipment and so on will be worth many millions of pounds. If removal of the franchise is to be a real threat, we must agree an evaluation procedure at this stage so that the cable and other equipment can be transferred from one franchise-holder to another. The threat will then become a real possibility rather than some kind of nuclear deterrent so horrendous that it will never be used.
On controls falling short of removal of franchise, I am sorry that the Hunt committee turned its back on the

463
financial penalties involved in the performance bonding system so common in the United States. If the franchise-holder does not put in equipment to the agreed standard or does not cable the area quickly enough, he is subject to financial penalties through the performance bond. I believe that we can and should develop that kind of minor financial penalty in this country. I hope that the Government will consider that, as the Hunt committee's view is clearly not the last word on the subject.
A certain amount of disquiet has been expressed today about the Hunt committee's proposals on pornography. I do not believe that we should devote too much attention to this, as the parameters of the debate have been greatly changed by the video cassette revolution. To paraphrase an old cliché, we should be locking the brothel door after the whore has bolted. Some 20 per cent.—certainly 15 per cent.—of homes with television in this country already have video recorders and it is estimated tht that proportion will rise to 50 per cent. in the near future. Thus, anyone who really wants to see pornography on the television screen has only to buy or hire a video recorder, go down to the friendly neighbourhood sex supermarket and rent a pornographic film without any controls applying. I suspect, therefore, that there is no need to devote a great deal of attention to that aspect.
We should not lightly accept the Hunt committee's recommendations against "pay-per-view". I believe that such a system has substantial importance for the sporting life of this country. Naturally, the BBC is terrified that cable television may gain a foothold in sports television. For the past 25 years, while the country has been mad about watching sport on television, television has had sport on the cheap. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the television authorities have short-changed the sporting establishment. If one looks at the penurious state of athletics, rugby, racing, football or cricket, one sees that the television authorities have raped and pillaged sport. Pay television is the one way in which the sporting organisations can hope to recoup their fortunes.
Football stadiums are decrepit and prone to violence. Many football clubs are on the verge of bankruptcy. On the whole, football players are comparatively badly paid. In a good year the BBC and ITV paid football no more than £5 million. In America, the national football league has recently signed a contract with ABC and CBS to cover the full programme for a four-year period for $2 billion. The two networks are paying the national football league for the right to carry football a sum equivalent to the price for putting out every programme on BBC1 for a year. The result is that the American sporting establishment has rich players, luxurious stadiums and prosperous clubs. The only way in which British sport can hope to recoup its fortune is by some form of "pay-per-view". I hope that the Government will look at the Hunt committee's recommendations on that.
Cable television, like any changing communication, will produce as many bad programmes as good ones. There is always the risk that expansion will produce some lowering of standards. It is worth remembering that in civilisation's long history the greatest single decline in cultural, aesthetic and philosophical standards was produced by the printing press. Until then, monasteries were the major suppliers of books. The monks diligently produced bibles, prayer books, hymnals and works of theology and philosophy. The printing press came and lesser works were immediately available to the public and
464
it became possible to publish works of casual playwrights like William Shakespeare—a decline perhaps from the bible.
The expansion of communication carries the risk of some lowering of standards, but it also contains the promise of wider choice and much that is excellent. I am sorry that the Home Secretary seemed to suggest that all legislation on this point will be delayed until next Session. I hope that, following publication of the White Paper, we shall move a little faster and have the necessary legislation in this Session.
8.15 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: I am fortunate to follow the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart). He ended with a request for speed. I believe that I have heard every speech in this debate, but I have heard nothing to justify the great haste with which the Government are embarking on the cabling of Great Britain. A case for speed can be made if the matter is approached correctly from the technological point of view. The interests that have been declared have been those of the programme organisers. They wish to use cable to advertise or reap the benefits of advertising revenue, and I do not believe that those are good enough reasons.
No one who is close to the British public can say that he has detected a crying need for the range of programmes that cabling will make possible. I have not detected that need among my constituents or the people of the area in which I live. The most puzzling feature of the debate is the speed at which it is taking place. There was a rather disgraceful report by the information technology advisory panel which is composed of an opinionated, self-interested and culturally disinterested group of people who urged that we go ahead with the cabling of Britain. As far as I could make out, they gave no good reasons for that. The Government, however, are quickly implementing the proposals.
Recommendation 8.11 of the report states:
"The Government should announce as soon as possible its approval for an early start on DBS services."
That is all part of the same argument. There is a footnote which says:
"The Home Secretary announced the Government's approval in principle for a two-channel operational DBS service starting in 1986 in a parliamentary statement on 4 March 1982."
This came as something of a surprise to those of us who have some experience of the excruciatingly slow and grinding processes by which Government decisions are made. Equally surprising was the fact that hot on the heels of that report the Hunt committee was set up. It was comprised of three members only because more members would have needed longer to reach a decision.
Within about nine months we had the Hunt report with its conclusions. One cannot start DBS until a decision has been made on which system should be used for transmitting from the satellite to the receivers. That is a difficult decision. A choice has to be made between two powerful lobbies—between the BBC and its PAL and extended PAL and the MAC system proposed by the IBA and its engineering directorate. It is a decision about which Governments would normally agonise for years. That problem was resolved without any trouble. Sir Anthony Part then crops up. I do not know what he knows about technology, but he has a good, independent and incisive

465
mind. Within a matter of weeks he made recommendations. Despite many pleadings from the BBC—with which I do not agree—that it would cut us off from our European audiences, a decision was reached. Come what may, we shall have MAC. It is almost unprecedented for a Government to wish to push through so quickly a series of decisions in such a complex and difficult area. I can find no good reason for the speed.
No one has yet mentioned the inherent conflict in what we are trying to do. Those in favour of television by cable urge the maximum speed; with equal emphasis, we are told that it is a high risk activity and needs a long franchise period. Hon. Members have referred to the period being between 20 and 25 years—some with anguish and others with delight.
The two arguments do not go together. If we push ahead as quickly as we can and give a franchise for 25 years, with the technological state of the two alternative systems—coaxial and fibre optics—we shall tie in a major part of our cabling to the coaxial system.
Mr. Whitney indicated dissent—
Mr. Robinson: No doubt if the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will make his point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) said that British Telecom is already advanced with its switching system, but I believe that it would be optimistic to commit ourselves to the time scale that it believes possible. Such things inevitably take longer than predicted, even in war. To meet the time scale that the Government have in mind for a national electronic grid it would need to be given the priority that Churchill gave to the development of radar in the Second World War.
In an article in the New Scientist I read that Churchill told Sir Bernard Lovell, among others, in April 1943 that he wanted 40 bombers equipped and flying with radar by October 1943. People worked night and day and there were a lot of failures but the bombers were equipped and flying by December 1943. If we gave this proposal the same priority, I am sure that we could achieve the objectives.
Other hon. Members have concentrated on the need to evolve a regulatory mechanism for the cable era, but I am not so worried about that. We have a national genius to evolve such bodies. I am sure that we shall find a suitable mechanism to control cable, as we did with the IBA and similar bodies. I am more interested in planning the technological implications of what is being done. The British public will decide what programmes they want; I have confidence in their judgment, but I have the gravest doubts about the Government's judgment and approach and about the speed when it comes to the technology to be used for cabling.
Lord Weinstock has been quoted to great effect. In case my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) does not catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall quote what the Post Office Engineering Union says:
"On any objective criteria British Telecom is the obvious and most qualified authority to provide the actual cable for television systems in this country."
It is open to fair party political and technical debate whether it is a total monopoly or a mixture.
466
The union's comments could almost have been written by Lord Weinstock. He used similar words in his article in the Financial Times. I hope that the Prime Minister will listen to him with the same attentiveness on this as on other issues. By doing so, she would also be listening to the views of the Post Office Engineering Union and British Telecom.
The union further states:
"It has the wayleaves and physical infrastructure; it has the technically-trained workforce; it has the knowledge of both coaxial cable and optical fibre systems; it already operates a national switched communications network; and—perhaps above all—it is an existing organisation with decades of actual experience of carrying our large-scale technical projects and it is geared to start the re-cabling of Britain immediately."
We are not immediately ready to move to what we really need—the most advanced fibre optic technology.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) in his copius speech and other hon. Members spoke of the advantages of fibre optics over coaxial cable in providing the national electronic grid. But fibre optics is important not only in that area. The Japanese are no slouches at picking winners. The technical and major national newspapers report that they see fibre optics as a major growth area. Previously they have identified other such areas—cameras, information technology, micro-electronics and, for the future, biotechnology.
Let us take just one example—endoscopy, which is the means of viewing and filming the inside of the stomach by gastroscope or colonoscope. That multi-million pound international market which is based on advanced fibre optics is already dominated by the Japanese. Another massive multi-million pound market is road and rail signalling throughout the Arab-speaking world. Once we get the definition correct and sufficiently minute, it is another massive market that will be taken up in fibre optics. The whole potential for fibre optics comes from a great British invention. Professor Hopkins of Reading did the work in the early 1950s.
We should not be worrying in the short-term about immediately providing pornographic films or a news service. The nation needs long-term provision, to the highest level of technology, of a comprehensive electronic grid. We should not be pushing ahead to license the first flush of films on coaxial cable; we should be planning how to push the technical and marketing aspects of fibre optic technology.
The debate is the wrong way round. We do not urgently need to push ahead with cable television along the lines and in the time scale that the Government wish. But there is an urgent need for the Government to discuss with British Telecom and other cable manufacturers the time scale and standard of advanced internationally competitive technology for establishing a national electronic grid. The Prime Minister every Question Time harps on about international technology. If we were to do that, we would meet the needs of the consumer and the nation at one go. A great British invention would be exploited comprehensively to the benefit of British industry and the British consumer by using the most advanced technology.
I hope that we shall have a categoric assurance from the Minister for Industry and Information Technology that there will be no new major investment in coaxial cable. There must be no diversion of capital or intellectual resources.
There are those who say that the only way in which we shall secure the development of fibre optics is to go for a

467
franchise of 25 years that is based on coaxial cable. They are talking rubbish. That approach is a paradox and a contradiction. Fibre optics will be developed only by granting a 25-year franchise to an operator on the condition that he will use the most up-to-date fibre optic technology. That would be a deal that many of my hon. Friends and I could accept. It is that sort of deal that we wish to hear about. That is what we want to hear from the Minister for Industry and Information Technology when he replies. Anything else will be a second-rate decision taken by a Government in undue and unnecessary haste for reasons that I for one, having read all the relevant documents, am unable to discover.
8.30 pm
Mr. Raymond Whitney: The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) rightly said that at one stage in his speech I was shaking my head in disagreement. That was on the issue to which he returned at the close of his remarks, which is, in his view, the impossibility of making progress until everything is clear about fibre optics and associated technology.
The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) talked about the possibility of evolving from the coaxial tree-and-branch system into fibre technology. I note that the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West is now shaking his head. It seems that we shall have to agree to differ. His hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North talked about evolving into optical fibre and a switched star system. Most experts estimate that the initial costs of this evolutionary possibility will be 5 or 10 per cent.—I agree that that is an entirely sound judgment—in return for a significantly longer franchise than the eight-year or 10-year agreement that is now proposed. That would be a fair balance to strike.
The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West quoted with approval Lord Weinstock. It has been suggested by a number of British cable manufacturers and industrialists that Lord Weinstock's present stand, which is closely allied with that of the Post Office Engineering Union, may have a little to do with the fact that GEC is rather behind the play. In effect, the noble Lord is asking for the play to be halted so that his company can catch up. That is a possibility.
Mr. Golding: Disgraceful.
Mr. Whitney: I should declare a putative interest in the cable industry. When the progress is achieved that we all hope will take place, I hope that a group of friends will launch into cable technology. Why not? This is surely what we are looking for. The putative nature of the project was somewhat increased by one or two of the echoes that came from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I hope that the dead hand of the Home Office will not weigh too heavily in this complex decision. It is an area in which the Home Office is not well fitted to take decisions. In so many areas of our national life the Home Office has its contribution to make, but it is generally a bastion of reaction. The challenging world of cable technology is not a natural habitat for the normal inhabitants of the Home Office. I hope that my right hon. Friend will struggle free from his Department's protective embrace. I hope that the initial thrust given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and especially by my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology, will be maintained.
468
The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West asked "What is the hurry?" There is a hurry because we must give this tremendous opportunity to British industry, which it will lose if we are slow. We must give the opportunity for jobs because it is probable that tens of thousands of jobs will accrue from this development. We must also provide the opportunity of choice, something which has not had a sufficient airing in the debate. We are reflecting the influence of the BBC and the public service of broadcasting generally.
Labour Members have asked for evidence of the need for choice. Video sales in Britain have outstripped those in any other country. That shows that there is not satisfaction with what is on offer in the public service of broadcasting. The choice offered to the public is not regarded as adequate. I shall refer again to the point admirably made in that splendid speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan). The choice available in Manhattan—brought to us by Andrew Neil, the editor of The Economist—was challenged by the hon. Member for Derby, North. The hon. Gentleman attempted to dismiss the proposition that on 7 June 1982 viewers in Manhattan had a choice of 25 channels. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the CBS cable was no Longer operating. Even if that is accepted, there are 24 channels showing six feature films, yet another ballet, the news, documentaries, two plays, two sports programmes and so on. At that time we had yet another regurgitation of "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" and the 9 o'clock news.
If we are kind and include last Saturday's viewing on Channel 4 at that time, we should have had one more choice. At 9 pm last Saturday, Channel 4 offered something called the "Norman Gunston Show". According to "TV Times", he is
"a silver-tongued Australian comedian who specialises in practically incoherent interviews".
Therefore, we should not take too seriously the proposition that the public service broadcasting that is on offer is so wonderful that it cannot be improved.
In the past three months there has been an important development. There has been a counter-attack. There was a splendid initiative on the part of the Government that was followed by an organised counter-attack that was led, in particular, by the BBC but also by the IBA. I do not know what it is about Australians, but we have had, for example, Mr. Clive James dragging up Ugly George. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) referred—not inappropriately—to that programme. Mr. Clive James gave us several doses of that, half hour by half hour, on, I believe, Sunday by Sunday, seeking to prove that cable was a bad thing.
The quality of British television must be capable of improvement. I would not commend watching, for instance, "The Dukes of Hazzard" on BBC. If hon. Members are worried about low quality imports from the United States of America, the BBC has one or two things to answer for.
Mr. Critchley: Surely my hon. Friend is aware that there is a 14 per cent. restriction on the BBC's imported material. If he had his way, there would be no quota on cable.
Mr. Whitney: If I had my way, there would be so many cable channels that the 14 per cent. would be irrelevant. Most of the material would be locally produced, anyway. Therefore, the whole quota system

469
falls to the ground. People have not grasped the local nature of what is offered by the narrowcasting of cable. The whole equation of 86 per cent. to 14 per cent. ceases to be relevant.
The House has not given due weight to the amount of talent in the British entertainment industry that is going to waste. Eighty per cent. of Equity's members are unemployed. If they are clever enough not to allow Mr. Sapper or the Equity bosses to keep them out of the picture, there will be tremendous opportunities for them. I have every confidence that more television will not mean worse television. It could well mean better television.
I have already dealt with the exaggeration of the technical problems. However, I am worried that the temperature is cooling over cable. We expect the forces of reaction that always assemble on the Opposition Benches and added to that we have the vested interests of the public service broadcasting system. The trouble is that they are now dragging out the difficulties and financial problems of some cable interests in America to try to prove to the City that this investment is not worthwhile. That is a danger of which the Government must take clear note. If they allow the foot-draggers who still exist in parts of the Government machine to coalesce with all the other vested interests, the whole project will be lost.
I therefore urge the Government not to allow this braking of the system. They should seize the opportunity to which the Home Secretary referred when he suggested that there was a possibility of pursuing an interim solution. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend, aided by the Minister for Industry and Information Technology, will cut through the undergrowth and strive hard for that interim solution.
I also hope that the promised further thought about "pay-per-view" will be further positive thought. As a number of my hon. Friends have said, we are not talking about the Derby or great events such as that. We are talking about the football matches of the away team and the cultural events for ethnic groups for which people will be willing to pay.
This is a challenge that we must not resist. The attitude in British society has been "Better not, do not do it, let us wait". Time and again, we have lost opportunities. We lost the jet and nuclear reactors. Let us not lose the cable opportunity.
8.41 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: As a foot-dragger, I am reluctant to come between the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) and his putative quick buck, but I dread the prospects for the 14 per cent. of Equity members who are in employment if his kind of cable television is what we adopt nationally.
I am in two minds on this issue. The first is attracted to the excitement, prospects and pluralism of a multiplicity of channels, but at the same time there is a real fear about the dangers we face if we take the wrong decisions, and all the indications are that we are heading towards wrong decisions. That is because we are not having a great debate on cable television. We are having much more of a bum's rush into cable television by the most underhand methods imaginable. In fact, if this is to be a renaissance, it will
470
be preceded by the dark ages, given the manipulations and intellectual shoddiness of the arguments that have been put forward for the kind of cable that seems to be on offer.
The report of the information technology advisory panel is a disgraceful piece of special pleading on behalf of the interests that are strongly represented on that panel. Mr. Mike Aldrich, the managing director of Rediffusion Computers, is specified in several places to be the author of that report. That is tantamount to getting criminals to write their own judgments or special interests to agree to their own demands.
That report was immediately followed by a quick reply from the Hunt committee, which is a classic example of how to get what one wants without specifically asking for it. This is a tame committee, with a former Cabinet secretary, whose whole experience is to put into far better words what politicians would like to have said but did not say. That committee was given the job of saying how, not whether, cable should be introduced, and how it would affect the existing media. All the important considerations were excluded, as were the possible restrictions.
As a result, I was not surprised at the reactions of the advertising industry. Mr. Roy Langridge, media director at J. Walter Thompson, said "It's great news", and the response of IPA director David Wheeler was "extremely encouraging". Mr. Wheeler added:
"Virtually all the figures in the section of the report relating to advertising come from our report."
That is another prejudging of the issue, which has the dreadful indication of Aphrodite emerging from the cable at the Barbican Centre next Tuesday. Now that the miracle arising from the Government's economic policies has been indefinitely postponed, here is an indication that they have a strategy for some entertainment to while away the hours until the miracle occurs.
The basis of the argument for rushing in cable is that entertainment will carry the other purposes and objectives for which cable is available and will fulfil. That is an inadequate argument. Yet that is the basis for rushing through crucial decisions which, if taken wrongly, will not give benefits but will cripple us with outdated technology.
The Government's argument appears to be that entertainment will carry the other purposes. One has a vision of the Minister for Industry and Information Technology riding into silicon valley on a donkey. I doubt whether entertainment has the strength to carry the weight of the Minister and the other purposes, not because people will not be willing to pay or that they do not want further channels, but because there are so many alternatives—for example, direct broadcasting by satellite, the fifth channel from the re-engineered VHF to UHF, the low-power transmissions, and video, which is rapidly catching on. With all the alternatives and the lack of clear demand for the extra channels, I doubt whether entertainment will be able to carry the burden that is being put on its shoulders by the Government's strategy.
If entertainment fails to carry that burden, the case for rushing ahead, and doing it so overwhelmingly in the private sector, collapses. If entertainment cannot carry the burden, there will be a stronger argument for having British Telecom as the carrier and provider of the cable and using it for its own purposes.
There is a stronger argument not for rushing, but for making the decision in a calm, rational and calculated fashion. A crucial decision must be made about technology. A clear preference has emerged in the House,

471
first, for the switched-star system rather than for the tree-and-branch technology, which will be adopted if we go ahead at the present speed, and, secondly, for glass fibre rather than coaxial cable. Conservative Members have pointed out that glass fibre is more expensive at the moment—but sand is cheap. I will offer Cleethorpe's beach to the Government for their industrial miracle. But will they take it? A great demand would come through ordering from British Telecom—Government ordering—and through a decision to go for that technology. Costs would come down. Indeed, they would plummet. The cost of the switching gear, which would be quickly developed as demand materialised, would also come down.
A mistake on either of those two crucial decisions—tree-and-branch versus switched-star or coaxial versus glass fibre—will be costly. Only by waiting and taking the right decision will we get the best technology.
A second mistake, into which we are being rushed, is the creation of local monopolies. If entertainment does not carry the burden asked of it, a local monopoly which has installed the cable will be asked after eight or 10 years to give way. Once the cable is installed, it cannot be taken up again. It would be difficult to tranfer it to someone else. The franchise will be lengthened, or the inevitable will happen as has already happened with commercial television—the companies will demand that conditions imposed on them must be revoked.
We shall finish up with wall-to-wall orgasm, constant pornography and potential trivialisation. Cable is a devourer, not a creator, of programmes. It does not contribute to television. It uses television parasitically. If restrictions are removed—the Government's only answer should entertainment be unable to carry the burden—we shall finish up with all the worst features that Opposition Members dread.
The argument is clear. A public commitment should be made through British Telecom, which has the expertise and is wiring the country anyway. There will be a need to wire the country with fibre optics. British Telecom can provide the investment. It seems logical that there should not be competing systems or local monopolies. To allow British Telecom to be the carrier will mean adequate control over those who will handle the entertainment aspect of programmes. That is only one aspect of the whole purpose of cable.
The Government accuse the Opposition of being doctrinaire. What we are presented with tonight is a doctrinaire argument for private enterprise that is totally unrealistic. It has the potential for making wrong decisions and leaving us with the legacy of an outdated system and bankrupt communicators who will be forced to relax every standard which even this Government, with their low demand for standards, will impose.
8.51 pm
Mr. Nigel Forman: The Hunt report took as its terms of reference the Government's wish to secure for this country the benefits of cable technology and the Government's willingness to consider an expansion of cable systems carrying a wider range of entertainment and other services but also the caveat that proposals should be framed in a way that was consistent with the wider public interest, in particular by safeguarding public service broadcasting. Judging by remarks made in this debate and the views of experts who have spoken in my hearing on this topic, it seems that the key factor in the Government's
472
decision making must be topology—in other words, the kind of system that we go for. The technology, important though it is, is secondary. Both the topology and the technology are, in a direct way, more important and more vital to this country than any of the commercial imperatives or the political gee-whizzery that is sometimes associated with information technology.
If the Government take the right decisions, it is clear that some of the benefits of cable technology will show up directly for those who use the system as customers. There will be benefits for existing television watchers who may well appreciate the wider range of programmes than is now available on four channels. These benefits will materialise so long as those who do not subscribe to cable systems are not thereby deprived of some of the programmes they can now get by the financial pulling power of cable programme services. This underlines the importance of the "must carry" rule mentioned in the Hunt report.
The benefits can also materialise for the viewer so long as cable programmes extend the range of programme choice for the viewer. I am not absolutely convinced that the evidence from the United States which may provide a model necessarily suggests that this will be so. I noticed with concern the programme schedule for the Home Box Office cable channel in the United States, which I believe is the only profitable one. It included such wonders as "Arthur", "Body Heat", "Halloween II", "Private Lessons", "The Commodores in Concert", "Camelot", "Not Necessarily the News", "Strange Creatures of the Night", "Race for the Pennant", "Looney Bugs Bunny Movie", "The Man Who Loved Bears", "The Great Muppet Caper", and so on. I am not convinced that that sort of programme content is necessarily for the best. I fear that there may be a Gresham's law in these matters whereby the bad drives out the good.
With regard to the benefit for cable operators and programme providers, one is right to be a little cynical as so much of this argument will depend on the length and terms of licences, on the range of obligations imposed, and the strengh of competition from such things as home video. Above all, it will depend upon the enthusiasm or lack of enthusiasm of the public response.
I note that both Mr. Arthur Taylor of the United States cable television entertainment channel, who has recently been in this country, and the communications and information technology survey poured a great deal of cold water on the commercial prospects. There are two possible interpretations of that. One is the cynical one that people who want something from a Government often get into the habit of pouring cold water on the matter beforehand, saying how difficult and impossible it will all be, so that they can secure better terms from the Government and better consequences. It may be that these people are right, and that Lord Hunt was wise to warn us on a number of occasions that nothing will happen so dramatically, fast or disastrously as some of the proponents of both sides of the argument have tended to suggest.
I wish to concentrate on the potential benefit for the system providers and British industry generally, as that is the most important consideration of the debate. This is the point that has developed. Although the Home Secretary opened the debate, correctly, the aspect of industry is one that the House has begun to focus upon. It is unfair to accuse Lord Hunt of not focusing on this aspect sufficiently, as paragraph 102 of his report makes it clear that he was not asked to do so. However, the Government

473
would be wise to proceed on a more cautious and measured timetable, as was suggested by the Home Secretary today, since that would fit in well with the time scale of the Eden committee which is considering industrial standards.
The key consideration is that Britain has a potential world lead in fibre optics which is the lead technology for the cable systems, and in the switched star network, which is the lead topology. It is a pleasure to see that companies such as GEC, Plessey, and STC, not to mention Mullards in my constituency, are making great progress in fibre optics. It is also a pleasure to see the Under-Secretary here, because I know that he paid a visit to Mullards recently.
British Telecom is also developing the switched star topology through its feasibility study at Milton Keynes. This is where the greatest opportunities lie for home and export markets, provided that the Government give more backing to fibre optics. In that connection, I was delighted to read in the Financial Times today of the support for fibre optics being raised by £30 million. I congratulate the Minister on that.
The Government must give support to the important technology of laser semi-conductor technology so that we can do the switching on a more advanced basis similar to that planned in Japan.
Provided that we do not make a false, economy of deciding now to do in a hurry something that would be based essentially on yesterday's system by the time it got going, we should do well to eschew what is called the American tree-and-branch coaxial choice. We should go as hard and as clearly as we can for tomorrow's system, which is the British star system based on fibre optics. That carries the agreement of both sides of the House, and I have noticed that a number or hon. Members have said that in the debate. It would do more for jobs and growth and would improve our export prospects.
It has been suggested that this system would be dramatically more expensive, but the information given to me is that it would be about only 15 per cent. more expensive, which over the long term is not significant, and there might be a differential in time of between one and two years. We are talking about technology that is likely to be with us for the rest of the century, and into the following century, so it seems to me that it will be a small adjustment for the benefit of this much greater long-term advantage.
The Government are right not to allow themselves to be bounced into premature decisions that we might live to regret. We should proceed with all deliberate speed. If we do so along the technological lines that I have suggested, that would be in the best, wider public interests, which was the main thing that the Hunt report was set up to look into.
9 pm
Mr. John Garrett: The method, speed and technology of cabling in Britain and the future course of cable systems in this country are the most important industrial policy decisions to be taken by any Government since the war. The consequences will roll ahead beyond our time and into the next century. The prospects and progress of new industries far over the horizon will be determined by the decisions that we take. We must have a systematic and objective discussion of the options. Britain's success in international markets will be influenced massively by those decisions. They will
474
determine other areas of policy in data processing, transmission, telecommunications and publishing as well as having widespread social and economic consequences.
The technology of cabling is a critically important subject in its own right. I think that it should have been debated separately after the Government had produced a consultative paper. The issue of the effects of cable television on public standards in broadcasting is itself the subject of the greatest public concern and should be disentangled from the technological issues. They have been confused intentionally by the Government, who wish to quieten genuine fears about the quality of entertainment and broadcasting with the promise of a great new industrial advance.
The Hunt committee was not asked to address itself to those issues. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, it quickly dismissed the idea of British Telecom as a common carrier as
"unlikely, as it is inconsistent with the Government's policy on competition and its expressed view that cabling should not make significant demands on public expenditure."
In other words, the idea is inconsistent with a transient political ideology and a probably transient set of accounting conventions.
Our national policy on cabling Britain must be viewed more seriously than that. Apparently, next March the Eden committee will report on the technical considerations of cabling. So far, it has issued an interim report of just two sentences. The Library tells me that it is so short that it was never published. It states:
"Subject to one or two areas requiring subsequent infilling, appropriate drafts of British Standards will be available on or about 1 March 1983. The working group assured Ministers that these gaps would not prevent new systems from being designed and installed."
That is all that we have to go on in the crucial area of technical standards.
The letter inviting Dr. Eden to chair the committee asked him to consider the principal topological and technical options by March 1983, but began by saying that Ministers intend taking decisions on wide-band cable systems by the end of the year.
The significant feature of the handling of the issue is the tremendous hurry that the Government are in, matched or prompted by the hectic pressure from existing cable interests for permission to proceed. The Government are in a rush because they want to look progressive and imaginative. They also have the real problem that Britain's share in world trade in information technology equipment is falling as the market for the equipment is rapidly expanding. Currently, we have 3·8 per cent. of world exports and on one reliable estimate the figure will fall to 2·4 per cent. by 1990 unless we innovate. By that time the market will be worth £150 billion per year.
British industry has already missed out on the video recorder boom. The domestic market will double again this year to £400 million, making our video recorder market the fastest growing market in the world. We have no significant domestic manufacturer.
The Government also need a tangible success in information technology. The Government's schemes are taking a long time to pull through manufacturing investment, as one would expect in a recession. What is being done by the Department of Industry is largely being undone by the Department of Education and Science.

475
The existing cable companies are also in a rush because they see multi-channel networks arriving in the nick of time. According to the chairman of British Electric Traction, which owns 63 per cent. of Rediffusion, that company's cable operations are now running at a loss, and
"plans for dismantling are lying on the table".
Some 70 per cent. of its present cables are 20 to 30 years old and are obsolescent. The cable companies think that once direct broadcasting by satellite is in operation in 1986 it will be more difficult for new cable systems to be established. The viewer with a £200 dish antenna will be able to receive two BBC channels, up to three commercial channels and foreign signals, including, I understand, the five, probably leased to Americans, via the Irish satellite wavelengths. Paying for cable looks a much less attractive proposition in that situation. By 1985 there will be 50 per cent. market penetration of video recorders as well.
The cable companies also want the franchises before a change in Government policy can occur. The result has been a gold rush by the cable companies. I have never received so many expensive brochures or been invited to so many meetings by so many people who sincerely want to be rich.
Those companies are urging on the Government what Lord Weinstock, in an excellent analysis in the Financial Times last week, called
"the quick buck option … apparently based on the twin assumptions that advertising revenues are unlimited and 'adult movies' will always find a ready market."
To digress, not long ago I heard a cable company executive explain that his company would provide a channel devoted entirely to adult movies which he exemplified as such productions as "The Bitch", "The Stud" and "Emmanuelle". I understand that those are what are known as "soft porn", as distinct from what the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) described as mid-porn and adventure porn—which I suppose has something to do with outward bound courses—as supplied by American cable television. Whether they are titillating or not is in dispute, but it seems to be generally agreed that they are grossly demeaning to women and an outrage to family viewing. The Hunt report's suggestion that they could be controlled by means of a daft electronic lock is wholly objectionable and inapplicable.
However, the quick buck option also has technological implications. It means handing out franchises to cable companies not only as cable operators but as cable providers, builders and owners of the distribution network. That in turn is likely to mean a network design or topology—the so-called tree-and-branch system—which will soon be technically obsolete and, in Lord Weinstock's words,
"is simply incompatible with a national broad band interactive network."
That is to say, it is incompatible with the national structure that we shall require if we are to exploit the potentialities of cable to the full.
The technology wanted by the cable companies was cheaper—it may no longer be so—is available now, that is for sure, but depends on imported equipment and has no future.
In yesterday's Financial Times the chairman of Visionhire wrote that it did not follow that private sector investment would lead to the adoption of tree-and-branch technology. However, Visionhire's evidence to the Hunt committee was that operators would
"want to use proven systems that justify investment."
476
We can draw our own conclusions from that.
Before succumbing to the quick buck merchants, the Government should stand back and consider our national aims. I understand that the Department of Industry now has management arrangements for doing so. I read that the Minister has set out his Department's policy aims and is now requiring the divisions in his Department to set out their objectives. In other words, he has instituted management by objectives. That is progressive. I commend it to my right hon. Friends. In the late 1960s I spent years trying to get Government Departments to adopt management by objectives. It is an excellent vehicle for systematic management and policy making. Let us follow the logic of management by objectives now.
I read in the same article that one of the Minister's aims with the highest priority—aim number three—is innovation to apply technology on the scale necessary to ensure United Kingdom competitiveness. That breaks down into two sub aims. First, to gear research and development to United Kingdom needs, and, secondly, to develop awareness and rapid adoption of key technologies.
Surely a strategy that follows from that group of aims would be to construct a broad-band national network, an electronic grid—what Lord Weinstock called
"the communications equivalent of the electrical power grid and distribution system—
as the basis for a coherent broadcasting, telecommunications and information technology strategy. In that way broad-band networks provided initially for television entertainment could be developed to sustain future communications services using the latest British technology.
Such a strategy need not be implemented in one massive effort but could be developed as demand and resources allow. First, there could be local networks, then satellite bands and telecommunications carried through the same cable systems, and then the integration of local networks into a national system. This strategy, like the quick buck option, also carries with it a network design or topology. This is the switched multi-star network, which is most suitable for the technology of the future, using optical fibres, and it is infinitely adaptable for every imaginable use.
Whereas the tree-and-branch system proposed by the cable companies uses the outdated American technology of coaxial cable, for which virtually all the attachments such as amplifiers and set-top descramblers will have to be imported, the switched multi-star system uses British optical fibre technology in which British Telecom leads the world. Indeed, optical fibre development has been supported by the Government to the tune of £25 million—until today, when it was raised to £55 million.
The electrical engineering Neddy has drawn our attention to the advantages of a star network over a tree-and-branch network. First, there is the ability to increase the capacity of the network easily, by increasing the capacity of the trunk route only, without needing to replace the distribution cables in the subscriber network. Secondly, the star networks can be upgraded to offer interactive facilities, up to and including two-way video. Thirdly, there is security of information, as bank balances and credit ratings do not pass down the neighbours' cables. The subscribers do not need the descrambler which is required on the tree-and-branch system. Therefore, there

477
would be no black market in illegal descramblers, which could steal programmes. Moreover, the quality of the television picture should be better.
The Electrical Engineering Neddy goes on:
"In the US nearly all networks are 'tree and branch' design … and when requirements for more sophisticated services have emerged, these have had to be grafted onto the existing entertainment service as best they could".
Mr. Gorst: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House, if we were to adopt his seductive proposals, how long it would take to get the coverage of this country that we would have if we used the other system which he does not like as much?
Mr. Garrett: The time scale for cabling half of the United Kingdom by the method I describe is about 10 years. I have no idea of the time scale of cabling Britain by giving one cable company Wigan, another one Norwich and another one Manchester. What does that matter, if those companies adopt the wrong technology, which would give us no lead in world markets?
If we follow the route advocated by the cable companies, we shall be locked in the technological past. If we take the optical fibre and star system route, we shall have a network that can evolve into interactive and comprehensive communications services.
It is true that the optical fibre technology is not sufficiently developed for the implementation of a full multi-star system, but it soon will be. In the next few weeks, British Telecom will place a contract for the production of several hundred switches, each capable of serving about 30 homes. In the meantime, British Telecom's hybrid system, using mixed coaxial and fibre cabling, can be used now and converted fully to fibre optics in two to four years. That is the approach recommended by the electrical engineering Neddy last week, which concluded:
"It is only by this means that the full benefits for both the cable and equipment suppliers and the UK as a whole can be achieved".
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the House, and I go along with much of what he says—in fact, I said as much in my speech on the technological aspects—but he should not say that all the private enterprise companies which are involved in cable television want to go for a tree-and-branch system based on American conventional technology. That is not true. Rediffusion, for example, is quite happy to accept the star system, as he has outlined it.
Mr. Garrett: It will not be able to. I quoted the managing director of Visionhire in yesterday's Financial Times as saying—contrary to his evidence to the Hunt committee—that he was no longer necessarily wedded to the tree-and-branch system. Companies such as these will have to go for the tree-and-branch system to get off the ground quickly enough to get the market lead that they want, here and now. That is what the rush is all about. If they do it as quickly as possible, they will buy imported American technology off the shelf.
Who will provide the cable? The technology and even the aims of the Minister's Department lead directly to BT
478
as the common carrier, developer and owner of the cable system or as the cable provider to the individual franchise holders.
First, BT has the statutory authority to lay the cable and the ducts and cabinets that will be necessary. There will be no need for local authorities to grant new wayleaves or for substantial new trench digging. BT already has the necessary trunk network to transfer programmes from one cable network to another.
Secondly, BT has more experience of the installation and maintenance of cable than any other organisation in the country. It is the world leader in fibre optic technology as a result of the research that was carried out at Martlesham Heath. I suspect that all hon. Members agree with that.
Thirdly, if BT provides the cable, ownership problems are avoided if the franchise holder loses his franchise. The separation of cable operator and programme provider would also facilitate a multiplicity of programme providers on each cable system. Channel 4 evidence to Hunt was:
"to avoid permanent local monopolies of programme provision we consider it essential that means are found of separating the two functions."
The cable lasts for 20 to 25 years and Hunt suggests that franchises should be for 8 to 10 years.
Finally, BT will cable Britain with a superior fibre optic system anyway. It has already commenced such an investment programme. It has started with a trunk network and it is now moving towards a local network, covering Britain with just such a fibre optic system. If we allow cable companies to go down the dead end of copper technology, in order to get into the market fast, we shall have an inferior cable network alongside BT's optical fibre network which will carry all the same data.
There is another reason for having a national cable grid run by BT to BT standards. The conventional wisdom is that multiband cabling will be for entertainment and for domestic interactive service, such as home to bank, home to shop, meter reading and security services. The development of domestic interactive services is overrated and oversold. It was oversold in the ITAP report—an exceptionally poorly researched piece of work. As The Guardian pointed out, it was written entirely by people with vested interests who stood to make a hefty profit out of a privately run system. That report said that
"one of the most popular applications of cable systems in the USA is security services".
On examination of the facts, it transpires that less than 0·001 per cent. of cable systems are used for that purpose. Only 16,000 homes out of 24 million connected to cable have a security system. It is not in interactive systems within the community that cable systems will grow in the medium term. The demand will come from interactive data transmissions between the professional and commercial communities—the creation and organisation of access to data bases or reservoirs of specialist information. The legal community already has Lexis and Eurolex. They are data bases on legislation and case law. They are a commentary into which the legal profession can tap to carry out research.
Before long, there will be the Adonis system—a data base of technical and scientific material from journals and publications that can be interrogated. It will include

479
journals and publications published anywhere in the world. Research units at universities or anywhere else will be able to tap in to that information.
There should be a data base of consumer law and DHSS consumer regulations for citizens advice bureaux, lawyers and Members of Parliament. There will be others for engineers, architects and doctors. Publishing and library services will be revolutionalised by that type of interrogation of data bases. That will not follow the use of cable for entertainment; it will happen almost in parallel with it. It is almost happening now.
Cabling Britain by small-scale cable operators makes no contribution in that area. The cost of developing a national network on the ITAP calculations will be about £70 a household, and the cost of wiring up the country will be about £700 million. In the early years it would cost about £50 million a year. That is an increase of 2 per cent. on BT's current investment programme of £2·38 billion. British Telecom will be spending sums of that magnitude in any case to modernise its systems.
Let us compare such a strategy with the view of one cable company, Visionhire, as given to the Hunt committee:
"BT has proposed that cable be extended to almost every home … This is an uneconomic waste of resources, will force city-dwellers to subsidise others and inevitably slow the pace of development. Cable television should not be regarded as a service to be universally provided".
That is certainly a novel view of the national interest. Visionhire further states:
"BT have no experience of laying down modern speculative commercial networks. Cable networks are not laid and forgotten. They require constant attention and activity".
The idea that Visionhire has more technical expertise than British Telecom in running modem cable networks must surely be a joke. Certainly the electrical engineering Neddy does not agree.
Mr. English: My hon. Friend is perhaps being a little unfair to Visionhire. The idea is not so novel. It is exactly the nineteenth-century view—that telephones, electricity, gas and so on were to be provided only in the centres of the cities for the prosperous.
Mr. Garrett: It is certainly wrong, but I always take the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) on the nineteenth century.
Some cable operators are looking wider. The Merseyside Cablevision Consortium, for instance, proposes that British Telecom should be a member and main contractor or "cable provider". It proposes a hybrid network of tree-and-branch and star systems, gradually changing to a full interactive star system between 1985 and 1990, providing 30 channels, of which five will be two-way or interactive. The Merseyside solution with BT as a member of the consortium and the cable provider may be a way forward.
Another issue which may arise from the activities of independent cable operators was referred to in the Financial Times yesterday by the chairman of British Telecom. A cable operator may have spare capacity. His cables will pass business premises. What is to stop him offering voice telephony, data and text transmission facilities and other British Telecom services from business to business within his network? He will wish to skim the most profitable business from British Telecom, which will
480
still be expected to maintain the basic local network. That is potential "liberalisation" on an unprecedented scale, to which no Minister has ever referred.
An article in The Observer on 28 November said that the key bait already decided on is that cable operators will be allowed by their licences to operate British Telecom-type services. That is a very important matter, and I hope that the Minister will refer to it today.
Britain is not the only country on the verge of cabling. As usual, we can learn from the French. They have set about the matter in a way that serves their own national interest, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West pointed out. They have decided to cable the city of Biarritz using optical fibre cable, a star system and every available type of terminal—all provided by the French national telephone company. After a three-year trial period, they will assess the results and decide upon a standard system to be applied throughout France.
Thus, the French will progressively introduce an advanced and tested system based on experience of the services that individuals and businesses want, while we, if we take the independent cabling route, will have only bits and pieces—and they really will be bits and pieces. Cabling by independent companies all doing their own thing will be a mad rush, followed by a number of collapses and withdrawals, as in the United States. Market research shows that cable television will cost £10 to £20 per month, but that only 27 per cent. of viewers would be willing to pay as much as £5 per month. No doubt that will change. Nevertheless, after the shake-up that will almost certainly follow the initial rush, we shall be left with a piecemeal, obsolescent and backward system that will be enormously expensive to build into by electronic grid. Our system will be local, parochial and backward looking.
The choice for the Government is therefore to go for a broad-band switched-star fibre optic national network, which gives Britain a world lead, uses British technology and is capable of expansion to cope with every kind of transmission of information, or the quick-buck, out-moded, imported technology, inflexible, dead-end system that merely suits a clutch of desperate cable operators. I am trying to follow the logic of the Minister's aim as stated in his management by objective system. I am not snaking political points. This is a technical discussion. The logic leads to the former—the national electronic grid. I have no doubt that the Government will choose the latter and put private profit first and the national interest second.
We have made it clear that we shall entrust the provision of the national cable system to British Telecom. We shall re-establish control of any national cable system by British Telecom.
Despite what the Home Secretary said about the options remaining open and the speech that the Prime Minister will make next Wednesday being another opportunity to test the market, I fear that at the information technology conference on 8 December, to which none of the Opposition Front Bench has been invited, which is a grave discourtesy, the Prime Minister will indicate, if not announce, a charter for the private cable interests—the cable cowboys. It will be a charter to pour audio visual rubbish into our living rooms through systems which will qualify as industrial archaeology. If so, in years to come, the Government will be seen to have betrayed the national interest.
9.26 pm
The Minister for Industry and Information Technology (Mr. Kenneth Baker): This is the second occasion on which the House has debated cable. I believe that there is probably broad agreement on the fact that cable will come and that it will be welcome, but there is considerable disagreement as to how it should come, the time it should come and who should do it. There is not complete agreement, although I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) is the sole exception. He finds the whole business of cable so distasteful that he would like to see it go away.
Mr. Critchley: Quite right.
Mr. Baker: However, most other hon. Members would like to see it happen. In my enthusiasm for cable, I am sometimes portrayed as dragging my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary kicking and screaming into the cable revolution. That is not just physically impossible; it is temperamentally unnecessary. I assure the House that we would not have reached as far as we have with this cable debate and proposal to move into cable if it had not been for the Home Secretary's enthusiastic support.
I want to make it clear at the outset that the Government are not prepared to see the introduction of wide-band cable systems merely in terms of the provision of entertainment. The range of new non-broadcasting services is the raison d'etre for the expansion, and that is why, as Minister with responsibility for information technology, I am so enthusiastic.
The main characteristics of cable systems that we should like to see are, first, they must from the outset have a two-way capability—that requirement will be mandatory. In particular, they should be able to provide subscribers with access at a minimum to 25 to 30 downstream video channels, including teletext and direct broadcasting by satellite services. They must also provide audio channels and at least one return video channel and two-way data channels, some of which should have a signalling rate of 80 kilobits per second. Those are high standards.
For the return video channel and the data channels, systems must allow for more than one subscriber to have simultaneous access. We are not talking about tired old systems; we are moving to an entirely new generation of technology. British industry is well placed to meet the home demand and to capitalise on that to build up export markets.
Cable systems are of course telecommunication systems, so I must deal with the important question of telecommunications policy or, to put it another way, the role of British Telecom and Mercury. It would be appropriate for me to outline what we shall say in the White Paper.
Mr. Hattersley: Is the hon. Gentleman still taking part in the consultative debate described by the Home Secretary or announcing what will be in the White Paper?
Mr. Baker: I am trying to show what the Government's thinking is. That will help all the interests, including BT, which has pressed the Government for some time to clarify the policy.
BT undoubtedly has many strengths and advantages in cabling. It is experienced in operating telecommunications networks, including the networks by which the BBC and
482
IBA programmes reach the transmitters. It has an infrastructure of underground ducts which covers most of the country. Its research laboratories at Martlesham are the most advanced in Europe, and it has highly experienced and qualified staff.
During the past few months we have received many representations about BT's involvement in wideband cable systems. There have been strong arguments that BT should not be allowed to have any role whatsoever in the expansion. The legal constraints placed upon A T & T in America, which prevent it from joining in cable operations, have frequently been drawn to my attention. On the other hand, many argue—including the Opposition, BT, the Post Office Engineering Union and Lord Weinstock—that BT, or possibly BT and Mercury, should be the only organisations licensed to instal new cable systems and to operate them on a common carrier basis.
Incidentally, the most amazing part of the debate was the fulsome praise larded by the Opposition on Lord Weinstock. It must be one of the most remarkable conversions of the year. Only recently they said that his stewardship of GEC was so bad that GEC should be nationalised. No doubt they would have sacked him on the first day. Now he is a Daniel come to judgment.
Both BT and Mercury would welcome the exclusive right to provide switched two-way services, even on cable systems in which they have played no part in financing. The Government cannot accept the case for giving to BT and Mercury the exclusive privilege of either installing switched cable systems or providing switched two-way services; that is a mandatory or statutory role in every consortium.
However, it would be wrong to exclude either BT or Mercury from competing freely with others for the provision of cable networks throughout the country. Their skills will bring out the best competitive spirit in other would-be cable providers, and the pressure of the market place will be a spur to BT and Mercury. I think it likely that many cable consortia will wish to have BT or Mercury as a member or to provide the cable infrastructure. That is good. But those consortia that do not wish to link up with BT or Mercury must be free to act as they wish, subject to two important provisos.
First, we recognise that BT and Mercury are uniquely well placed to link individual cable systems and we intend that the inter-city or inter-network trunk linking of cable systems, for example, linking the Bristol and Newcastle cable systems, should be the exclusive province of BT and Mercury. Secondly, we have had to consider whether there should be a limit on services that the cable operator can provide.
We have had to weigh up the stimulus to the development of new information services which this would provide with the impact which this competition might have on the revenues of BT and Mercury. This may well be small and more than balanced by the additional revenue which will accrue to BT and Mercury by allowing them the sole right to inter-city or inter-network traffic. However, we have recognised their concern and have decided that only where BT or Mercury is involved in a cable network may a cable operator provide voice telephony services. With the exception of voice telephony, however, a cable operator may offer an unrestricted range of switched two-way services on the cable system for which a franchise has been granted.

483
My hon. Friends the Members for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) and East Grinstead (Sir G. Johnson-Smith) and many other Members talked about the complicated subject of network architecture. A great debate has been taking place on network architecture and the sound of the grinding of axes has sometimes been deafening.
The matter is by no means as simple as the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) said. He suggested that the cable interests want tree and branch and that the telecommunications interests do not. There are some cable companies that are advocating switched star systems. I apologise for the technicalities in this part of my reply. I have great sympathy with Members who get bogged down in the talk about rings, stars, hybrids, trees and branches.
The tree-and-branch system, as the name implies, is like a tree with a head-end—the base—and signals are fed in and transmitted along the trunk. The signals are split successively at branches and delivered to each subscriber. A key feature of the system is that all the services are available at the same time over the whole of the system. The subscriber at his home has an elaborate decoder at his television set with which he selects the channel. The decoder could also be a descrambler, which could restrict access to certain facilities.
I remind hon. Members that tree-and-branch systems were invented in Britain, although they are often referred to as American technology. Much of the technology remains in Britain. They were invented in this country as an effective means of using coaxial cable to carry simultaneously a number of television and radio channels instead of devoting a pair of copper telephone wires to each channel.
Many commentators have overlooked that tree-and-branch systems have by no means reached the limit of their development and that they are capable of providing virtually all of the interactive services with the exception of viewphone. For example, a tree-and-branch system comprising half a million subscribers—a very large system—can relay the contents of an A4 page from any 5,000 subscribers to any other 5,000 subscribers within three seconds, and by "polling"—checking the whole network—the system can check the burglar alarms of 500,000 subscribers once a second. Furthermore, at least one British company considers that it could adapt the technology of teletext, in which Britain has a world lead, to provide the functions of control and addressability that would be central to new cable systems.
The rival to the tree-and-branch systems is the star-switched system which the ITAP report mentioned. In this, only the trunk part is fully wide-band cable and this leads to a number of switching points which in turn are linked to subscribers. This means that the selection of the service is done at the switching point—not at the set—and therefore there is no need for a decoder at the television set. Such a switched system will be more expensive to install, partly because it would use more cable and require more ducting. Estimates that I have received suggest that the overall cost of fully switched systems exceed those of tree and branch by between 50 and 150 per cent.
Supporters of switched systems claim that they are easier to maintain, need less sophisticated converters and give greater security for the development of two-way services such as home banking. Furthermore, as a newly emerging technology, it offers British industry an early opportunity for exports. A star configuration for all
484
systems will stimulate optical fibre development, encouraging the introduction of optical fibre at the earliest possible moment. I think that that is probably agreed by all hon. Members.
However, the technology is still under development. I believe that star switched systems will he the pattern of the future, but it is always difficult to predict the direction in which technology will go. If we were to require all systems to be star switched, we would delay the expansion of wide-band cable systems by two to three years or even longer.
We must be aware of what is likely to happen and we have it in mind that the ducts for all new cable systems should be laid out in a star configuration so that they can evolve without undue difficulty into fully switched systems once switches are available. The ducting arrangements would need to be designed to enable this. This approach means that the initial construction costs of the systems are likely to be a relatively small amount more than they would otherwise be.
We do not believe that it would be right to require would-be operators to use a particular technology, whether tree and branch or fully switched star. They and not the Government should decide on the system to be installed. Operators, therefore, will have a choice of providing a tree-and-branch system in star configuration or laying down a switched system from the start. We want to encourage the most advanced technology and we therefore have it in mind that licences for the cable provider—not the cable operator—will be of differing lengths.
This would work as follows: the initial licence for a tree-and-branch system laid down in the star configuration but without switches would be for a period of 12 years. If at a later date a cable provider were to install switches, the licence could be extended to a total of 20 years. A cable provider installing a fully switched star system from the outset would receive a licence for 20 years.
I am sorry to have dealt in such detail with these technicalities. We have tried to weigh all the different considerations. I think that we have arrived at the right answer. I am confirmed in that thought by the view expressed by British Telecom in the application that it has made, with others, to lay cable on Merseyside. It has stated:
"BT's long-term strategy is to develop a hybrid network which combines tree and branch and star elements."
That is exactly what our proposals would achieve.
Much of the pioneering work in optic fibres has been done in the United Kingdom. The breakthrough was made by a British mathematician of Hong Kong birth in 1966 in England. We still retain a world lead in much fibre optic technology. Optical fibres have many advantages. They are small and light and they are not affected by external magnetic fields. They have a wide band width and so can carry a wider range of telecommunications services than copper cables. However, modern copper coaxial systems can carry 30 or more television channels and literally thousands of narrow band services such as teleshopping and audio.
Fibre optic cable is particularly effective over long distances because it needs fewer repeaters. For the short local distribution links from the local switching points to the home, which comprise a high proportion of the total cable in a system, fibre optic cable at present is still more expensive than coaxial. Fibre can be used for local distribution, but the economics are not yet right. More

485
technical development is required as well as the development of the high volume production of optical components and devices.
It is not just a question of laying fibre optic cable. The most elaborate devices, such as optoelectronic and laser devices, are needed to drive the signals along. One cannot have the fibre without all that. A great deal of research is being done on optoelectronic devices in Britain. In the longer term, I have no doubt that fibre optics will play the dominant role in cable systems. Last year, the Department of Industry committed £25 million under the fibre optics scheme to support the development of the industry. Yesterday, I increased that to £40 million and, in addition, I launched a further scheme of £15 million for joint industry and university development. The scheme was new last year. I increased it yesterday because applications from industry had exhausted the funds. I remind the House that the money we are spending in that respect is very good seed-corn, because it must be matched by twice as much from industry. I was very pleased that industry applied for the funds on that scale.
However, to require all cable systems to use fibre optics as a transmission medium throughout the whole system—I emphasise that-from the cable head-end to the television set in the home, would delay the introduction of wide-band cable systems for several years and would be of no service to the industry. Indeed, the existing British fibre optic suppliers have urged a market-led demand for their product, rather than a requirement that fibre optic be used throughout. That is wise and has been confirmed by my observations in the past year.
Last year I went to Germany and saw Bundespost and Siemens. It was planning, and is still planning, a total fibre optic network across Germany, with the full facilities. However, it said that it was unlikely to be laid until the latter part of the decade. The new German Government, realising the opportunities that exist in cable, have not abandoned that scheme, but have said that they wish to proceed with cable on a mixed fibre optic and copper coaxial network. That is the only way that cable systems can be laid in the course of the next two, three or four years. Some play was made of Biarritz but, as with most things French, rhetoric must be divorced from reality. The French talk a lot about laying down fibre optic cable systems, but when I talk to their Ministers they say with a nudge and a wink that they will put down a lot of copper coaxial as well to link in. The technology does not yet exist to take fibre optic on a commercial scale right through to the home.
Mr. Wrigglesworth: How many manufacturers of fibre optic cable does the Minister envisage in Britain?
Mr. Baker: At present, there are four manufacturers of fibre optic cable in Britain. Several other companies—both large and small—make optoelectronic devices. We are totally self-sufficient in fibre optic cable and have a capacity to export. Therefore, we are not inclined at present to require optical fibre to be installed throughout all cable systems. The continuing improvements in price and performance of optical fibre will, however, make it only a matter of time before the choice of cable material becomes academic. The decisions that I have announced on fibre optic will make it very attractive in the long runs of cable systems. The star configuration
486
in which cable systems will have to be laid out means that it will be very economic to lay fibre optic in them. I emphasise, however, since I have seen some misleading reports that suggest otherwise, that in adopting this attitude we are not limiting the development of cable systems; there is no service, irrespective of band width requirements, that cannot be satisfactorily carried out on either type of cable.
Mr. Forman: Is my hon. Friend able to say any more about support for laser technology, which he referred to earlier? I am sure that that must play an important part.
Mr. Baker: Support for research and development in laser technology is covered by the fibre optic scheme and several of the proposals that we have approved have involved laser technology.
Technical standards are critically important for the systems. The present standards are not suitable for the new cable systems and we cannot read across to the American standards, where the systems are very different. We aim to produce standards in a suitable draft form that will be available by March 1983. It is a tight timetable. We have established a technical working group that has been in operation since the summer under the chairmanship of Dr. Eden. It has been asked to provide standards for every service, including interactive services other than voice telephony. Those standards will become the appropriate British standards once they have passed through the normal consultative procedures of the British Standards Institution.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to two particular requirements that I have asked the technical working group to observe. The first is that existing UHF television sets should be compatible with all approved cable systems. The reason is that if a television set is attached to a cable system in one town and the owner moves to another town, it must be compatible with the cable system there.
Mr. John H. Osborn: Will the signals be digital, and will there be a transfer to normal signals so that they can be picked up afterwards, or will digital wait?
Mr. Baker: I think that the answer to my hon. Friends first question is "Yes", but I shall confirm that. That is the sort of question that the Eden committee is looking into.
Secondly, I am sure that the House would not wish to see cable systems develop as a series of islands that cannot be linked to one another. This was raised by some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud). This has happened in the United States, and is one of the reasons why interactive services have been relatively slow to develop there. I have therefore required that every cable system must be compatible through its head-end with the standards of the trunk transmission networks of BT and Mercury. In this way, over time, the development of a nationwide wideband cable network should be assisted.
When we have this menu of standards, we then intend to specify to would-be operators those standards that must be met by their systems and those standards that need to be met only if and when certain services are offered. In this way, British manufacturers will also be given the earliest possible guidance in the development of related equipment.

487
I assure the House that when we come to determine the capabilities to be incorporated into cable systems we intend to take a very firm and long view. We would be mad to see the streets dug up now for the installation of cable systems only to have the process repeated in a few years because demand had outstripped cable capacity. The physical lifetime of wide-band cable switched systems is 20 years or so, and the standards that are set must ensure that technological advances during that period can be accommodated.
Let me now deal with some of the points, other than technology points, that have arisen, particularly those relating to public broadcasting.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) argued that cable would divide the country between the rich and poor and the urban and the rural. I do not think that I misinterpreted his argument. I am surprised that he made it, because the same argument was made by the BBC about three months ago. It has now stopped making it. The right hon. Gentleman must have got hold of a rather old brief. This is an old argument that does not stand up to any examination. When I heard him speak about how this would divide the country, I could not help recalling some of the debates on independent television in 1953. A former Labour Cabinet Minister then said:
"People are only a market when they are gathered together in big centres of population, and it is only there that commercial television will have any interest at all".—[Official Report, 15 December 1953; Vol. 522, c. 319.]
Events have shown that forecast to be totally valueless and discredited. I believe that forecasts that cable will not spread to the rural areas are equally wrong. In fact, the development of technology assists the spread.
When the BBC has its DBS, it will be able to bring to remote areas the DBS services on that satellite and send signals down to a small town or village from which the cable can go out from that head-end. One of the largest and most geographically spread countries—Canada—has one of the highest levels of cabling in the world. That is available by satellite communication to small settlements and villages in the Yukon and cabling out from a cable head-end. Therefore, I do not subscribe to the view that cable will not spread to the rural areas.
The other argument that has tended to flit in and out of the debate is that cabling will hit minority interests. Once again, going back to 1953, it was another Labour Minister who forecast that many of the services to which people had become accustomed would go to the wall. The services that he predicted would go under were Shakespeare, ballet, tennis and snooker. Those four areas have grown the fastest since independent television came along.
Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman has done well in replying to the debate in 1953. Will he identify the hon. Members who have today made the point to which he now imagines that he is replying?
Mr. Baker: The right hon. Gentleman does not know those hon. Members because he has hardly been present during the debate. He has flitted in and out. He will be able to read Hansard tomorrow and see for himself.
Mr. Sheerman rose—
Mr. Baker: The other argument that has tended to wend its way through the debate was mentioned by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and by
488
my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is not here.") My hon. Friend has cut himself off. He has disappeared. It is clear, however, that the shadow of Lord Reith stalks in Aldershot. My hon. Friend was very much in favour of improving standards and of ensuring that they should not fall. He argued that the only way to retain standards was through close regulation. The argument about what people should be allowed to watch and what they should not be allowed to watch has been raised many times today. Hearing that argument, I cannot help recalling the views of Harold Laski on one occasion—
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson rose—
Mr. Baker: I do not wish to deprive Opposition Members of hearing the words of a former chairman of their party. He was asked once—
Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Harold Laski, a person of whom I am fond, died in 1950. This is a phoney point—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order.
Mr. Baker: Before Mr. Laski died, he made this comment on "The Archers". I quote it only because it sums up the attitude implicit in that of many Opposition Members. The attitude still prevails. He said:
"If the BBC does not give people what they want, it should be exterminated. If this"—
meaning "The Archers"—
"is what they want, they should be exterminated."
The attitude which he expressed and which was redolent in the views of several Opposition Members today is that they know best and that they should choose what people look at. I have much greater confidence in the choice and discrimination of the viewing public than do Opposition Members.
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson rose—
Mr. Freud rose—
Mr. English rose—
Mr. Baker: Finally, I should like to say to the House why the Government want to press on with cabling. We have been challenged many times during the debate about the speed at which we are moving. The reason we want to move quickly is that if we get ahead with cabling more jobs will be created. There will be jobs in making cable and laying cable, in creating programmes and in making equipment. Every time the Opposition seek delay, they will be putting off the day when jobs can come to places like Merseyside as a result of cabling. When the Opposition ask for delay, they are asking for fewer jobs because the jobs opportunities of cable will be considerable.
When the Labour Party says that it wants a winter of debate, that will lead to a spring of analysis, a summer of indecision and an autumn of postponement. We much prefer to get on and provide the opportuntities that cabling will give. I am certain that the programme we have debated and discussed today represents one of the great opportunities that lies before our country. We must not lose it. We must seize it, and we must get on with it as soon as possible.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Companies Registration Office
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thompson.]
10 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I wish to bring before the House a matter of great importance throughout the United Kingdom—the question of access to company information and the proposals to privatise certain functions of the Companies Registration Office.
Parliament has granted to incorporated companies the protection of limited liability and it has balanced that in the interests of the public, including the business community, with a statutory right to the wider public of access to certain information held by the Registrar of Companies. When the process of the harmonisation of European law began, the first directive made it clear that the disclosure of company information was the fundamental principle used to enable the public, including the business community, to safeguard themselves.
With a record 300 limited companies per week going into liquidation, and almost certainly many more ceasing to trade, the existence for all of a service for company information throughout the country without delay was more than ever needed.
It became all too clear on Wednesday of last week why the Government were not prepared to protect the interests of the public in this matter, when the Minister, in a written answer, chose to announce a proposal to privatise the services of the Companies Registration Office. The announcement was made without consultation with the trade unions, which, only 48 hours previously, had been discussing with the permanent secretary the need to maintain good industrial relations in the Department. Furthermore, the Minister was obviously aware of the justified anger that the House would feel at the suggestion that the function of the Companies Registration Office should be privatised.
It is proper that that statement should be made to the House orally, and I shall make it on the Government's behalf and in the absence of their doing so. It said:
"I am not satisfied that all the functions of the Companies Registration Office need to be carried out by a Government Department. I am inviting a number of companies and organisations to put forward their suggestions for taking over certain of the functions either by themselves or by other parties.
At the same time my Department is considering what steps would be beneficial for both user and the taxpayer. Any legislation is unlikely in the present Parliament, but I hope to bring forward proposals as soon as possible."—[Official Report, 24 November 1982; Vol. 32, c. 504.]
For many years the Companies Registration Office has been profitable. It has made a surplus in every year since 1976. Last year costs totalled £13·6 million, but revenue amounted to £14·7 million. The only costs that have been created for the taxpayer have arisen from the debts of limited companies in general, which might have been avoided if a proper nationwide company information service had existed in the way that I and my hon. Friends have always suggested.
At no stage during the developments of the past two weeks has the Minister told the House how he sees any benefit to the user arising from this privatisation. That is very important. He should have told the House at the time when the announcement was made. We cannot even be sure that he has a nationwide view of the requirements of the user, who is also the taxpayer in this case.
490
The users are not just those who have large offices near Companies House in London and use red search tickets. These company search agents, who for many years have received special treatment with desks, office equipment and special rooms provided, have sought to prevent the wider public from getting a proper nationwide service.
The public interest must clearly be set against the narrow private interests of company search agents. Take Mr. Tony Jowett, a company agent, who boasted in the Financial Times last Thursday, when staking a claim to the privatised services, that his company is the largest user of Companies House, with a £4 million turnover and producing 350 publications a year. The trouble is that these agents long ago hijacked Companies House and applied its records for their own personal ends to the disadvantage of the wider public.
Now the Government propose to go even further and hand over major parts of the Companies Registration Office function to these narrow private interests. According to the Financial Times, they have reported that there would be talks with the London Chamber of Commerce. I say to everyone "beware". Every professional and business person in the country should know that when the Registry of Business Names was closed by the Government earlier this year, the London Chamber of Commerce opened a new, privatised, registry, which has no statutory basis. The result of this crass stupidity of the Government is that a search which used to cost 5p now costs—I checked this morning—£11·50. The same will happen to the Companies Registration Office. An article in the Standard last Friday quoted agents saying quite openly they would increase the charges. Prices will go through the roof. What has happened in the one instance of privatisation already seen will inevitably happen in the case of the Companies Registration Office if this nonsense goes ahead.
The press has had nothing good to say about the Government's proposal to privatise the Companies Registration Office. The Standard last Friday described it as
"the Government's latest and most bizarre privatisation ploy"
The Observer styled it:
"the daftest piece of privatisation yet."
The public opposition to the proposals is very understandable, but I propose to point out to the House a legal objection which is deeply rooted in the spirit and letter of harmonised European company law.
I have mentioned the first directive of the European Communities on company law already If one looks at article 3, paragraph 3, in the official French text—it was published in 1968 and there is no official English text—one sees that it is clearly and unequivocally stated that for public companies—"plc's" as they are now known—the information held at the registry
"must be obtainable by correspondence"—
that is by post—
"at a price"—
and this is most important—
"not exceeding the administrative costs thereof."
The HMSO unofficial English translation has introduced an ambiguity that does not exist in the official text. The original French text
"etre obtenue par correspondance"
was mistakenly translated as
"must be obtainable by application in writing".
The correct translation is "by letter", not "in writing".

491
I have three different dictionary references for the words "par correspondance". One is from the Oxford Concise English-French dictionary, which refers to "correspondance" as "letters". The second comes from Harraps French-English dictionary, which refers to "verte par correspondance", meaning "postal trade". The third is another reference in Harraps French-English dictionary which refers to "avec correspondance" which means correspondence with someone "by letter". In a direct translation "correspondance" means "mail" or "post"; and there is another reference to "ouvrir la correspondance", meaning "to open the mail".
Of course, the price must not provide a profit. That is what is meant by
"at a price not exceeding the administrative costs thereof"
or, in the French text
"sans que le coût de cette copie puisse être supérieur au coÛt administratif".
By the fourth directive in 1978 that principle was extended to medium and small-sized companies. As a result of the implementation of the European Communities Act 1972, those directives are already part of our law. Where there can be no profit—that is how I understand a real translation of the original French text—it is unlikely that there can be privatisation.
The beginnings of a nationwide public service operating at cost, as in the stated principle in the directive, was in sight earlier this year but was ultimately prevented by the private interests of company search agents and the Government. As a result of written questions that I asked, to be found in Hansard on 29 January 1982 and 22 March 1982, it transpired that the demand for company microfiche at the Companies Registration Office had dropped significantly, following changes at Companies House, to just over half the previous level of demand. Even at that, 83 per cent. of searches at Cardiff and London Companies House were carried out by agents mainly for their publications, which is not the reason why Companies House came into existence.
Those changes resulted in an agreement, reached on 25 May at a meeting of four provincial public librarians with a representative of the Companies Registration Office and the senior library adviser at the Office of Arts and Libraries, to provide a postal sales service to six public libraries initially and for company records on microfiche to be made available. Microfiche are cheap to reproduce and to post. The six public libraries were Aberdeen, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield and Shropshire. All welcomed the agreement, recognising its importance to the whole country. The service was to be later expanded to more public libraries
The new service was to be based on a service that had operated for six months at Liverpool city libraries in 1978, which, in the words of the librarian, Mr. Edwin Fleming, had been extremely successful, and which had been terminated suddenly by the Registrar of Companies because of a sudden dramatic increase in demand for company microfiche from the agents in London. Some people believe that they deliberately set out to undermine the library scheme. The agents had successfully terminated a service that the Registrar admitted had been a success in many replies to complainants from the North-West who wrote to him when the service ended. It was stopped none the less. Again the public interest suffered.
Therefore, it was not surprising when, at the beginning of October, a company search agent in Cardiff, Mr. Farr,
492
telephoned two of the libraries involved in the latest agreement to say that the Companies Registration Office agreement to provide the postal service through non-profit-making public libraries was off. That is understandable, I suppose, when in the minutes of the meeting of the users group committee with the Registrar on 14 September the objections of the agents to the library service are clearly noted. That service would have been within the principles of the clearly stated requirements of harmonised European company law. The European objective is clear. It is to create conditions under which Community-wide trade can operate in the safe knowledge that the public, wherever they are in the Community, can get the company information that they need at the lowest possible cost,
"or at a price not exceeding the administrative costs thereof",
to quote the 1968 directive.
Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to reconsider his hasty decision on privatisation of the Companies Registration Office and not to hold further discussions with company agents on the subject. It is contrary to the spirit and letter of EC company law and against the public interest. It is also an affront to those of us who have lent our support to the Community over the years.
Additionally I should like to take the opportunity of this debate to appeal to professional and business groups throughout the United Kingdom to write to me to express their views on the Government's proposal. If the Government insist on proceeding, we intend to press our objections to the utmost. Any help that the business community can provide will be appreciated by my hon. Friends.
It has been brought to my attention that some Members of this House have commercial links with search agent firms. May I have a clear assurance from the Minister that, whatever the result of his deliberations, no part of the CRO's activities will be sold to those organisations with which hon. Members have commercial connections? May we also be told whether legislation is required by any Government to proceed with this privatisation?
If the Government are to proceed with this scatterbrained scheme, may we be given an assurance that no jobs will be lost, as the loss of employment is of deep concern to the trade unions involved?
10.15 pm
The Minister for Consumer Affairs (Dr. Gerard Vaughan): I congratulate the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on raising this important subject in the House tonight. However, some of what he said is peripheral to the main issues that we need to consider.
When considering what might—I stress "might", because that is all it is—be done, it is important to have the views of hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist) and my ministerial colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Wales have discussed these matters with me. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) here.
The hon. Member for Workington used the word "decision". I have to tell him—he knows this—that no decision has been made. However, it may surprise hon. Members to know that there has been no fundamental reappraisal of the functions of the Companies Registration Office since 1844.
Surely it is reasonable to consider the work done in those offices in 1982. It is a long time since 1844. On the

493
contrary, the functions have been widened by all subsequent Companies Acts. The offices have grown and they now account for a significant proportion of the staff and resources of the Department of Trade. While no one would want to pursue change for the sake of change, it is at the heart of our philosophy to update and adapt to meet present-day needs. That is what this exercise is all about.
It is in that context that we have decided to examine some of the work of the Companies Registration Offices in London, Edinburgh and Cardiff. That in no way reflects on the quality of the work done in those offices, which is high.
In many ways the offices are essential to the commercial life of Britain. Indeed, they are a pivot on which much of our modern company law depends. About 1,000 people are employed in those three offices. They look after the affairs of over 900,000 companies in the essential tasks of initial registration, the examination and recording of statutory documents and the presentation of documents for public inspection.
About 40,000 documents are received each week, which, after examination, are added to the records available to the public. To give an idea of the scale of those records which are now on microfilm—not all the records because those from an earlier date which are rarely referred to are not on microfilm—they form an archive of 150 million pages. The whole archive is the largest single collection of company documentation in the world.
As the hon. Member for Workington has said, the public use the records. In 1980 over 2½ million searches were made in England and Wales alone, either by the public or their agents. The hon. Gentleman referred to those agents. They account for some 60 per cent. of the searches. Without them, we would need more resources because the applicants would have to come individually.
The public need to know the financial position of companies with which they deal. Indeed, it is fundamental to our system of company law that providing this information to the public is part of the price a company pays for the substantial benefit of limited liability.
The hon. Gentleman is right when he says that the whole service is cost beneficial. It runs at a profit. The report to Parliament showed that, in 1981, the cost was £13·6 million. The income was £14·7 million. This year, it may be over £16 million. However, in any organisation, efficiency can be maintained only by continuous scrutiny and updating of the way in which the work is carried out, particularly at a time of technological advance. That is why we are considering the possibility of privatising or contracting out some of this work.
I have already had a considerable number of letters of inquiry, including several from chambers of commerce. One that I found particularly interesting was on behalf of London, Birmingham, Cardiff and Merseyside chambers of commerce, which had already discussed the matter amongst themselves.
In talking about particular areas, I want to make two issues clear. First, we are doing no more than canvass views on possibilities. No decisions are being made, as I said earlier. We are simply inquiring about possibilities. We are inviting people to see whether they are interested in any changes in this work, and to hear their views.
Secondly, the work falls broadly into two sections. One section includes the various kinds of searches, making
494
available to the public information which is already on the public record. That in itself is a huge undertaking, which needs to be done rapidly and efficiently. The data that is made available to the public is in no way confidential. That is the area which I suggest may be considered for possible privatisation.
The other section, which is particularly relevant to Cardiff, for example, where most of the work is carried out, is the registration of companies trading with limited liability. For some of this work, the registrar acts in a quasi-judicial role. For example, he has to consider objections to a name which is likely to be confused with an existing company name. Work of that kind must surely continue to be that of a Government Department responsible to this House.
So it is the public record work which is available to anyone to see—that vast mass of work—that we are considering in these proposals. As I said, we are open to suggestions, but surely the first stage is to find out the views of those who use the service and who have a direct interest in it, and also of course the views of the staff. That is exactly what we are doing.
These proposals have aroused a good deal of interest. In considering any proposals that are put to us, we shall have in mind three criteria. First, there must be fair treatment for all companies and for members of the public. Second, the service to the public must be at least as good as that now provided. Third. the service must provide an assurance of continuity, with no hiatus in any changeover that might take place.
I have already hinted that legislation may be required to implement any scheme. I said that in the answer to the question that led to this debate. Our law contemplates the whole registry function as a Government function, and it may not be possible to separate parts without tackling the legal structure, as well as the organisation itself. Inevitably, the time scale may have to be somewhat extended. It does not mean, however, that the preparatory thinking cannot go ahead. Nor does it mean that consultation with users and the staff concerned should be postponed indefinitely. We are extremely anxious to know the views of the people working in those departments and the views of the people who use it.
The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to suppose that the pillars of State will be pulled down about his ears. We are not proposing any cataclysm. The cataclysm exists only in the hon. Gentleman's mind. We are proposing something much more pragmatic and sensible. It takes 1,000 staff to run the three registration offices. They look after the affairs of between 800,000 and 900,000 companies.
We want the operation to be as effective and economic as possible. The task is partly one of regulation and partly one of service to the public. The two are not indissolubly linked and we have had signs from firms and organisations that they are interested in the public side of the subject. There are no firm proposals; the Government have reached no conclusions. Any decisions may require legislative action.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman says that he is open to suggestions. May I suggest that the Government ensure that Companies House complies with the spirit of the two directives to which I have drawn attention?
Dr. Vaughan: I noted what the hon. Gentleman said about that matter. We are aware of the first directive

495
constraint, but it relates only to inspection of copies of documents. I am advised that there are other ways of passing information that is contained in documents. That should be explored.
Any decisions may require legislation. Long before then, we shall have discussed all this with the people concerned, the staff. The House will also have to be informed of the findings and plans, if any. Only then can final decisions be made.
The hon. Gentleman is in danger of making the staff unnecessarily anxious. He is stirring up insecurity where it need not exist. We want to improve our service to the public. We are determined to ensure that the present service is maintained. It is fundamental that whatever happens must be of advantage to the public and the companies that use the service.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, having invited suggestions, whatever happens, it will not lead to an increase in search fees at Companies House?
Dr. Vaughan: The hon. Gentleman knows that he is speculating on completely hypothetical thoughts. They are from his own imagination. I cannot possibly say until we have proposals. One of the fundamental criteria is that there must be a good service. The present standards must continue and we want to have full consultations before any proposals are made.
Mr. John Fraser: The Minister has been extraordinarily vague about what the proposals are. There is not enough time to set them out now, but will he make a fuller statement, perhaps in reply to an arranged written question, about what possibilities for privatisation exists? It is so vague at the moment that it is extremely difficult to make a judgment. I have the gravest possible reservations on the subject. The House is entitled to more information about what is in the Minister's mind, other than his being in for bids from the private sector.
Dr. Vaughan: The hon. Gentleman is exposing the foolishness, although it is of value to the House, of raising the issue at this stage. There are no proposals that we can discuss sensibly with the hon. Gentleman. He knows that. We are talking to the people who use the service. We are asking them whether they feel that some of these things could usefully be done differently, whether they believe that some of those functions are really the functions of Government—as we suspect—and whether they would like to make any suggestion about how to improve the service. The hon. Gentleman does not do justice to the House when he says that they are vague when there are no proposals.
10.29 pm
Mr. Campbell-Savours: With the leave of the House, may I say that the hon. Gentleman's response was unsatisfactory. It has been made clear by civil servants in his Department that the Government intend to proceed with privatisation. No amount of assurance from the Dispatch Box and no amount of accusation against my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and me that we are being irresponsible in any way undermines the case that those people are advancing—that the Government intend to proceed with privatisation.
The hon. Gentleman would do well to go to the offices of Companies House and discuss with trade union representatives their anxieties. He should also go out into the country and discuss the anxieties of British industry about the increased charges that will inevitably be introduced if the Government proceed. When he says that my hon. Friend and I exaggerate when we refer to the effects, it is clear from the London Chamber of Commerce's decision to increase charges—as it has in the past few months—
The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Black Report
  Black Report
  Office Floor Space
  Office Floor Space
TRADE
  Laker Group
  Laker Group
  Nickel
  Nickel
  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  France (Alcoholic Beverages)
  France (Alcoholic Beverages)
  Companies (Political Donations)
  Companies (Political Donations)
  European Community
  European Community
INDUSTRY
  Support for Innovation Scheme
  Support for Innovation Scheme
  Car Component Suppliers
  Car Component Suppliers
  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Grants
  Grants
  Marine Engineering
  Marine Engineering
  Sale of National Products
  Sale of National Products
  Telecommunications Industry
  Telecommunications Industry
  Japan and United States (Investment and Employment)
  Japan and United States (Investment and Employment)
ENERGY
  Domestic Supplies (Disconnections)
  Domestic Supplies (Disconnections)
  Plutonium
  Plutonium
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
  Wytch Farm (Sale)
  Wytch Farm (Sale)
  British Gas (Chairman)
  British Gas (Chairman)
  District Heating Systems (Oil Costs)
  District Heating Systems (Oil Costs)
  Opencast Coal
  Opencast Coal
  Fuel Prices
  Fuel Prices
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Laparoscopes (India)
  Laparoscopes (India)
  Providenciales (Holiday Village)
  Providenciales (Holiday Village)
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Bank of England (Governor)
  Bank of England (Governor)
  Royal Fleet Auxiliary
  Royal Fleet Auxiliary
  Confederation of British Industry
  Confederation of British Industry
  Factory Closures
  Factory Closures
  Wisbech
  Wisbech
  Philippines
  Philippines
  Joint Intelligence Committee
  Joint Intelligence Committee
  Argentina
  Argentina
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Public Appointments
  Public Appointments
  Mr. Ian Smith (Talks)
  Mr. Ian Smith (Talks)
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics (Penistone)
  Unemployment Statistics (Penistone)
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  Unemployment Statistics (Northern Region)
  Unemployment Statistics (Northern Region)
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Work Permits
  Work Permits
  PUBLIC SECTOR CONTRACTS
  PUBLIC SECTOR CONTRACTS
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Radioactive Material
  Radioactive Material
  International Organisations (Diplomatic Immunities)
  International Organisations (Diplomatic Immunities)
  Single Women Diplomats (Personal Relationships)
  Single Women Diplomats (Personal Relationships)
  Diplomats (Security)
  Diplomats (Security)
  Chemical and Biological Weapons
  Chemical and Biological Weapons
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  PERQ Computers
  PERQ Computers
  Great Ringstead Primary School
  Great Ringstead Primary School
  Courses (Full-fee Costs)
  Courses (Full-fee Costs)
DEFENCE
  Mr. Bart Khan
  Mr. Bart Khan
  Clothing (Flammability)
  Clothing (Flammability)
  Sky Flash Missile
  Sky Flash Missile
  War Widows (Payments)
  War Widows (Payments)
  Queen's Flight
  Queen's Flight
  HARM Missiles
  HARM Missiles
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Mortgage Relief
  Mortgage Relief
  Personal Wealth
  Personal Wealth
  Fringe Benefits
  Fringe Benefits
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Tax Allowances
  Tax Allowances
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Exchange Rate
  Exchange Rate
  Laker Airways
  Laker Airways
  Pension Funds
  Pension Funds
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Mental Patients (Day Care Facilities)
  Mental Patients (Day Care Facilities)
  Maternity Services
  Maternity Services
  Vibration White Finger
  Vibration White Finger
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  Farmer's Lung
  Farmer's Lung
  Infant Formula
  Infant Formula
  Fostering
  Fostering
  Private Contracts
  Private Contracts
  Lambeth
  Lambeth
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Blind Persons (Social Workers)
  Blind Persons (Social Workers)
  Multi-Handicapped Blind Persons
  Multi-Handicapped Blind Persons
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Neonatal Intensive Care
  Neonatal Intensive Care
  Dental Caries
  Dental Caries
  National Health Service (Pay)
  National Health Service (Pay)
  Health Care
  Health Care
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Birth Statistics
  Birth Statistics
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Unemployed Persons (Families)
  Unemployed Persons (Families)
  Birth Control
  Birth Control
TRANSPORT
  Motorways
  Motorways
  A13 (Improvements)
  A13 (Improvements)
  East London River Crossing
  East London River Crossing
  Macclesfield (Bypasses)
  Macclesfield (Bypasses)
  Invalid Tricars
  Invalid Tricars
  Road Safety
  Road Safety
  M1-A1 Link Road
  M1-A1 Link Road
  Motor Cars (Petrol)
  Motor Cars (Petrol)
  Land Compensation Claims
  Land Compensation Claims
  A1 (Archway)
  A1 (Archway)
  A1 (Highgate)
  A1 (Highgate)
  Roadworks (Signs)
  Roadworks (Signs)
  Cyclists
  Cyclists
ENVIRONMENT
  Football Association
  Football Association
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Council Houses (Islington)
  Council Houses (Islington)
  John Holt Vintners, Liverpool
  John Holt Vintners, Liverpool
  Housing Improvement Allocation
  Housing Improvement Allocation
  Local Authority Housing (Expenditure)
  Local Authority Housing (Expenditure)
  Alexandra Gate, Hyde Park
  Alexandra Gate, Hyde Park
  Listed Buildings (West Midlands)
  Listed Buildings (West Midlands)
  Office and Factory Floor Space
  Office and Factory Floor Space
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Criminal Statistics
  Criminal Statistics
  Tottenham (Civil Disorder)
  Tottenham (Civil Disorder)
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Demonstrations (Assaults)
  Demonstrations (Assaults)
  Public Disorder (Hounslow)
  Public Disorder (Hounslow)
  Magistrates Courts (Stockport)
  Magistrates Courts (Stockport)
  Remand
  Remand
  "Neighbourhood Watchers"
  "Neighbourhood Watchers"
  International Child Abduction (Hague Covention)
  International Child Abduction (Hague Covention)
  Custody of Children (Council of Europe Convention)
  Custody of Children (Council of Europe Convention)
  Custody Orders
  Custody Orders
  Custodial Sentences
  Custodial Sentences
  Vagrancy Offences
  Vagrancy Offences
  Video Films (Children)
  Video Films (Children)
  Mental Health Act 1959 (Unsentenced Detainees)
  Mental Health Act 1959 (Unsentenced Detainees)
  Metropolitan Police (Earnings)
  Metropolitan Police (Earnings)
  Animal Experiments
  Animal Experiments
  Animal Cruelty
  Animal Cruelty
  Magistrates' Courts (Reporting Restrictions)
  Magistrates' Courts (Reporting Restrictions)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural Tenancies
  Agricultural Tenancies
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Animal Compound Feeds
  Animal Compound Feeds
  Unfit Meat
  Unfit Meat
  Barley
  Barley
  European Community (Exports to Russia)
  European Community (Exports to Russia)
  Meat Industry
  Meat Industry
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
  Animal Feeding Stuffs
  Animal Feeding Stuffs
  Agricultural Land
  Agricultural Land
  Plant Breeders (Rights)
  Plant Breeders (Rights)
  Fishery Protection (Coastguarder)
  Fishery Protection (Coastguarder)
  Agricultural Surpluses
  Agricultural Surpluses
  Agriculture Industry
  Agriculture Industry
  Chrysanthemums
  Chrysanthemums
  Poultry
  Poultry
  Fruit and Vegetables (Destruction Costs)
  Fruit and Vegetables (Destruction Costs)
  Sheep
  Sheep
  Marginal Land
  Marginal Land
  Wheat
  Wheat
  Milk Marketing Board (Initiatives)
  Milk Marketing Board (Initiatives)
  Fish Guide Prices
  Fish Guide Prices
  Magarine
  Magarine
  Tomatoes
  Tomatoes
  Fishing Fleet
  Fishing Fleet
  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Milk
  Milk
  Dogs
  Dogs
  Alcoholic Drink Exports (French Tax)
  Alcoholic Drink Exports (French Tax)
  British Wine Industry
  British Wine Industry
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  "Food from Britain" Project
  "Food from Britain" Project
WALES
  Blind Persons (Specialist Social Workers)
  Blind Persons (Specialist Social Workers)
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Employment
  Employment
  Perinatal and Infant Mortality
  Perinatal and Infant Mortality
  Lorries (Accidents)
  Lorries (Accidents)
  Assisted Areas
  Assisted Areas
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  Factories and Offices
  Factories and Offices
  Health Authorities (Vacancies)
  Health Authorities (Vacancies)
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Hereford): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Telephone Services
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: 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, under their forthcoming legislation on telecommunications, any individual who at present has access to telephone services will be deprived of them.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, no individual who at present has access to telephone services will be deprived of them in the future. I can also confirm that anyone who is able to obtain a telephone at present will be able to obtain a telephone under the new arrangements.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Can he tell the House whether there is any truth in the allegations which have been made in certain quarters that rural kiosks will be removed because they do not pay the operators?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there is no truth in that allegation at all. It would not, I think, be sensible for any particular distribution of kiosks to be laid down in any licence issued as a result of the Telecommunications Bill, but the licence will oblige British Telecom to continue to provide both the telephone kiosks and, of course, the 999 service, which makes much use of the telephone kiosks. It would be wrong of me to go into the Bill in detail now because it is already under discussion in another place, but Clause 3 of the Bill sets guidelines for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in issuing licences. Moreover, in the functions relating to licences specific mention is made of these services and those to rural areas as needs to which both the director and my right honourable friend must have regard.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, is the question here not one as to whether any present subscriber will be physically deprived of a line but whether, under the new commercial policy required by this Bill, the said subscriber will in future be able to afford a telephone?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there is nothing to indicate that rural services cost more to run other than in the initial arrangements for connecting the telephone. The charges remain the same for rural areas and, broadly speaking, for urban areas as well. There
1306
is nothing at all to suggest that it will be far too expensive for people living in rural areas to be connected.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is it not true that there are two good reasons why there will be a tendency for charges to fall? To start with, there will be competition, and therefore the price is likely to fall; and, secondly, British Telecom are henceforward going to be able to borrow, and in any particular year they will not have to charge in order to raise the finance to invest in better telephone services. So on two scores there should be a reduction in charges rather than an increase. Is that not right?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for what he has said. He is absolutely right; and it is also true that technological advances, such as satellites, should mean that it will become more practical to provide services to more areas than in fact exist at present.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that most rural call-boxes are run at a considerable loss, and will he say whether there will be any subvention from public funds to British Telecom in order to keep these call-boxes in existence, similar to the payments made to British Rail to keep unremunerative lines open?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not believe that this would be an appropriate way to secure these services, and neither does the chairman of British Telecom. It will provide no incentive to improve efficiency or quality of service. I think it is also true that the 999 service and telephone kiosks are an integral part of the British Telecom services, and it is far better to recognise this by an obligation placed on British Telecom in its licence, supported as necessary by revenues obtained from other services. But this support will be made explicit to prevent hidden inefficiencies.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, on the question of competition as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, is the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, saying seriously that there is any possibility at all of a private company offering a competitive service to rural telephone subscribers?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it will be competitive and, yes, there will be opportunities for commercial undertakings to compete with British Telecom when the Bill has been passed and the licences issued.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, will the noble Lord say how competition will improve the rural call-box service? Does his reply to my supplementary question mean that the Government will be quite prepared to see large numbers of rural call-boxes go out of existence?
Lord Glenarthur: No, my Lords; there is no question of large numbers of call-boxes in rural areas being removed. Perhaps the noble Lord could repeat his first supplementary question.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is considerable fear that the new arrangement will in fact militate against those who are living in rural areas, and especially the more remote rural areas, of the three countries? Can he give us a clear assurance now, at the end of this exchange, that the rural areas are not going to be at a disadvantage by comparison with the urban areas? Is he also saying that profitability will not be a criterion in future?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made it perfectly clear that these claims are entirely without foundation. As I said earlier, licences will be issued as a result of the Telecommunications Bill—and I think it would be wrong to go into the Bill in detail now—and British Telecom's licence will oblige it (and I emphasise those words) to provide these services throughout the United Kingdom, which includes remote and rural areas. It means that anyone who has access to a phone under the present arrangements will, as I said in my original Answer, continue to do so under the new arrangements. In their statement issued when the Bill was published, the British Telecom Board publicly accepted a continuing responsibility to provide services to both rural and outlying areas.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, will the noble Lord do something to make more positive the replies he has given this afternoon, especially on the question of rural telephones? As president of the Devonshire Association of Parish Councils, I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that parish councils all over the country, especially in my part of the world, are more than convinced that they are going to lose their rural telephones. Following on his statements this afternoon, can the noble Lord do something to put their minds at rest?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I really do not think I can be any more specific than I have been already. In any case, your Lordships will have plenty of opportunity to discuss this in further detail when the Bill comes before your Lordships.
Lord Walston: My Lords, will the noble Lord elucidate one point for me? He has told us that British Telecom have willingly undertaken the obligation in respect of rural telephone boxes and rural remote supplies, and he has also told us that there will be benefits from competition which will be of value to the consumer. How is it going to be possible for British Telecom to compete on an equal footing with other suppliers who are not under the obligations that British Telecom are under to provide expensive and unprofitable services?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I thought I had explained that in British Telecom's case the licence will oblige it to continue to provide those services. As I understand it, if anybody else undertakes to provide the services they, too, will be under the same obligations. But at the present time it is British Telecom who, under the new arrangements, will be obliged to maintain those services.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the noble Lord say—
Several noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Molloy: I wish noble Lords opposite would not wince before the lash comes. Can the noble Lord say what will be the qualification required of the entrepreneurs who will compete with the British element, and who will select them?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that matter really is wide of the original Question and it will be discussed when the Bill comes before your Lordships.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, are we not now completely out of order? We are away from the Question and we are discussing the Bill.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend.

Motor-Car Duty: Spain and the UK
3.10 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: 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 is the total amount of tax, expressed as a percentage of the value of a vehicle, imposed on the entry into this country of a car manufactured in Spain, and what is the total amount of tax calculated as above imposed by the Spanish authorities on the entry into Spain of a car manufactured in this country.
The Secretary of State for Trade (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, the duty on cars imported into the United Kingdom from Spain is 4·2 per cent. Spain imposes a duty of 36·7 per cent. on cars from Community countries including the United Kingdom. In both countries cars, once imported, are subject to the same taxes as domestic products or (in the case of Spain's home compensation tax) taxes claimed to be of equivalent effect to those on domestic production.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in view of the very wide difference in the treatment of imports into each of the two countries from the other and the gross unfairness which those figures indicate to our own hard pressed motor manufacturing industry, is my noble friend able to tell me what he is going to do about it?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend's analysis. The problem arises under a treaty signed in 1970 between the European Community and Spain, the benefit or burden of which we inherited when we joined the Community in 1973. When Spain itself accedes to the Community, the duties will of course disappear. We are pressing strongly for a very short transitional period of three years but we do not think that matters ought to be

1309
allowed to rest there. We are therefore pressing very hard through the European Community for action to be taken ad interim; the matter was raised at the November Foreign Affairs Council and it will be raised again at the forthcoming council on 13th and 14th December.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister a question? I am glad to have the opportunity of asking him this question because he is perhaps the most able member of the Government. Perhaps he can clear away some of the misunderstandings. On which leg do the Government stand? Quite recently—I do not know whether this applies to him but it applies to the Government in general and to Members on the other side of the House—there was a manifestation of high euphoria because Spain had entered the Common Market. No sooner do they enter the Common Market—and they are welcomed with open arms—than we complain about them. On which leg do the Government stand? The Minister surely is capable of replying to that question.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the complimentary remarks that he made at the beginning of his supplementary question. The Government have two feet and they stand firmly on both of them. We believe that our membership of the European Community is of great value. Nevertheless, there are problems in the Community and we turn our attention to solving them.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I believe I asked a question which specifically mentioned car imports from Spain. I asked this question two weeks ago. I asked whether this matter would be brought up at the GATT meeting in Geneva. Was it, my Lords?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, there were general discussions on the question of unbalanced trade between different countries. There was a passage which appeared in the final communiqué referring to obtaining a better balance of trade. The question of Spain was not itself specifically discussed as the objective of the GATT ministerial conference was to deal with general problems rather than pick out specific problems relating to trade between particular countries.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, may I press the noble Lord a little further on the answers that he has already given? The noble Lord referred to the desirability of a short transitional period for Spain assuming the full responsibilities under her EEC membership. Will he say whether the Government envisage a progressive scaling down during the transitional period of this discrepancy in duty to which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, refers?
Lord Cockfield: Yes, my Lords. What we are concerned with now are the negotiations between the Community and Spain for her accession. In those negotiations we are pressing for an early and substantial reduction in the disparity between the two levels of duty.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that forgings for the automotive industry enter Spain bearing an import duty of 34 per cent? By contrast, for the United Kingdom and the EEC there is an import duty of only 2·9 per cent. Accepting what the noble Lord the Minister has said regarding Spain entering the EEC, will he give some advice to those industries in the West Midlands that are in the forging industry regarding how they can overcome the unemployment situation that is facing them in the interim period? Though they have competent management and a skilled and hard-working workforce, they cannot compete when they have this gross imbalance of import duties.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, what the noble Baroness says is another example of the general problem that I mentioned at the beginning; namely, that the treaty between Spain and the European Community is a very unbalanced one. That is a situation that we are trying to deal with both before accession and most certainly after accession.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the dissatisfaction that has been expressed on this side of the House? That means dissatisfaction with our association with the Common Market. Will he take note that at the next election this is the issue on which the Tories will lose?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the membership of this country of the European Community is of very great value to us. Some 43 per cent. of our total exports now go to the European Community. Many millions of jobs depend on our membership. There are undoubtedly in some areas very considerable problems. But we have more chance of getting these problems—particularly the one relating to Spain—solved through the Community mechanism than we would be able to on our own.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one way of solving these difficulties with Spain would be to place an embargo upon the importation of sherry from that country?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, we have no power, either under the terms of the European Community rules or under the rules of GATT, to impose such an embargo.

Consumer Councils
3.18 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: 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 now in a position to announce the date on which they intend to publish proposals dealing with the reform of the Consumer Councils of the nationalised industries taking into account comments invited from organisations and individuals; and if not how much longer publication will be delayed; and whether such publication will be accompanied by a Statement to Parliament.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, we hope to make an announcement and to publish detailed proposals before the Christmas Recess.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, the Minister has not answered the last part of my Question, but perhaps I may return to that in a second. May I ask him first whether he does not think that I have been very patient in waiting since 22nd July to ask this Question? Does he recall that on that date he gave me exactly the same answer—at least that he hoped to publish the proposals as soon as possible after the Recess? Can he say whether there will be a Statement in Parliament when these proposals are actually made public?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I pay tribute to the great patience of the noble Baroness in this matter. The reply that I gave in July and the reply that I now give are entirely consistent with one another. In July I said that the proposals would be published after the Recess, and they are now being published before the next Recess. So far as the Statement is concerned, that is a matter to be settled through the usual channels.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, while giving full credit to the Minister for consistency, as I am sure we shall, may I ask him this: as it seems doubtful that we are to get a Statement in Parliament, can he use his influence through the usual channels to ensure that there is a debate on these matters, which are of great concern both to the nationalised industries and to consumers everywhere?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I think the right thing would be to await the publication of the Government's document and then to decide what we would like to do in the light of that. But the question either of Statements or of debates in your Lordships' House is one for the usual channels and it is not a matter, I fear, on which I can express any opinion.

Technical Education and Training
3.21 p.m.
Baroness David: 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 consultation there was before they announced their new initiative on technical education and training on 12th November 1982.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, the Prime Minister announced the initiative after close consultation between the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and Employment and the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission.
Baroness David: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that Answer, does she, particularly as an ex-Minister of State for Education, think it was satisfactory that the local authority associations, which provide the education, were not consulted
1312
beforehand at all? As Mr. Lawton, chairman of the ACC Education Committee, said that the MSC involved fundamental constitutional questions which suggested that the Government were prepared to make changes in the 1944 Act, can the Minister say if such changes to the Act are proposed in order to make it possible for 14-year-olds to leave school and follow courses in FE colleges, or are they relying on the Employment Act 1973, Sections 2(1) and 13(1)? Is she aware that there are very grave doubts and anxieties about children being allowed to leave school at the age of 14?
Baroness Young: My Lords, there is to be no change in the 1944 Act. The children in fact will remain in school, though they will take courses possibly in colleges of further education, and the powers used will be those of Section 2(1) and Section 13(1) of the Employment and Training Act 1973. The Government felt it was important to go ahead with the scheme in 1983 and I am glad to confirm that the Secretary of State for Education and Science, the Secretary of State for Wales and the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission have met representatives of the local education authorities.
Lord Byers: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness would accept that this initiative on vocational and technical training is widely welcomed in many parts of this country?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am very glad to have that response from the noble Lord, Lord Byers. It was, of course, a point that was raised in a recent debate in your Lordships' House.
Baroness David: My Lords, as Mr. David Young of the Manpower Services Commission has said, in an article that he wrote in The Times Educational Supplement, that students in these schemes would probably be preparing for qualifications given by the City and Guilds, the Business Education Council, the Technical Education Council and the Royal Society of I Arts, and as courses for such qualifications are currently being given in FE colleges, can the Minister explain to me how this is going to be such a new initiative and how it will be different, except for the funding coming from the MSC instead of the DES and the local authorities?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as the noble Baroness is aware, the proposal is for 10 pilot schemes. These are to be set up in consultation with local education authorities, the details of which have still to be worked out. I confirm what the noble Baroness said, that it is intended that they will lead to specific qualifications such as the craft and technician awards of the CGLI and the general and national certificates and diplomas of the Business and Technical Education Councils.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, if I may ask a supplementary question while in no way dissenting from what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, will the Government undertake to do everything in their power to see that the MSC does not embark on a collision course with the local education authorities, as collaboration is of the essence in this field?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am glad to confirm that a national steering group is being set up, on which educational interests will be well represented, and this organisation will agree guidelines and criteria for submission of bids on this scheme. The chairman and director of the Manpower Services Commission, in consultation with the DES, will be having further discussions with the various parties concerned.
Lord Byers: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness would consider—because there is no need for a collision course at all—making it clear to the people of this country that the principles which were learned through the experience of ORT, the Organisation for Rehabilitation and Training, of which Mr. David Young is the chairman, are going to be applied to this scheme and it has had tremendous success in other parts of the world. I do not think we ought to prejudge what could be achieved through this opportunity and option for children to go into the vocational stream at the age of 14, instead of into the academic stream.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am very glad to hear what the noble Lord has said. We believe that this is an important new initiative, and the response of the local education authorities has been encouraging. Some 16 authorities have already expressed interest in it, so in fact it looks as though the scheme will be oversubscribed.

Law of the Sea Convention
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Belstead will, with the leave of this House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention.

Representation of the People Bill [H.L.]
3.26 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a strict consolidation Bill, bringing together in one Act much of the existing law on elections and electoral procedure. This is the second consolidation of the electoral legislation. The arrangement of the present Bill broadly follows that of the first consolidation, the Representation of the People Act 1949. Its contents fall under four main heads: the franchise and registration of electors; the conduct of elections; election campaigns; and legal proceedings following elections. The Bill applies to all parliamentary and local government elections in the United Kingdom, except that the local government provisions do not apply to Northern Ireland. The Bill also provides for the repeal of certain obsolete provisions in the existing legislation.
If your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading it will be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, in the ususal way. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wonder if I might take a very brief moment to suggest that the Government deserve praise for this important and massive piece of consolidation, not because it occupies 216 pages but because it brings into one statute so many provisions now spread about the statute book, and these provisions govern the necessary working of our parliamentary democracy. Voters who really care should be grateful for this, including those who speak Welsh.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I should like to confirm the view we take of the value of this consolidation. I confess that the additional boon of a reference to the use of the Welsh language makes it even more acceptable.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am deeply grateful both to my noble friend and to the noble and learned Lord. I am, as I hope the House will recognise, very keen on promoting consolidation. I have even more ambitious projects in my sights, but they sometimes find unexpected difficulties on the way.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Mobile Homes Bill [H.L.]
3.29 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): MyLords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bellwin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Duty to offer agreements]:
Lord Bishopston Lord Bishopston moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert ("; or
(d) permits a person to station a mobile home on land forming part of that site and to occupy that mobile home as his only or main residence,").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, with which I think we might take No. 2. This measure is widely welcomed in many ways, because, as we said on Second Reading, it seeks to deal with some of the anomalies which have existed for a long time. I said then that the Government were to be commended on the degree of consultation which has taken place; and I know that they have had many helpful representations from the National Consumer Council, from Shelter and from many other authorities.
I am sure that the Committee, while supporting the Bill, is anxious that we should close as many loopholes as possible and that, at the same time—as the Minister hoped—we should be fair to both the site owner who provides the service, and also the resident who takes advantage of the service offered. Legislation is long overdue to tackle the problems not dealt with by the

1315
Mobile Homes Act 1975, or to close some of the loopholes. I think that the Committee will be anxious to be constructive on these matters, and I anticipate, from some of the comments made by the Minister on Second Reading, that he has an open mind on a number of issues. But, if he is not able to help us today, then he may, perhaps, consider points at a later stage.
We think that the measure is ineffective in some areas which are vital, not only to the interests of the resident, but to common justice. In his introduction on Second Reading, the Minister stressed the aim to be fair to all parties and such an aim is very commendable. But, of course, what is in this Bill is what really matters—not what we say in your Lordships' House. Although dealing with some anomalies, the Bill has loopholes and the amendments to which I am now speaking provide opportunities to deal with them.
At the outset, I would say again that greater progress might have been made if the Minister had not indicated on Second Reading that he was not prepared to extend some of the provisions on security of tenure which are in the Rent Act 1977 and the Housing Act 1980. There is a very strong point to be made that these homes, which are not mobile and are virtually the same as any other form of accommodation, ought to have some of the safeguards which are to be found in those two Acts of Parliament. It may be that we can improve the Bill to give some security, which would have been provided in a blanket way had those two Acts been operative in this sphere, because we ought to try to strengthen the provisions so as to give the security accorded to others.
These sites have a resident and an owner. The resident has no interest in the land, or, at least, not in the same way as the site owner, and he certainly has no security. The site owner is obliged to offer an agreement to a person who, under Clause 1(1)(a), has an unrestricted right to station a mobile home, and under Clause 1(6), that is a person who is not precluded from occupying a mobile home as his main or only residence. So the Bill can be evaded if the site agreement contains a restriction or a prohibition against residence. In such a case, a site owner is not required to offer an agreement.
There is a similar means of evasion in the Rent Act 1977, where Section 9 states that a tenancy is not protected if the purpose is to confer a right to occupy a dwelling for a holiday. So, if residents agree to this kind of provision, they can lose the protection of the measure. Surely, the consent to station a mobile home should establish a right of residence, and we believe that this is a loophole which should be plugged. I also believe that the Committee may well support this amendment in order to achieve what I think is essential in the interests not only of the resident but also of the site owner, because, if we can clarify the position so that the meaning of the legislation is quite clear, it will be in the interests of both. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: I wonder whether, when the Minister comes to reply to this amendment, he will say a word about the problem of the mixed site, where it is possible for a person to be granted a right to station a mobile home as his principal dwelling, but where, equally, there are other parts of the site where only
1316
holiday use is permitted. It may well be that, in some circumstances, the site operator will seek to transfer mobile homes from one part of the site to another. So it is not always clear, on a site of this kind, whether or not a person entering into occupation of a pitch has an unrestricted site. It may be clear from the location of the pitch within the site, if the person has the sense to go and look at the site licence and realises that he is on part of it which is licensed only for holiday use. But that might not always be clear to the person coming on to the site, and it is something which we should take care of in the drafting of the legislation.
It seems to me that the amendment which we are now considering looks after that eventuality, because, if the contract between the owner and the occupier is plainly one which grants a licence to station a mobile home on the site as the resident's only or principal residence, then it will not be good enough for the site operator to say later on that, in fact, the mobile home was stationed on a part of the site which was licensed only for restricted use. This is one of the problems of mobile home living, which, although it affects only a very small number of sites, and an even smaller number of inhabitants, we should take care of at this stage and not leave to chance later on.
Lord Bellwin: On the last point that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made, I should have thought that if a person going on to a site has an opportunity, which I would expect him to exercise, to see which part of the site he wishes to occupy, and considers that the area offered to him is not acceptable, it is, presumably, up to him to say, "I don't want to be there." In that way, he should know of all the restrictions and limitations on that part of the site. But I will certainly take note of what the noble Lord said and, if there is uncertainty which could disadvantage the occupier, as he would become, then we shall want to look into that.
So far as the similarity with the Rent Act 1977 is concerned, there were advantages which came forth from that Act, as, indeed, many believe there were from the other Rent Act. But only those who are unwilling to consider the whole subject of the Rent Acts would say that there were not disadvantages which also came forth from the Rent Acts. The major disadvantage has been that they tended very much to dry up the availability of accommodation. What we do not want is to have the same effect on the availability of sites. That is why, as the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, rightly said, we have been at great pains to try to get a balance, so as to do justice and do the right thing by both sides.
If it should turn out, at the end of the day, that there is an imbalance here or there, then I suppose that that is part of life. But, so far as the Government are concerned, the object is to get the balance right and, certainly, if these amendments, or any others that noble Lords bring forth, will help us to do it better or to clarify, then we shall want to know of them.
To turn specifically to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, the intention of the wording is to prevent a site owner from evading the obligation to offer statutory agreements to mobile home residents by pretending that his residents are in fact occupying their homes for holiday purposes rather than as residences. We do not believe that the amendments would have a

1317
significantly different effect from the present wording of the Bill. We also do not believe that the Bill needs strengthening at this point.
At present the Bill requires site owners to offer agreements to occupiers to whom they have granted an "unrestricted right" to station their mobile home. "Unrestricted right" is defined in Clause 1(6) as a right which does not preclude the use of a mobile home as an only or main residence. So a site owner who wishes to evade this duty must give people who come onto his site as residents a contract which specifically excludes their using their home as a residence. A site owner who wished to pursue this course would not be prevented from doing so by the first of these amendments, which replaces the concept of granting a right by one of "permitting" the occupation of the mobile home as an only or main residence. If a site owner really does want to evade his duty under the Bill, he would presumably "permit" the occupation of the mobile home for holiday use only. The second of these amendments, on the other hand, would allow someone who is resident on a mobile home site at commencement to claim an agreement under the Bill, even if he had never been given permission by the site owner to live in the mobile home which was always intended to be used as a holiday home.
We do not, as I have said, believe that the Bill needs strengthening here. In the first place, we do not believe that site owners will be desperate to avoid agreements under the Bill. It is said that landlords attempt to evade the Rent Acts by granting sham holiday lets. But this Bill will not place anything like the same burdens on site owners that the Rent Acts place on landlords. Secondly, most residential mobile homes are on sites for which the planning permission stipulates residential use, either for the site as a whole or for the relevant part of the site. To evade the Bill in the way envisaged a site owner would presumably need to give the appearance of breaching his own planning permission. Finally, we do not see any reason why a resident should not be able to claim that he is entitled to the offer of an agreement and press his claim in court, if he has accepted a "restricted" right which is a sham.
This is the first of a number of amendments in which we shall be trying to achieve a balance between the rights of the two sides. In this case I hope that the noble Lord will feel able not to press his amendment.
Lord Avebury: Before the noble Lord, Lord Bishop-ston, deals with that helpful reply of the Minister, I should like to pursue one point which arose as the Minister spoke; namely, whether it is correct to say, as he does, that the occupier will be deemed to have an unrestricted right if the licence provides for nothing but residential use, unless the contract which the owner offers to the occupier expressly limits the occupation to holiday use; therefore it is not necessary to have such a provision in the Bill because most of the sites are licensed for residential use only and a person coming onto a site would automatically have the unrestricted right which is mentioned in Clause 1(1)(a). This reinforces the point which I made: that in the case of the mixed site scheme there is a danger which we must guard against.
As I understand it, the position is not quite as the noble Lord the Minister mentioned. There can be sites where the licence grants the owner permission to use a
1318
certain proportion of the pitches for holiday use and the remainder for residential use and it is not specified, either in the planning permission or in the site licence, which parts of the area are to be used for which. Therefore, with respect to the noble Lord, he is not quite right in saying that when a person enters onto a site he has only to refer to the site licence, which ought to be put up in a prominent place where everybody can see it but which generally is not. Assuming that he could do so, either in the offices of the local authority or somewhere on the site, he immediately determines, by comparing the location of the pitch which has been offered to him with the map, whether it is in a part of the site where holiday use only is permitted or where full residential use is permitted. If, however, the licence is expressed solely in terms of the numbers of mobile homes of each kind which may be stationed on the site he cannot be certain, and in the absence of any specific provision in the agreement there may be some doubt about it. Therefore I should be grateful if the noble Lord would have another look at this matter. I believe this to be necessary in the light of the answer he has given.
Lord Bellwin: The noble Lord has raised an interesting point. I am not sure which would be the best way to deal with it, or to what extent it is possible for somebody coming onto a site to ascertain beforehand exactly what would be the effect of his being on a specific part of the site. Whether or not, for example, the 1975 Act is sufficiently clear on that point, I do not know. I should certainly want to look into it. I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that I cannot accept the amendment but, as with everything else we shall speak about during the rest of the Committee stage, we shall want to look carefully at everything that is said.
Lord Bishopston: The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has already covered some of the points which I had to raise. In view of the possibility that the Minister may have another look at this matter, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, withdraw the amendment and will not proceed with Amendment No. 2.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
3.47 p.m.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (1) or (2) above")
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 3, I propose to speak to Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 9. Amendment No. 3 to Clause 1 is a paving amendment for Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 9 to Clause 2 of the Bill. These are drafting amendments intended to clarify the circumstances in which a mobile home occupier can go to court to require the making of an agreement under the Bill.
Clause 1 of the Bill requires a site owner to offer to all the residential occupiers on his site an agreement under the Bill and a notice which we will prescribe by regulations. If a site owner fails to offer an agreement as required by the Bill, Clause 2 will enable an occupier to apply to the court, or to an arbitrator, for an order requiring an agreement to be made. The

1319
present wording of Clause 2 does not, however, specifically provide for an occupier to apply to the court if a statutory agreement is offered but the prescribed notice is not given. It is possible that a court would hold that an agreement had not been validly offered if the prescribed notice had not been given. But the absence of a specific reference to the prescribed notice in Clause 2 might leave the matter open to doubt.
The purpose of these amendments is to remove the scope for doubt. They establish a clear sanction against site owners who fail to fulfil both requirements of Clause 1. An occupier can ask the court to require the making of an agreement, unless the site owner both offers a statutory agreement and supplies the prescribed notice. Thus, for example, an occupier who is offered an agreement without a prescribed notice and fails to accept the agreement (perhaps because he is not sure about the merits of doing so) will be able to go to court later if he subsequently decides he wants an agreement. There is no time limit on the occupier's right to go to court in these circumstances. These are, as I have said, drafting amendments to clarify the provisions of the Bill, and I hope that your Lordships will accept them.
Lord Bishopston: I thank the Minister for moving Amendment No. 3 and for speaking to Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 9. As he said, some of them are drafting amendments. I anticipate that the amendments go some way towards meeting some of the points of clarification. But later we shall be having a debate on subsequent amendments standing in my name and in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, which are wider than the points made by the Minister on this occasion.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 11, at beginning insert ("is in simple terms and is in such form and")
The noble Baroness said: We on this side of the Committee welcome the obligation that is written into the Bill to provide written notice. We accept that it should be in the prescribed form. What we ask for in our amendment is that the notice should be written in simple terms; simple enough for residents to be aware of the rights they have under the Act and the significance of the draft agreement. We suggest that it should draw attention to the time limit imposed by the Act and recommend that, if the resident is in doubt, he should take further advice. We are asking the noble Lord the Minister to consider our amendment because the people who are involved in mobile homes and the owners of sites are few in number and they really should not need continually to have recourse to the courts to get their problems solved. We feel quite strongly that if the notice is in a simple form then both sides—the mobile home owner and the site owner—will be able to understand the terms, and have them clearly understood between them, when the agreement is being drawn up.
We are asking that there should be no legal jargon. I do hope that I shall not upset any noble Lords in this House by using the term "legal jargon", but it is something for the legal profession and we are talking about an agreement between what one might call ordinary men in the street. We are sure that there must exist in the department someone who could interpret and personalise that kind of information. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, may remember that the words "simple terms", are quite specifically written into the Housing Act 1980 in connection with secure tenancies. When that Act was being debated, I believe all sides of the House felt that it was important for people in those kind of tenancies to understand the Act. Section 41 of the Housing Act 1980 is quite specific and says that every body shall,
"publish information about its secure tenancies in such form as it considers best suited to explain in simple terms and so far as it considers appropriate"—
and then it goes on to refer to the various parts of the Act. So we are not asking for anything new. We are asking that the same provision as exists for secure tenancies in the 1980 Act should be available for tenancies in respect of people who, although they own their mobile homes, are only tenants of the land on which those homes stand. I want to repeat my point that the numbers involved are not large, and I feel that I am not underestimating the type of people who live in mobile homes or who own sites. They do not proclaim themselves to be clever people. They are just ordinary people who have chosen this way of living.
Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord the Minister that in the Second Reading debate he said quite specifically that people should be aware of their rights, and for that reason:
"we will prescribe the notice to be given to residents in the agreement".
He is quoted as saying that in col. 671 of the Official Report for 18th November. One applauds the noble Lord—people should be aware of their rights. We on this side of the Committee feel that they can only be aware of their rights if those rights are written out in simple terms. One of the difficulties of Parliament generally is that its deliberations can only command respect if those people who are affected by legislation know the results of Parliament's deliberations and how they are affected by them. Our amendment shows that if hardship (if it is suffered by the owners) or loss (on the part of the site owners) is caused because of lack of information, because matters are not clearly spelt out or because that advice breaks down, then we feel that that is a breakdown of parliamentary democracy.
People should be able readily to understand such matters, particularly in instances such as this one, and to know that their rights are safeguarded. While I appreciate that it is written into various parts of the Act that there can be recourse to the courts, we have to understand what mobile homes are all about. The less recourse to the courts residents and site owners have to take, the more harmonious will be the way in which people live on those sites. It is for that reason—for the sake of harmonious living between the residents of mobile homes and site owners—that I ask the noble Lord the Minister to consider seriously what is a very simple amendment to what is perhaps a complicated Bill. I beg to move.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, put her points in very simple terms, and may I begin by assuring the noble Baroness that she is not very likely to say anything which will upset this noble Lord? Would that I could be so certain that I shall not say anything which will upset the noble Baroness. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the prescribed notice which site owners will be required to give occupiers when they offer them an agreement will be, as the noble Baroness has said; in "simple terms". I do not believe that it is necessary to impose this requirement, and let me say why. It will not be for the site owners to decide the wording of the notice—that is the first point. Site owners will not be the ones to decide the wording. The Secretary of State will have the power to prescribe the wording by regulations, and he will be using that power.
The noble Baroness made an analogy between this amendment and Section 41 of the Housing Act 1980, which does require local authorities to provide information to their tenants in "simple terms"; but it is not a close analogy. I remember this section very well indeed because I talked about it much at the time, and I am glad that the noble Baroness feels that it has been effective. I hope she will also come to agree in time that what we are proposing now will be equally effective. I believe that the noble Baroness will be happy if it does turn out to be so. I say that this amendment is not a close analogy because, in the case of Section 41 of the Housing Act 1980, it is local authorities—in that case, interested parties if you like—who decide the wording of the information they provide to their tenants. Under this Bill, it will be the Secretary of State who decides.
Perhaps a better analogy would be with the shorthold notice which landlords require to give tenants before the start of a shorthold tenancy. The wording of that notice is prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State under Section 52 of the Housing Act 1980. There is no requirement in the Act for that notice to be in "simple terms" and I do not believe that the language of that notice could be described as technical and still less as gobbledygook—although the noble Baroness has not described it as such today.
I said in my Second Reading speech that it was our intention that the prescribed notice should advise occupiers to take legal advice and to read the Government booklet that we will produce following the Bill. It will also emphasise to occupiers the importance of taking action within the time limit the Bill imposes. I can assure your Lordships that it will be in terms as simple as possible. I do not want to make a great deal of this but I heed carefully what the noble Baroness has said on this subject and recognise her concern. I certainly take her point about the need to obviate recourse to the courts; my goodness!—that is the last thing we want to see happening. If we got it right on this point—and I think the record will show that we did—in the 1980 Act, I think we also have it right here. It will not be left to either party to decide the wording; it will be up to the independent Secretary of State, who has no axe to grind. There will be plenty of opportunity to discuss how simple is simple, whether it is really simple. We know what the objective is. I
1322
would ask the noble Baroness to have confidence in our concern on this point, which is the same as hers.
Lord Bishopston: I feel sorry that the Minister has not been a little more forthcoming, I do not know whether he was the Minister at the time, but the Housing Act 1980, which was passed by this Government of course, said this in Section 41:
"Every body which lets dwelling-houses under secure tenancies shall, within two years of the commencement of this chapter and thereafter from time to time, publish information about its secure tenancies in such form as it considers best suited to explaining in simple terms and so far as it considers appropriate the effect of'—
and it goes on to refer to the express terms of its secure tenancies, the provisions of the Act and so forth. I see no reason why the same kind of requirement should not be put in this legislation. The Minister has said, in effect, that he agrees with the terms of the amendment. I think I mentioned at Second Reading the point which must be borne in mind, the importance of the fact that whereas with other forms of accommodation very much like mobile homes—which, as we keep saying, are not really mobile anyway—one often has title and deeds and so on and one would employ a solicitor to go into these things, this does not happen in the case of mobile homes. People are left entirely on their own to sort out the legal safeguards. After all, the amount of investment of residents could be comparable with that invested by people in other forms of accommodation. So there is a very real need that people should be informed.
The other point is the fact that 25 per cent. of the people living in mobile homes are elderly people. They may be a little confused about the terms of any agreement. Although I welcome the Minister's assurance that he will do what he can to make sure that all this information is available, it is very important that it goes to the right people. Everyone has a duty in this connection—the site owner, and of course the Secretary of State—to make sure that the agreement is in simple terms, can be understood and can be complied with. Otherwise the whole point of the legislation is lost. Perhaps I can ask the Minister if he would look at this point again. It ties up with the views he has expressed already.
Lord Bellwin: There is no difference at all between us in what we are seeking to do. It is only a question on whether or not there is a necessity to have written into the Bill the wording suggested in the amendment. I would only repeat that I am absolutely satisfied that there will not be a problem, for the very specific reason that it will be an independent Secretary of State, with no axe to grind, who will prescribe the wording. Whether that is in simple terms or not will be for everyone to judge at the time, but it is intended that it should be in very simple terms. I just do not think it is necessary to write it into the Bill.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: In thanking the noble Lord for his reply, I would say that all we are hoping to do—and I think the noble Lord would agree with us on this—is to make this Mobile Homes legislation perhaps the best Act. This is two bites of the cherry on what is a comparatively small problem regarding housing. In view of what the noble Lord has said, we accept his undertaking that he will ensure that it is in

1323
the kind of form that we hope for and the Secretary of State will personalise it and make it simple. If we feel that that is not so, we shall come back to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Swinton: I beg to move that the House do now resume in order to discuss the Statement.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Law of the Sea Convention
4.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea will be opened for signature in Jamaica on 10th December, and will remain open for signature for two years thereafter. The convention deals with many aspects of the law of the sea. Some provisions are a restatement or codification of existing international law; some provisions seek to make new law. Parts of the convention, for example, those relating to navigation, the continental shelf and pollution, are helpful, but the provisions relating to deep seabed mining including the transfer of technology are not acceptable. They are based on undesirable regulatory principles and could constitute unsatisfactory precedents. A number of our friends and allies share our misgivings on these points. We need to obtain satisfactory improvements in the deep sea mining régime, and will therefore explore the prospects with interested states. As the convention is open for signature for 2 years there is ample time for revision before taking a final decision. It is our wish that there should be generally agreed provisions for regulating marine matters, and we wish to continue to work with the international community to achieve this.
"I should emphasise to the House that we could not participate in a seabed régime on the present terms, and for that reason we could not ratify the convention unless the provisions for the deep sea mining régime become satisfactory.
"A copy of the convention and relevant resolutions of the conference have been placed in the Library of the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. It does not really say a great deal that is new, and it is, I think, disappointing that we are still withholding our signature from this convention. Is it not very much in our own interests as a maritime nation to sign, but is there any substantial reason, apart from United States pressure, why we should not subscribe to a package
1324
which has been negotiated with great difficulty over a period of eight years?
The Statement refers to deep seabed mining. Would the noble Lord not agree that the present United States Administration, differently from the last, are giving in to pressure from private deep sea mining consortia which are working to extract cobalt, nickle, copper, manganese and other minerals from the ocean floor, whereas the convention provides that sites—and I think it is one for one—should be mined for the benefit of the poorer countries of the world? Is not that the real core of the objection of the United States, and therefore the core of our objection? Would there not be considerable advantages in relation to such things as territorial limits, freedom of navigation, the right of innocent passage—and I think 116 international straits would be involved in passage of this kind—fisheries, the exploitation of oil and other minerals on the continental shelf and so on? Does he really think that after eight years we can now hope to secure agreement on what is a fundamental point in a period of a further two years?
On the question of possible revision, how does the Minister think that this can be negotiated? What further arrangements have Her Majesty's Government made to discuss the revision to the deep seabed provisions with those who are prepared to sign the convention and with those who are not? Finally, if we do attach importance to the rule of international law, should we not sign this convention forthwith?
4.10 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, that it is very disturbing. I thought that we would all back the simple principle that because deep seabed mining is an area of such advanced technology it is only open to the industrialised nations and that an international seabed authority should distribute the benefits among the poor countries, instead of the present position where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I hope that the Government are not departing from that principle. The Statement is grossly inadequate. I hope that the Government will tell us why they are so proceeding. I sincerely hope that they will tell us that they are not acting out of the purely selfish reasons which, it appears, the international mining groups are pressuring the United States to adopt.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and Lord Mackie of Benshie, for their comments. Clearly, both noble Lords are concerned on behalf of their parties about what is an important Statement and I understand their reservations.
I agree with both noble Lords about the advantages of the convention. Clearly the provisions on the continental shelf and freedom of navigation, to select only two of the provisions, are very desirable. There are other very desirable provisions. It gives no pleasure to Her Majesty's Government to be compelled to make this Statement today, but we feel that for the time being it is not possible to sign the convention as the deep sea mining provisions stand.
That leads me to answer the first question put by the noble Lord. Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: why are we not

1325
signing? The reasons are that we have never hidden from the conference, which has been discussing the convention, that parts of the deep sea mining régime are based on undesirable principles. We feel we must work for changes which will improve the balance in favour of the development of seabed resources and produce a realistic and workable convention which does not deter investment and does not set undesirable pressures now.
As regards investment, this leads to the second question which both noble Lords asked—have the Government been under some form of pressure from mining interests, which alone have led the Government to reach the conclusions which, for the moment, are set out in the Statement? The answer is quite clearly, no. There are two aspects of the convention which lead to great apprehension on the part of Her Majesty's Government. There are the provisions in the convention about the transfer of technology which, I understand, will be mandatory. The international seabed authority will be able to require the transfer of technology and there will be no argument about that in the future if the convention is agreed as it stands. There is also the difficulty about the opportunities for licences in the future. It is only fair that the mining interests throughout the world should at least have some certainty as to what their chances will be to get licences in future. This is by no means certain.
There is also a matter which I raised in answer to a Question by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, on the 10th November. There is provision under the convention for what is called a review conference, which apparently means that after a period of years a conference can be held to unscramble the whole convention. We do not believe that these provisions give the certainty which is required in order to bring the necessary investment into deep sea mining.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked: how can improvements be negotiated? First of all, the conference in Jamaica will have a signing of the Final Act. I do not in any way wish to conceal from the House that it would be the intention of Her Majesty's Government to sign the Final Act. We will, therefore, be entitled to participate as observers in the preparatory commission which will then be set up.
The convention needs ratification by some 60 member states, and this will take a period of time. It is during that time that we hope it will be possible, as the Statement said, to explore the prospects with interested states for improvements in the convention which will, of course, have to be done by an amending protocol.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful to my noble friend for repeating the Statement made in another place, because the convention is to be opened for signature in four days' time. While I accept that the deep sea mining part of the convention is unsatisfactory, is my noble friend aware that there are at least two powerful reasons why British interests would benefit from other parts of the convention?
First, as a trading nation our shipping would benefit from the parts of the convention on navigation rights throughout the world. Secondly, our extensive
1326
coastline would benefit from the strength and protection from pollution and the increased area of jurisdiction for enforcement measures. Is it not the position that if the United Kingdom were to sign the convention at an early stage during this two-year period we would then be in a position to negotiate further amendments which would be beneficial for Britain? Is my noble friend aware that the prospects of a serious start to deep sea mining have now receded, for economic and other reasons, and that land based supplies are likely to be the sources of these metals for much longer than had been thought a few years ago?
Several noble Lords: My Lords—
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think we normally allow the Minister to reply.
Lord Belstead: If it is for the convenience of the House, my Lords, I shall reply to one question at a time.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy referred to the rights of navigation. Yes, as I said on behalf of the Government, there are aspects of the convention, not least the rights of navigation, which are of very important interest to the Government and to the nation. This underlines the regret that the Government have in making the Statement today.
As regards the extent of the territorial sea, we are considering this issue in the light of the results of the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference. There are some advantages, but there are also some possible disadvantages which will need to be carefully examined. My advice is that an extension of the United Kingdom territorial sea from three to 12 nautical miles will depend upon international practice and is not tied irrevocably to the wording of the convention. Therefore, we can consider freely whether it is right that the United Kingdom should do it.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, while I am in general agreement with the thrust of the questioning from the Labour Opposition and from the Liberal Party, obviously the situation is extremely complex and cloudy and should be probed in a fuller debate in future. But for the moment may I ask the noble Lord one or two questions. We know that we are looking at an action by President Reagan when he kicked over the traces of eight years of international negotiation, and we are following him in that posture. What is the position of other countries like ourselves? How many other countries are staying out alongside the United States?
The Government seem to believe that it is safe to sign the Final Act without signing the treaty and to hope to be able to amend the treaty during the signature period after, presumably, some other countries have already signed it. Is that really practical diplomacy? It sounds a rather dubious procedure when one first hears of it. It looks like throwing away the first chance that the world has ever had of exploiting part of the natural wealth of the earth for the benefit of all mankind. It seems as though it will, to a greater or lesser extent—a matter which we must also probe—prevent our benefiting from all the good things in it which the Minister has so rightly listed, and all because it is "unacceptable" to transfer technology to the poorer nations.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked me about the position of other countries. France has said that it will sign the convention in Jamaica, but it will seek changes in the deep seabed régime, and I understand that the Netherlands will do likewise. I understand that Turkey, Venezuela, Argentina and Israel will not sign and, of course, the United States will not sign. On the other hand, some Community countries—namely, Denmark, Ireland and Greece—have said that they will sign, as have Canada, Australia and New Zealand. There are other Community countries which are still considering their position; they include the Federal Republic of Germany, Belgium and Italy, all of which share our misgivings about the seabed provisions.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord, is there any substantial reason to be dissatisfied? Although I appreciate the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who has always been intensely interested in the subject, I have some knowledge of the subject myself. I suppose I am the only Member of your Lordships' House who is an honorary life member of the National Union of Seamen, which means that I am not required to pay any subscriptions. This subject has been before us for the last 50 or 60 years. There are many complications.
Will the noble Lord and other Members of your Lordships' House take note that we cannot solve with Denmark the problem that now confronts us as regards fishing rights in the European sphere? If we cannot solve a simple problem of that kind, how is it possible to solve the problem of navigation rights, pollution difficulties and a whole series of cognate problems? We have two years during which we can use the offices of those connected with the conference to revise our views or consider new views on the subject. But it may be wiser for us to exercise some caution in the matter and not to agree on some definite project, only to discover that we are creating new problems.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that it is fair for me to repeat what I said a little while ago in your Lordships' House. We tried at the last meeting of the conference in September to be the catalyst, to get agreement between those who disagreed fundamentally on the deep sea mining provisions. The two major points were the question of the transfer of technology and also the certainty, or better certainty, for the awarding of licences under the convention. We did not succeed in doing so and that is why today we are saying that we wish to see whether it is possible to explore the prospects with interested states for gaining a greater area of agreement before we come to sign the convention.
Lord Balogh: My Lords, would the Minister consider that his denial of mining company interests influenced the Government's attitude to the problem? We have only one example, and that is the sea oil,
1328
when all the problems of the seabed came up. That story is really not in any way reconcilable with the Minister's Statement.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, is overlooking the fact that the international seabed authority—which, when the conference on the convention began its deliberations, was going to have been not very far off self-supporting—will now cost huge sums of money in order to support. Any Government must take that into account in order to try to decide whether it is in the national interest to decide on a convention which contains deep sea mining provisions at the moment. For the reasons which I sought to deploy in your Lordships' House on more than one occasion, and again today, we have some very grave reservations about this, and I underline them in answer to the noble Lord's question because the Government would have to take into account the huge sums of money which will be necessary in order to finance the provisions of the convention. I do not think that that answer adds up to the fact that there has been unwarrantable pressure brought to bear by mining interests.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that this is literally a matter of life and death for millions of people in the developing countries? Is it the case that the British Government are opposed to the transfer of technology to the poorer countries? Will the noble Lord tell the House whether it is the case that, during this two years, the consortia of mining companies that are already prepared for the mining of minerals on the seabed may very well start their operations, if they have not been started already? Is there any precaution against that happening, despite the fact that the convention has not been signed by this Government?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's first question, I hoped that I had made it clear that the question of technology really needs to take into account the fact that very substantial sums of money will be needed in order to finance the provisions of this convention. It is no good talking about the transfer of technology as though this is something which is happening in a vacuum; it is necessary under the convention to finance it, and on any objective view at the moment there is not a fair provision under the convention for the transfer of technology.
So far as the noble Lord's second question is concerned, of course this sort of mining simply is not happening at the moment. There is exploration going on but there is no mining of this kind. Indeed, the convention will not be ratified for probably—I do not know—a year and a half, two years or maybe longer, while the 60 signatory states which decide to ratify it in fact get the permission of their legislators to do so. Meanwhile, so far as far as Britain is concerned, last year we passed legislation through both Houses of Parliament which make it clear that for this sort of mining we are not granting licences in Britain until 1988.

Mobile Homes Bill [H.L.]
4.28 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Provisions for securing the making of agreements]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 24, after ("1") insert ("(1) or (2)").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 25, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 27.
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) For so long, after the expiry of the required period, as the owner fails to offer the occupier an agreement under this Act or fails to supply a written notice in accordance with the requirements of section 1(4) above, the owner shall only be entitled to enforce any obligation on the part of the occupier in accordance with an order of the court.")
The noble Lord said: We come now to the first of the amendments on Clause 2, which is sidelined:
"Provisions for securing the making of agreements".
This is an extremely important part of the Bill because, as your Lordships will be aware, the main defect of the 1975 Act was that people did not enter into the agreements which were there provided for, to the extent that only something like a quarter of the people who live in mobile homes are covered by those agreements now. We are now trying to make it possible for about 100 per cent. of the people to take advantage of the provisions of the Bill.
The trouble is that there were no effective sanctions that were to be levied against the site operator who did not enter into an agreement. We are trying to remedy that in the Bill by saying that only the occupier has the right to go to court if the agreement is not offered by the site operator within a given space of time. It is the duty of the site operator to offer such an agreement to a person who is the holder of an unrestricted right to station a mobile home on a protected site; but if he does not do that, as we said at Second Reading the onus is on the occupier to take action through the court to enforce his rights. The problem which we highlighted then and to which we should like to return now, is that the occupier may be completely unaware of his rights or may be fearful of enforcing them because of the consequences that may flow from so doing in the form of retaliation by the site operator. In the meanwhile, so far as I can see, the site operator has the power to alter the terms of the existing occupation of the pitch, assuming that the occupier had an agreement under the old Act, prior to the coming into force of the Bill, or perhaps that his agreement had expired.
The amendment that we now propose would enable the occupier to resist any changes that the owner might seek to enforce in the period until the agreement is offered, and would, therefore, prevent the owner from trying to twist the occupier's arm—for example, by raising the charges or imposing any additional conditions in order to soften up the occupier before offering an agreement, as he may well seek to do. This gives the owner some incentive to offer an agreement and our hope is that, as a result, the objectives which we all share will be achieved and that a very high proportion of occupiers will be covered by the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: First, may I apologise to the Committee and to my noble friend the Minister because, owing to a longstanding engagement, I literally have to fly from this place as soon as I have sat down. However, I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for a few very simple but important reasons.
If the Government are willing to accept this amendment, the result would be to reduce the number of court cases. Many of the occupiers, who, as the Bill stands, would have to go to court in order to obtain an agreement, would be obliged to ask for legal aid. As we all know, legal aid is costing the country a great deal of money. Therefore, by reversing the process whereby the owner and not the occupier is the party who has to go to court, there will undoubtedly be a reduction in cases and an actual saving of money from public funds.
Secondly, I really think that three months is too short, and six months is to me a far more acceptable period. A third point I wish to make is to point out that the Government supported the principles contained in this amendment in the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I am well aware that as yet this particular clause has not been implemented. Nevertheless, the intention of the Government of the day was clear, and I am presuming that that intention still holds good.
We are dealing with a minority of bad owners as, indeed, with a minority of bad occupiers. As I said at the Bill's Second Reading, we all greatly welcome and applaud the Government for bringing forward this legislation. I was happy to hear what my noble friend the Minister said earlier this afternoon, because it would be dreadful if it was thought that, by introducing amendments, we were implying that owners of mobile home sites are big bad wolves waiting to fleece the mostly elderly lambs, to coin a phrase, who occupy their land. The vast majority of those who live in mobile homes are very happy. All I and others who take an interest in the Bill hope to do is to see that every eventuality is anticipated and that both parties are fully protected.
Lord Bellwin: Let me say at once that I very much appreciate what my noble friend Lady Trumpington has said. Of course, it is a fact that, throughout the rest of our deliberations on all stages of the Bill, we shall continue with the same philosophy in trying to get a Bill which is a big advance on what was in the 1975 Act but which, again, has to hold a balance, for the reasons that I have stated and which I shall not repeat now.

1331
The purpose of this amendment is to impose what is really a very severe penalty on a site owner who fails to offer an agreement under the Bill within the required period or who fails to provide the prescribed notice at the same time. The intention is that a site owner who fails to comply with either of these requirements should only be able to enforce any obligation on the occupier following an order from the court. Thus, the site owner would only be able to recover pitch fees from an occupier to whom he had failed to offer an agreement, or give a notice, if he first went to court. In practice, the amendment would only mean that if an occupier did not discover that he had been entitled to the offer of an agreement until some time after the period within which the offer should have been made, he would then be entitled to go to court to claim his agreement and also to reclaim the fees he had paid.
If this amendment were to work in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would like, it would, as I have said, impose a severe penalty on site owners who failed to offer an agreement—a more severe penalty, in fact, than even the Rent Acts impose on landlords who misbehave. I repeat, this is a Bill that seeks to strike a reasonable balance between owners and occupiers. The Bill already contains protection for an occupier to whom an agreement is not offered within the required period. The occupier can apply to court or to an arbitrator to require the making of an agreement on terms that the court, or arbitrator, consider just and equitable. There is no time limit on the occupier's ability to apply to the court in this way. And, following the amendments which I introduced earlier today, the occupier can also go to court to require the making of an agreement, if the agreement which was offered to him was not accompanied by a prescribed notice.
The sanction which the Bill already imposes on a site owner is not insignificant. An occupier must go to court to claim his agreement, but in that case the court will decide the terms of the agreement. I suspect that in practice just as many occupiers would need to go to court even if the noble Lord's amendment were adopted. It would be, as I have said, a very stringent measure for this Bill. Let me repeat the point that I made in our discussion of the noble Lord's first amendment to Clause 1. We do not believe that site owners will make desperate attempts to avoid offering agreements. We are not here dealing with the Rent Acts and the consequences of offering an agreement will not be those of taking on a Rent Act tenancy. I think we must get away from ideas of Rent Act-type evasions. Within the terms of the Bill as a whole, the sanction which noble Lords are proposing to impose on site owners through this amendment, is unusually severe and, I believe, unnecessary.
I heard what my noble friend Lady Trumpington said about the precedent set by Section 65 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. But as she herself said, first, as yet we do not know how this will work in practice and, secondly, Section 65 is concerned with improperly executed credit agreements for the purchase of a washing machine, a television set or anything else. I hope that my noble friend Lady Trumpington will forgive me if I suggest that the Bill is concerned with rather different matters; with the
1332
basis on which a mobile home occupier occupies his home. The Bill already provides a sanction of its own on site owners who do not offer agreements when they should. It enables an occupier to go to court at any time to claim his agreement.
If anyone is to say to me, yes. but what we are seeking to do is to avoid the necessity for people having to go to court, then of course I accept that entirely. But it is also fair to say in that context that we are here talking in the main not just of mobile homes of the kind that are holiday type, perhaps a modest structure, or something of that kind; a great number of these homes, surely the vast majority, are not insubstantial. That is why they appeal as they do to those who occupy them. If I were to occupy a home worth many i thousands of pounds I would not be averse to taking legal advice if I had to, with the costs that that may entail, and even to going to court to make sure that my rights were properly considered, but I do not think that that is going to come about. For the reasons I have given, I believe the Bill has sanctions in it. It covers the concerns, the properly expressed concerns, on both sides of the Committee, and I would ask your Lordships in these circumstances to let the matter rest at that.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Bishopston: My noble friends and I are rather disappointed at the Minister's reply. As the noble , Lord, Lord Avebury, said, this is an important I amendment on this part of the Bill in Clause 2. We believe that the requirements of the measure are not strong enough by any means, especially when you have regard to the problems facing the occupier. We believe that the Act should provide that the site agreement should be unenforceable for as long as no statutory agreement has been offered. If there is any aspect which should be determined then we believe that the court should do that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, mentioned the Consumer Credit Act. We believe that this sets a kind of precedent for this measure. If the Minister cannot be more forthcoming on this, a point which is important to residents and is not unjust to the site operators, I must ask my noble friends to join me in the lobbies.
Lord Avebury: I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, to have a look back at the proceedings on the Mobile Homes Act 1975, to see how many of us warned then that site operators were not going to enter into the agreements that were hoped for then, and that more teeth were required in the Bill—which we did not get—to make sure that this happened. I had a sense of déjà vu as the Minister replied to this amendment. We know that only a quarter of the people living in mobile homes are covered and we are trying to increase that as a common objective, and yet the first time that this matter comes before your Lordships' Committee—and there is an agreement on all sides that the Bill is not sufficiently tough as it stands—the noble Lord turns us down. This is very disappointing, particularly when he agrees with the arguments that we put.
The noble Lord the Minister says, "We want to avoid cluttering up the courts unnecessarily". That is precisely what we are trying to do. We are trying to say

1333
that if you provide what the noble Lord calls a "very severe penalty" on an owner who fails to offer an agreement, then it is more likely that he will be disposed to offer an agreement and render it unnecessary for the occupier to go to the court. If the noble Lord will look at the amendment he will see that what it says is that one is liable to this severe penalty, as the Minister calls it, only for so long as he fails to offer the occupier an agreement. Therefore, he can easily escape from the severe penalty when he tries to enforce an obligation which the occupier has, and the occupier tells him that he will not comply with it as long as the owner has failed to offer an agreement. He then has the alternative of instantly offering the agreement and thereby securing the objectives that we on all sides have tried to persuade the Minister are desirable. As this is fundamental to the purposes of the Bill, and it is the first time we come to a point of this kind, we really must test the feeling of the Committee to see whether we cannot have a better mood for the later discussions.
Lord Bellwin: By all means let us test the feeling of the Committee on the matter, but to put the record right I think I should say that it is not the case that the amendment would remove the need to go to court. It would only do so if the site owner obeyed the obligation it imposes. Today we are talking about site owners who do not obey the obligation in the Bill to offer an agreement in the Bill. If he does not obey one obligation, why should he obey another? There will always be circumstances in which people have to go to court to enforce their rights. However, the decision lies with your Lordships.
Lord Avebury: I do not wish to prolong this matter. What happens is, first of all, he does not offer the agreement. Then he finds that some of the terms of occupation are unenforceable. He cannot collect the rents, to put it bluntly. Then he has another opportunity of rectifying the matter by offering the agreement at that point. There are two stages at which he can avoid being brought before the court. One is when he has the three months that is given to him under the existing wording of the Bill to offer the agreement, and then later after the three months have expired, again when the occupier fails to comply with any of the terms of his occupation, he has another chance because of the wording of this amendment. I think that we have taken every possible step to encourage the owner and to give him the incentive to offer the agreement over and above what the Bill at present provides. We believe that that is necessary, and we believe that your Lordships will agree with us.
4.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 91.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Aylestone, L.

Ardwick, L.

Balogh, L.

Avebury, L. [Teller]

Banks, L.

1334

Beswick, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Bishopston, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lockwood, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Longford, L.

Byers, L.

McCarthy, L.

Caradon, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

David, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Denington, B.

Mayhew, L.

Diamond, L.

Oram, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Peart, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Phillips, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.[Teller]

Gaitskell, B.

Gormley, L.

Rea, L.

Gregson, L.

Rochester, L.

Hall, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Hampton, L.

Seear, B.

Hanworth, V.

Shinwell, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stedman, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Jacobson, L.

Stone, L.

Jacques, L.

Strauss, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Leatherland, L.

Wigoder, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of

Wilson of Langside, L.

Hastoe, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Mancroft, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Mar, C.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Marley, L.

Ampthill, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Auckland, L.

Merrivale, L.

Avon, L.

Mills, V.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Mottistone, L.

Bellwin, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Belstead, L.

Nathan, L.

Bessborough, E.

Norfolk, D.

Boardman, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Orkney, E.

Cathcart, E.

Pennock, L.

Coleraine, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Craigavon, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Portland, D.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Rankeillour, L.

Derwent, L.

Reigate, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Romney, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rugby, L.

Elton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Fortescue, E.

St. Davids, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Garner, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Glenarthur, L.

Savile, L.

Grantchester, L.

Shannon, E.

Greenway, L.

Somers, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Spens, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hampden, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Henley, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hives, L.

Swansea, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Swinton, E. [Teller]

Ilchester, E.

Terrington, L.

Kemsley, V.

Teviot, L.

Killearn, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Lawrence, L.

Trenchard, V.

Long, V.

Vaizey, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lyell, L.

Vickers, B.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Vivian, L.

McFadzean, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Malmsbury, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Bishopston Lord Bishopston moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 32, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
("(3) Where the owner has offered the occupier an agreement under this Act within the required period—

(a) if the terms of the agreement so offered are unacceptable to the occupier, the occupier may, within six months of the offer, apply to the court for an order requiring the making of such an agreement;

(b) if the occupier already occupies the mobile home as his only or main residence, he may accept the offer at any time;

(c) where paragraphs (a) or (b) above do not apply, the offer shall be treated as withdrawn six months after the date on which it was made.")

The noble Lord said: This has some aspects in common with the previous amendment, but it is somewhat different and is still very important. I refer the Committee to the terms of the amendment, which says that, where the owner offers the occupier an agreement under the Bill within the required period, then,
"if the terms of the agreement so offered are unacceptable to the occupier, the occupier may, within six months of the offer, apply to the court for an order requiring the making of such an agreement".
It goes on:
"if the occupier already occupies the mobile home as his only or main residence, he may accept the offer at any time",
and, where those two conditions,
"do not apply, the offer shall be treated as withdrawn six months after the date on which it was made".
Again, we are getting to the core of the Bill, because it depends on the kind of agreement which is made. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said when speaking to the previous amendment, there are problems where an agreement has not been made or where the terms are in doubt. The amendment seeks to protect the resident who is offered an agreement, but it has not been accepted or challenged—an in-between situation of uncertainty—and I believe that in this respect the Bill is on the side of the site owner. A resident may, through ignorance or ill health—such as may be the case with an elderly person, and earlier I mentioned that a large percentage of mobile home residents are elderly—be placed at a disadvantage. Of course, it also applies to younger people who start off in a mobile home—possibly because they can get no other form of accommodation—and, when the family comes, maybe they have the problems associated with moving out. There is, therefore, need for the agreement to be watertight on the rights of all mobile home residents, and we believe the clause as framed provides little or no protection.
The Bill is not clear on the other circumstances of Clause 2(4), and we think the time limit here is too short. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, referred to the period of three months. Where negotiations must take place or agreement has to be sought, there may be areas of disagreement and, by the time a resident has decided what terms would be just and negotiations have taken place, with perhaps an appeal to the court, that period will have gone by. We therefore suggest a longer period. I will not say more at this stage because the matter was dealt with in the debate on the previous amendment, although as I said, we regard this as an important amendment, too.
I hope that, if the Minister cannot be with us on this occasion either, he will, in the light of the representations made to him by many organisations concerned with the interests of those who live on mobile home sites—I refer, of course, to site owners as well as residents—agree to look at this aspect again to see whether something more can be done to put the balance a little more fairly in the direction of the residents. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: I do not want to make a great deal of this point, but I think that the period suggested in the amendment is too long, and I cannot accept it as it is. But in fairness I would say that it is an arguable point that the noble Lord makes, and it brings us back to the question of degree and balance. The site owner must be entitled to some degree of certainty, and I feel that the amendment would remove that from him in regard to a major group of occupiers, and would make it very difficult for him to plan the running of the site effectively.
I also believe that six months is a little too long a period to expect owners to wait, especially in cases where an agreement is offered to a prospective occupier who may change his mind about going on to the site but who might not actually bother to refuse the agreement. The Bill allows three months, and we should remember that the occupier will not only be offered a copy of the agreement, but will also receive a prescribed notice that advises him to read the government booklet and to take legal advice. The question is: is three months really that short a period of time in the circumstances? On balance, I do not believe that it is too short a period, and that is why I do not want to accept the amendment. But, as I have said, and as I concede, it is an arguable point, and others may well have a different view of it.
Lord Bishopston: I am sorry about the Minister's attitude to the period of three months. The amendment has other merits that I have mentioned. I made the point previously, but I am afraid that I have to remind the Committee of various points which apply in a number of circumstances, and so I would say that when a person buys a house or bungalow it is necessary to have the help of a solicitor—at least in most cases—and so to some extent the person's problems are taken care of. But in the kind of cases that we are considering, people do not normally receive legal advice and so they may have to use other means in order to obtain information about their rights and responsibilities.
I suspect that the Minister may feel a little uneasy about the period of three months as being perhaps too short or too long, but he might not be happy to accept a period of six months. I do not want to bargain with him, but I wonder whether he would be prepared to look at the matter again and see whether this particular aspect could be considered, too, and then we might come back to it at a later stage. But as I have said, this is not the only part of the amendment. It is a vital part, but it is not the whole amendment. I wonder whether the Minister will respond.
Lord Bellwin: I do not think that there is much that I can add to what I have said previously. One is not saying that 10 out of 10 is right. It is not at all that kind

1337
of situation. It is a judgment made in an attempt to strike a balance, and I cannot go further than I have gone. I do not want to accept the amendment. Of course I shall discuss it with colleagues, but I certainly do not want to accept it today. I think that on balance a period of three months is right. I had to smile at the noble Lord when he was referring to the length of the period, and it almost seemed to be a case of, "Do I hear four?", but we did not quite get to that. On this side of the Committee we should like to leave the period as it now is, certainly for the time being at any rate.
Lord Bishopston: I shall place more trust in the Minister than some might say would be justified. I hope that he will look at this point again, together with the other aspects of the amendment. I do not want to press it at this stage, but we might return to it later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 44, at end insert—
("(6) In this section "the required period" means the period within which the owner is required to offer the occupier an agreement under this Act; and for the purposes of this section an offer which does not comply with the requirements of section 1 (4) above shall be disregarded.")
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.5 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 44, at end insert—
("(6) The Rent Officer shall, on the application of the owner or the occupier, specify the extent to which he considers to be reasonable sums payable by the occupier in pursuance of an agreement under this Act and the occupier shall not be liable to pay more than the sums so specified.
(7) In determining for the purposes of subsection (6) above what sum is or would be reasonable—

(a) regard shall be had to all the circumstances (other than personal circumstances) and in particular to:—

(i) the character and locality of the protected site;

(ii) the place within the protected site where the mobile home is, or is to be, stationed;

(iii) the services available to the occupier on the protected site; and

(iv) rates payable by the owner in respect of the protected site; and

(b) there shall be disregarded—

(i) the condition of the mobile home;

(ii) the fact that the agreement was offered or made under this Act.")

The noble Baroness said: One of the most important concerns in regard to each mobile home resident is to ensure not only that he has security of tenure, but that he is not faced with excessive charges. I am aware that the Secretary of State has already issued a document regarding premiums, assignments, and percentages, and so I do not want to enter into that field. But one point concerns me in particular, and I should like the noble Lord the Minister to make the position quite clear. Where there is an agreement and it is necessary to go to court because of a dispute over charges, can the court pronounce on the reasonableness of the charges? I ask that question because in the main the mobile home resident will go to court in order to challenge the reasonableness of the charges. I am
1338
concerned because as I read the Bill it does not seem to me that the court has such a responsibility.
Nowadays, with rates, water charges, land rentals, and all the rest going up, the mobile home owner must, to a certain extent, accept a rent review mechanism in the agreement. What we are concerned to ensure is that the rent review mechanism will be fair not only to the mobile home resident, but also to the site owner. It is for that reason that on this side of the Committee we believe that the rent officer should be involved. He is well versed in the rent review mechanism and is perhaps looked upon by both the tenant and the landlord as being "fairly fair". Obviously the tenant normally thinks that the rent officer is unfair and the landlord also thinks that he is unfair, but I believe that by and large they must accept that the rent officer acts in a "fairly fair" way.
I have in mind the question of excessive charges, and especially that of rent review, but we must also consider the service charges, and as I read the Bill there does not seem to be any opportunity for the mobile home resident to challenge the owner regarding the costs of providing services. There does not seem to be any obligation on the part of the site owner to supply information on how he bases his service charges.
Perhaps one of the reasons why the Bill is before us is that the mobile homes problem was raised quite extensively in the media, including in the press and on television. One problem that was brought out quite specifically both in the press and on television related to the consternation felt over rapidly increasing site rents as well as the suddenness of one-off payments, which led to hardship for many residents. Therefore we feel that there should be provision for the charges to be overseen, and we want to emphasise that this should be available much more easily than by having to go to court. We consider that the rent officer is well placed to carry out such functions. We do not think that it would be at all difficult to assign this additional function to him.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, I would agree that there are some very good site owners; and, of course, if they were all in that group then we would not need to have this legislation before us today. Our amendment, we feel, should not cause any concern at all to the good, considerate, fair site owner, who we on this side of the Committee recognise quite clearly, as does the noble Lord, is somebody who has a right to earn a reasonable return on his capital investment. But we are discussing this Bill today because not all site owners are in that category; there are some much more greedy than others. In fact, mobile home owners have said that there are some quite avaricious ones.
Balancing the two sides, we recognise that the residents themselves need protection from the inconsiderate site owner; and the resident, too, should be able to look after his capital investment. That, too, should be adequately protected, and a reasonable measure of security should be given to him. We are trying to be fair to both sides, and, therefore, the principle embodied in this amendment is, we feel, worthy of the support of the noble Lord; because there can be no doubt that the responsible, conscientious site owner will be able to draw upon the skill of the rent officers, and will be able to rely on them to be fair to

1339
the residents. In fact, those in the category of what we call good site owners should have no problems at all in being able to consult and work with the rent officer in drawing up a scheme. What we feel is important is for the residents to be protected from the less scrupulous site owners.
I think the noble Lord spoke about harassment. This was another point that was brought out by the television programme and by other parts of the media—that there are people who are harassed. The last thing we want to happen is that people should quite suddenly lose their homes, there and then, because of the harassment they suffer. If I may quote from one letter, it says:
"I feel that the site owners take unfair advantage of the often legally-ignorant mobile home owners who fear that to approach a solicitor may result in facing legal bills that they can ill afford. There is also"—
and this is, I think, important—
"the element of fear, of reprisal from the site owner, who can make life difficult for people on his site who are known to have complained".
It is for that reason, perhaps, that we need, as our amendment quite clearly states, the experience of somebody who is conversant not only with rent reviews but also with harassment.
The noble Lord might challenge the experience of the rent officer and say that he would not be capable of doing this job. I remember that when the Rent Act came into operation rent officers had to be trained to do the job—a very difficult job, as I can remember. I was a member of the local authority in Birmingham at the time, and the people in my ward were perhaps in the category of those being harassed by landlords because of the Rent Act. But the rent officers have gained in knowledge since the Rent Act came into operation, and the very unusual cases that they would have to deal with in the category of mobile homes are, we feel, matters that their expertise and their acknowledged skill should enable them to deal with quite easily for the benefit of both the site owner and the mobile home owner.
The Minister might perhaps feel that our amendment is a little untidy. I am not concerned that he thinks it untidy, because he can tidy it up. What is important is the principle behind it, and it is for that reason that we would ask the noble Lord to consider it quite seriously. I say with all humility that when a crisis occurs to an individual, and when it has to do with his own home—whether those concerned have bought it or let it, or whatever is the situation—it is of immense importance to him and sometimes he does not know how to cope effectively. The chances are that, under stress, such an individual will do the wrong thing.
I think it is important for us in this Committee to be realistic and to recognise that those who cannot afford the services of a solicitor and who, because of that, have to cope alone when they are going through these periods of stress, are placed in a worse position than the person who is able to pay for somebody else to worry for him. It is for that reason that I would ask the noble Lord to consider our amendment. Its purpose is really to give to the rent officer the power to deal with the charges, and with the criteria; and we feel that in this way it can be done much more easily, much more
1340
effectively and much more fairly to both the owner of the site and the resident than it could be by any court or judge when what is being considered is the reasonableness of the charges that are involved. I beg to move.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: I am sure it is not necessary to remind the noble Baroness that it was I who during Second Reading referred to the point of harassment. Indeed. I mentioned, if I remember, the Daily Star, which had brought certain cases to the forefront, and I paid tribute to the influence that they and others had had in (if you like) helping to bring out the need for something much better than the 1975 Act. So, again, there is no difference between us on that. However, I keep having to come back all the time, as I do, to the fact that although in this Bill we are trying to bring forward a measure which will be much more effective than the 1975 Act—and I think everyone accepts that—nevertheless at no stage shall we be able to get away from the need to protect the interests of all concerned. The noble Baroness does not quarrel with me on this. Indeed. I am sure she herself spoke about it. But it brings us back all the time, because this amendment would involve the rent officer service in fixing the level of pitch fees payable by occupiers through agreements under the Bill. It also offers criteria which rent officers could use in so doing.
There is one point I should make before I deal with the substance of the amendment. There is no time limit within which an occupier can apply to the rent officer. The Bill provides that any challenge to the terms of an agreement must be made within the first three months. The effect of this amendment would be to allow challenge to one of the terms, the pitch fee, at any time. Even if I accepted that it would be a good idea to involve the rent officer service in mobile homes matters, I would wish to resist that aspect of the amendment. But I think that is secondary because, as the noble Baroness rightly said, one can always make adjustments if one accepts a principle, and the final wording of an amendment, certainly at Committee stage, does not have to be the last word on it.
I prefer to base the case against doing this—in fact, I do so—on the whole matter of the rent officer service in relation to this particular situation. The fact is that the task of rent officers is to fix rents within the criteria laid down by the Rent Acts. No doubt they do a very good job there. As the noble Baroness said, they do not please everyone; but I think there is general acceptance that they have skills and knowledge which enable them to hold a reasonable balance, at least one which makes a very hard situation tolerable. I gladly pay tribute to them—and I know quite a lot about the way in which they work.
But deciding the rent for a tenanted house or flat within Rent Act criteria is a very different matter from fixing the level of a pitch fee which the owner-occupier of a mobile home must pay the owner of the site on which his mobile home is stationed. This amendment would mean involving rent officers in a new and quite distinct field. The Bill allows occupiers and site owners to agree between them on an arbitrator—the noble Baroness did not mention the arbitrator—to resolve their disputes. The choice is a free one. If they cannot

1341
agree, they can then go to court. I frankly believe that that must be a better approach than bringing in the rent officer service. The noble Baroness will recognise the implications of bringing the rent officer service into this field. She knows a great deal about this aspect, as I know from our debates over the past three and a half years on other Bills. It would not be desirable to bring them in. All kinds of complications would arise for them.
To answer some points that the noble Baroness made, she spoke about a rent review mechanism. There is no rent review mechanism in the Bill as it is. She wondered whether the courts can judge the reasonableness of a charge. If they have do so, the answer is, yes. I hope, as she does, that first of all the matter can be agreed between the parties; secondly, if it cannot be agreed between them then at least they should ideally go to arbitration. They can decide upon that. That does not have to involve costly processes at all. It is only at the end of the day that, if necessary, they can go to the court if they so wish, and then the court will decide, provided that the challenge is made within the time limit laid down.
I am sorry not to be able to meet the noble Baroness who argues her case so eloquently on this issue and clearly believes that the rent officer service has a part to play here. I do not think that it has. It would be an awful mistake to bring that great mechanism into play on what we are trying to do in this Bill. I hope that in those circumstances, on reflection, the noble Baroness will be able to accept that answer.
Lord Jacques: I should like to plead with the Minister to give consideration to this amendment because of its significance. It has great psychological significance. If we are going to help the kind of people that we have in mind, there are one or two principles that have to be observed. First of all, if we want them to go somewhere for help they should go to the place that they are accustomed to visiting, to the town hall rather than the court. They should not be involved in something which they feel will immediately involve them in some big expense, such as going to a solicitor. The hearing procedure should be informal rather than formal. I suggest that on all these grounds the rent officer is more likely to do the job better than the court.
I am not smitten with the idea of arbitration. All kinds of things can happen when you provide for an arbitrator. The site owner could arrange for his agent to be the arbitrator or he could name a friend. The poor old occupier who is looking for a site regards that as a mere detail, but when it comes to the test it is of vital importance. When it is the rent officer, that is different; that is specific.
My final plea is this. We have introduced the rent officer into housing legislation. That has been a great success. I believe that, by and large, rent officers have given very fair and reasonable decisions. They have not satisfied everybody; that is impossible, but I think that they have done a first-class job. I believe that it will be no great step to apply this service also to mobile homes. I believe that for psychological reasons it is one of the most important amendments that could be made.
Lord Bellwin: I do not like to disagree with the noble Lord because we so often seem to see eye to eye on matters that we discuss. But I shall have to say—and I said this on Second Reading—that we do not want to bring in a Rent Act type Bill. What the noble Lord said about the Rent Acts is right. There is confidence in the rent officers based upon, in general, the fairness which they have shown and their skill. I paid tribute to that a moment ago and I do so again. But the fact is that for all the good things that they do—and they do many—they also have a connotation of bad things in housing, certainly since the 1977 Act. That introduced a new range of security of tenure, and when I was on the Francis Committee we always said that would have the effect of drying up the availability of great numbers of dwellings or parts of dwellings that are needed for renting.
If we were to contemplate a Rent Act type régime within this Bill then the fear would be, without question, that the availability of sites too would also decrease very much indeed. Just as it is true that there are certain concerns by the tenants who turn to the rent officer for protection in terms of giving a fair judgment on what rents should be, so conversely there is the fear of landlords, or even prospective landlords, who are contemplating making their accommodation available. In this particular Bill above all we are trying to bring forward a moderation—and we are all saying it and I am saying it again now—trying to get a balance between the interests of both sides to be fair. I believe that to bring in what is proposed really would have an adverse effect.
As to the point the noble Lord made about arbitration, the arbitrator does not have to be appointed by the site owner. The occupier must have equal say in who should be the arbitrator. If he does not agree, then there is not an arbitrator. The arbitrator has to be someone mutually acceptable. If not, there is no arbitration. Then you come on to the point of the court. The point that the noble Lord makes about going to court is the most important part of what he was saying, if I may say so. People do not want to go to court. People dislike this; they fear the costs; they fear it might involve them in all kinds of traumas. So they do not want it, and I understand it.
I do not believe that at the end of the day, in drawing a balance on what we should do. we ought to go into a Rent Act régime. The noble Lord asked whether I would at least consider it. I always like to read and think about whatever is said at various stages of the Bills that I deal with. Of course, I shall do that on this occasion and with this amendment. But I do not want to be less than frank about it. My own view is that I fear that, well intentioned though it may be, to introduce any Rent Act aspects will have an adverse effect on what all of us want to see.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Bishopston: I can well appreciate the points made by the Minister. He talks about the danger of accommodation drying up. This is any form of accommodation, including mobile homes, which are used by a not insignificant number of people. A problem to a tenant or owner of a house is a 100 per cent. problem to him and we should take that into account. If we do not have the Housing Act 1980 and the Rent Act 1977 safeguarding these people, as I and

1343
many of my noble friends contend—we accept that the Minister says that we do not want that régime—the fact is that we shall not have a régime which will be tied to the Rent Act and the Housing Act. It will be tied to this Bill, the Mobile Homes Bill. The rent officer, as we envisage it, will have to act in keeping with the provisions of this particular measure.
The rent officer has a very important role. The Minister has indicated his respect for rent officers and the work that they do. Unlike the courts, which deal with a number of issues, the rent officer is specialised in his approach. He is greatly experienced; he knows the problems; he can bring a certain degree of uniformity to his judgments, and so on. I am sure that his rulings and advice would be acceptable to both sides.
We believe that the rent officer is particularly suited to this kind of situation, and I hope the Minister will be able to look at this matter again. I stress that this is not bringing into focus the whole of the régime of the various Acts we have mentioned and which he has rejected. I am sure that he wants in fairness to make sure that the security and all other aspects which are accorded to the tenants and to the landlords and which are covered by these measures are extended so far as possible to those we are discussing. There are lesser provisions, if I may say so, in this Bill than there are in the provisions of the two Acts we have been discussing. Therefore, it will be a major measure to suit the particular circumstances, and we think that the rent officer is well experienced to do this with a degree of uniformity and fairness which will be fair to both sides.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: May I ask the noble Lord how he equates the skill of an arbitrator, who will be a one-off person, as against the skill and expertise of a rent officer? The arbitrator might be doing something in Devon, another in the North-West and another in the Midlands—completely isolated people. So far as I can see, there is no need for somebody with the qualifications of an arbitrator. How will they be able to do the jobs which the noble Lord felt that the rent officer could not do? I find that quite unacceptable. With regard to the principle that some people have chosen to live in mobile homes, that is their choice, in the same way that other people choose to live in a bungalow by the sea, or wherever. I think it is important to recognise that, having chosen, they have a right to protection in the same way as the tenant of a council house, the tenant of a private landlord or of a flat. Because they are a very small group of people and have chosen a different kind of housing, I am afraid that the more we discuss the Bill, the more we shall find ourselves in the same difficulty as on the previous Bill on the same issues. I would therefore sincerely ask the Minister to be much more generous than he is being at the present time. We have accepted that there is a need for the site owner to be dealt with equally fairly. For that reason, we will press this issue to a Divison unless we get a much clearer understanding from the noble Lord that the tenants of mobile homes will get equality with the site owner.
Lord Bellwin: May I say again, just to set the record straight, that I really do not need any "pushing" or any lessons on the need for the Bill. May I remind the
1344
noble Baroness that it is the Government who are bringing forward this Bill. If she feels so passionately about it—and I commend her for that—I should have thought that she might have prevailed upon her own colleagues in 1975 to have brought forward a different kind of Bill, which might have put it another way. I respectfully suggest that she did not do so, or perhaps was not able to do so—she may not have been involved in those days—
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I was not.
Lord Bellwin: Then that absolutely explains it. Had she been, I have no doubt that she would have made the point she has made today; and so I will not press that point further. Even so, the principle remains fair. This Government are bringing in this Bill trying to do precisely what she wants us to do—to protect the interests of people who choose to live in this particular way. Many of them are very nice homes—indeed, why not?—and that is why we are bringing forward the Bill. They are entitled to protection, but in the bringing forward of the Bill we are anxious to look after the interests of others, too, who have an interest in providing the facilities and the sites where this accommodation is placed. So we seem to be repeating the same thing again. I cannot go as far as the noble Baroness would wish me to go. I really feel that it would be a mistake to bring a Rent Act régime into this Bill. I think it really would be contrary to what we are trying to do, despite the good intentions that I know are behind this amendment on the other side. So I cannot help on this occasion.
Lord Bishopston: I think we are still hopeful that the Minister will look at this again. We feel very strongly about it and are inclined to press the matter, but it is one which needs to be given more care and attention. The Minister will know that his own department, as have noble Lords, has had piles of correspondence on the matter. There have been many letters sent and the Press have had campaigns about the various injustices suffered by residents on mobile home sites.
It may be that it would be a good thing to come back to this on Report, if the Minister will look at it again. I am sure he has had many representations from many organisations on this matter. This is one of the key points as to what mechanism is to be used: whether it is the courts or the rent officer. As I said earlier, the rent officer does not have to pick up these Acts when he is dealing with mobile home matters: they are completely on one side. He will be looking at a modest Bill, and we want to be sure that the enforcement of its limited provisions will do justice and do the job which I am sure the Government and others in this House wish to be accommodated. On the basis of my charitable attitude to the Minister on this, and in the hope that he will look at it again, because it is terribly important, I will seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Swinton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

ECC 19th Report: Voluntary Part-Time Work
5.38 p.m.
Lord Seebohm Lord Seebohm rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Voluntary Part-time Work (19th Report, 1981–82, H.L. 216).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion is, that this House takes note of the European Communities Committee on Voluntary Part-time Work—that is, the 19th Report of 1981–82. Sub-Committee C of the Select Committee on the European Communities received oral or written evidence from a number of organisations and individuals, including the European Commission, the Department of Employment, the CBI, the TUC, a clearing bank, the Equal Opportunities Commission, the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors, Professor Hepple, Mr. Ben Patterson, MEP and several others. We are most grateful for the help we got from all these people, who had obviously done a great deal of research and hard work to help us in our deliberations. We were also helped throughout by Dr. Colin Leicester, whose specialised knowledge was invaluable to us.
Briefly, the directive is intended to ensure that regular part-time workers enjoy proportionately the same terms of employment as full-time workers in comparable employment; that is to say, similar hourly rates, holiday entitlements, sick benefits, pension rights and so forth. I am quite sure that the general public do not understand the real implications of part-time work in this country. I am sure that went for the committee at the beginning of our deliberations. We changed our views quite considerably as we went along.
I think I should perhaps therefore state some facts—not too many figures—to show what we are really talking about. As far back as 1951 part-time work was not unknown, but the ratio was about one part-time worker to 23 full-time workers. They increased in number fairly rapidly over the years and in 1981 it was no less than one part-time worker to four full-time workers; in other words, one-fifth of the labour force are now part-time workers.
It will be seen, therefore, that we are dealing with a very significant part of the workforce, which should be treated as something very serious and highly respectable. People say "only part-time workers", but that attitude should no longer be adopted. We find that these people are among the older population, and also among the very young. I suppose everybody knows that most part-time workers are women, of whom there are 3·6 million, while 700,000 are men. Both are growing in numbers. There were 4·3 million in 1981 and the number is growing, though more slowly. There is also a strong tendency for men to go in for more part-time work—again, for demographic reasons and when families change—which will, I think, be dealt with later by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor. Therefore, we are dealing with something which is a very stable part of the workforce, whose very size demands that it is protected against anomalies and discrimination.
The United Kingdom is by far the largest employer
1346
of part-time workers, both in numbers and—with the exception of Denmark—proportionately. It is therefore significant that at the meeting of the Council of Ministers the United Kingdom stated that it finds the directive unacceptable. It was alone in taking a line of outright opposition. It is understood that France supports the directive strongly; Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg accept the directive as it stands and Germany and Ireland have reservations, but have indicated that they may give agreement after modification.
The Employment Protection Act 1978 fails to protect about 750,000 part-time workers, as the threshold for cover is set at 16 hours per week, or 8 hours if the worker has had regular employment for five years. This is equivalent to two days or one day per week respectively. The national insurance arrangements cover only those who earn £32·50 per week or more. These thresholds are arbitrary and have no clear rationale. The main objection by the United Kingdom Government appears, according to a letter from the Secretary of State for Employment to the committee, to be that there is no clear evidence that part-time workers are being unjustly treated; that there are sound economic or commercial reasons for applying different terms of employment from full-time workers and that this is a fact that is acceptable to part-time workers. He went on to point out that the implementation of the directive would reduce flexibility, increase employers' costs and decrease industry's efficiency, thereby decreasing the number of vacancies and increasing unemployment. These are very serious allegations and I think that I shall have to answer them seriatim, so far as I can.
First, as to evidence of injustice, the committee took evidence from the Equal Opportunities Commission, and we were convinced that there are certainly abuses and discrimination in the case of part-time workers. A small exampre is the wages councils, and in agriculture, for no particular reason, part-time workers are automatically granted wages which are 5 per cent. less than those of full-time workers on an hourly basis. We were satisfied, at the end, that there is a lot of injustice and discrimination, though the amount is not possible to assess.
Apart from the effect of increased costs, I doubt whether there would be any appreciable reduction in flexibility. Part-time work is essentially flexible. There are agreements which suit both employer and employee. I have a rather nasty feeling that the flexibility which the Secretary of State may have been talking about is, in fact, the flexibility where there is discrimination and some injustice. But I would remind the House that there is a pool of flexible labour, which is the temporary workers, casual workers, seasonal workers and so on, with which this directive does not at all concern itself.
There will be some increase in costs, which we do not at all deny. But I do not suppose that there has ever been any improvement in terms of employment which has not, in the short-term, meant some increased costs; I cannot think of any. But there is no doubt whatever that, over the years, improved terms of employment have increased efficiency, and probably productivity, to a considerable extent. So it has to be proved that the increase in costs will be considerable, if it is to be opposed on those grounds. The main

1347
component of rising costs is, I suppose, the benefits package; namely, access for part-time workers to existing sick pay and pension schemes, holidays, et cetera.
In the case of large employers, such as multiple stores, banks and the health service, our evidence was that the increase would be minimal. Barclays Bank thought that it might be 1 per cent., if they implemented the directive as it stands. The health service thought that it would be about the same figure. Sainsbury's evidence was of slightly higher costs. They thought that a change might increase their overall bill by 3 per cent., but nearly 60 per cent. of their employees are part-time and the main increase in costs in their case would be due to the pension scheme. These figures show that, for large employers, the increasing costs are minimal. The costs for small employers would be rather more, if they had to pay the national insurance charge which is on a poll tax basis and is a regressive tax. For people who work a few hours a week, it could be serious.
We should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the national insurance charge is the same, whether you are employed for 8 hours or for 40 hours. Therefore, it is a very bad, regressive tax. If only it could be made progressive and proportionate to earnings, rather than simply a poll tax, it would make a very big difference to the employment of part-time workers. I am sure that there must be a feasible solution to this. It is something which is a serious block to the progress of part-time work.
We have considerable objections to many of the articles, although the committee is in no doubt that the general objectives are sound. Also, we do not believe that a code of practice alone would be sufficient to put matters right; there must be some form of directive. Part-time work is becoming more and more acceptable to a wider range of workers, notably among men, and employees are becoming more inclined to expand the range of part-time work in their own firms. This is highly significant among the older workers, who are willing to move towards work sharing, but will hardly be encouraged to do so if their terms of employment are clearly worse than when they were working full-time.
Evidence produced to the committee shows that there are clear cases where the Equal Pay Act and the Sex Discrimination Act have been shown to be relatively powerless. About 13 per cent. of part-time jobs are at lower rates than full-time rates. The committee have concluded, therefore, that there are anomalies in the treatment of part-timers; that employment protection is arbitrary and fails to offer adequate remedy; that there is some discrimination, against which there is only limited protection under existing legislation; that the increased costs could be considerably mitigated by altering the regressive nature of the national insurance charge arrangements; that, since one in five employed in the United Kingdom are part-timers, the conditions of their employment need to be reviewed; that, as the United Kingdom employs 41 per cent. of all part-timers in the EEC, considerable weight will be given to its views and that, while representations should be made to amend the articles, the directive should not be opposed outright.
We visited Strasbourg a few weeks ago, and universally our report was given considerable praise. They felt that we had made a very good contribution to the discussion on the directive. In addition to that, on 4th October the Secretary of State gave an address in The Hague and he said—this was after our report came out—
"I am confident that we could make similar progress in extending the scope for part-time work. You may be interested to know that I have recently announced proposals in the United Kingdom for a scheme providing incentives to employers to create part-time jobs. This scheme has been notified to the European Commission and we are currently discussing it with them. It is experimental, but we hope that it will offer market-based jobs to more people and will offer more scope to those who wish to arrange their working lives in different ways".
I do not see how we can have it. both ways. If we wish to persuade more people to become part-timers, we are unlikely to do so if we say to them that they will have five or 10 per cent. less pay, that they cannot be in sickness benefit schemes, that they have no holiday entitlement, that they cannot use the canteen—and so on. This makes absolute nonsense of the whole argument. Part-timers have got to be accepted as a perfectly respectable, ordinary part of the workforce and of our way of life. Therefore, I beg to move.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, on this very thorough and interesting report and to thank him and his committee members for all the meticulous work and patience they have put into their deliberations and recommendations.
The European Communities Commission's proposal for a directive on part-time work is currently under discussion by the European Community member states in the working group which serves the Council of Ministers, and has been since its publication at the beginning of the year. There is as yet little sign of the member states reaching agreement on a mutually satisfactory text.
The committee, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, are broadly in favour of the directive. They conclude in their report that:
"There are anomalies in the treatment of part-time workers compared with full-time workers which need to be rectified and may not be removed on a voluntary or collective basis".
Their support for the present text is not, however, unqualified.
"What is more open to doubt",
they say,
"is whether the present draft directive provides a workable balance between the needs of the employed and the present economic situation".
They put forward their suggestions for necessary amendments to the text of the directive, article by article.
I am grateful to the committee for their statement that the proposed directive may not,
"provide a workable balance between the needs of the employed and the present economic situation",
because this precisely sums up the Government's view. We also believe that it is desirable that part-time workers should be protected against unjustified inferior treatment, although we are considerably more sceptical than is the committee about the extent to

1349
which such unjustified inequalities do in fact exist. All part-time workers who work the equivalent of two days or more a week, and many who work only one, enjoy equal protection with full-timers under existing employment protection legislation. The concept that the objective of protecting the employed must, however, be balanced against the needs of the economy and the need not to increase the numbers of the unemployed is absolutely crucial to the Government's position on this instrument. Our view is that the directive tips the balance far too far towards protection of the employed and that its cost may well be the jobs of those whom it seeks to protect.
Ironically enough, this directive forms part of the European Communities Commission's programme of measures on work sharing, the purpose of which is to increase employment in the Community. It therefore has a dual purpose: to improve the conditions under which part-time work is carried out and to increase opportunities for part-time work. The Commission regard these two objectives as perfectly compatible. Their argument is that if employers are made to treat part-time employees as well as they treat full-time employees, part-time work will be more attractive and more employees will wish to work part-time. This, they believe, will lead to a fairer distribution of available work across the working population.
The perhaps more pragmatic view of the Government is, as I have indicated, that the effect of the directive would be likely to be exactly the opposite of that envisaged by the European Communities Commission. In the Government's view, the directive, if implemented, would reduce opportunities for part-time work, at least in the United Kingdom. Its immediate effect would be a reduction in the number of part-time vacancies available, because it would diminish the attractiveness to employers of part-time employees. In the longer term it might lead to an overall reduction in employment since it would interfere with the flexibility of a sector of the labour market which currently operates very efficiently, to the benefit of the economy as a whole.
What grounds do the Government have for the belief they hold that the immediate effect of the directive would be to force employers to reduce the size of their part-time work forces? It has been argued—indeed, it is even suggested in paragraph 21 of the committee's report—that the demand for part-time workers in the economy is pretty much fixed. It is suggested that the demand is determined by operational factors, such as peaks and troughs of activity in the retail trade, and that part-timers are such a cost-effective way of meeting these needs that the sort of regulation envisaged could not possibly outweigh the benefits which employing them confers.
There is absolutely no evidence for this view. Indeed, we know very little about the flexibility or inflexibility of employers' demands for part-time workers. What we do know, however, is that the form of regulation proposed would increase the cost of part-timers and reduce their usefulness as a flexible form of labour. We have consulted employers on this point and received a unanimous response to this effect. More important, we know that the mere fact that regulation has been introduced would be likely to become an important factor in employers' recruitment decisions,
1350
particularly the recruitment decisions of smaller employers. We know this from bitter experience with other employment protection provisions. The right to complain of unfair dismissal is a case in point. If the existence of legislation can deter an employer from expanding his business because he is afraid to recruit, then it can certainly induce him to rearrange his work schedules in such a way as to avoid employing part-timers.
It is the Government's view that the matters covered in the directive—that is, the pay and conditions of part-time workers—are much better left to collective and individual agreement and the self-adjusting mechanisms of the market, than regulated by legislation. The United Kingdom has the largest number of part-time workers in the Community and the second largest proportion in the workforce. This indicates that this sector of the labour market is operating very well, to the benefit of both employers and employees.
The Government's view, then, is that the implementation of the directive in its present form would run a very heavy risk of discouraging employers from using part-timers, to the detriment of employers, employees and industry. Earlier I mentioned balance. This is the word used in the report. Is this argument outweighed by considerations of social justice? Are part-timers exploited and discriminated against to such an extent as to warrant measures of the type envisaged to protect them? The committee in their report conclude that such measures are warranted because differences of treatment and inequalities exist between part-time and full-time workers.
In the Government's view it is of paramount importance to distinguish between unjust inequalities of treatment resulting from prejudice—in other words, discrimination—and inequalities of treatment which result from legitimate commercial considerations. Thus, it constitutes unfair discrimination, for example, to refuse to employ a woman as a van driver because she is a woman but it is not unfair to choose a man in preference to her because he is a better driver. In the view of the Government it has not been proved that the difference in treatment between part-timers and full-timers which has been observed is the result of unfair discrimination and that a new legal right needs to be created. The differences appear to us to be the result of legitimate economic or commercial considerations. I am not sure, and the Government are not sure, that the committee have fully addressed themselves to this important distinction in their report, although they are clearly aware of its implications in the sphere of the proportionality of remuneration.
I think we would all agree that it would be unfair if employees treated part-timers differently in respect of their physical working conditions or refused them access to social facilities. I really cannot believe, however, that such unfair practices exist. But what about access to training and promotion? This is surely just the sort of area in which differences of treatment may exist for perfectly legitimate reasons. As currently drafted, the directive would not permit employers to treat part-timers differently for sound management and commercial reasons. They would have to promote two part-time workers to fill one full-time supervisor

1351
post and incur the double training cost involved. The Government might succeed in getting the directive amended so that differences in treatment would be permissible where there was a legitimate, objective reason for inequality, but employers would still have to go to the tribunal to argue that reason.
Let me now consider pay, briefly. The committee state in their report that the evidence supports the view that there are differences in hourly rates between part-time and full-time employees. The Goverment would agree that there are differences, but there is no evidence to prove that part-timers and full-timers generally recieve different rates of pay for the same job. It shows that part-timers are usually in lower grade jobs and that is why they are lower paid.
To sum up, the Government's position on the proposed directive is as follows. We believe that part-time employees should not have to suffer unjustified inequalities of treatment in relation to full-time employees. But this objective must be set against the needs of the economy and the need not to deprive those same employees of their jobs. We consider it very likely that the measures proposed would have a significant effect in reducing the number of part-time vacancies available. We do not consider that the need for the proposed measures has been shown to be sufficiently great to outweigh those opposing considerations; we do not consider that a binding instrument is appropriate in this area.
6.1 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I must first apologise to your Lordships because, owing to an engagement entered into long before I knew about this debate, I shall not be able to attend very much longer after I have spoken. I would also like to thank very much the Labour Front Bench in general and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, in particular for arranging for the same reason, for my personal convenience, to reverse the normal procedure whereby he would have spoken after the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur.
Having thanked the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, I must say that I found his exposition of the Government's point of view extraordinarily difficult to follow. I followed it but I could not follow the logic behind it. What he seemed to be saying on the one hand was that there really was no injustice; that part-timers were treated perfectly properly; and that there were very few part-time workers who were being "done down". In the very next breath, the noble Lord said that it would cost a phenomenal amount to redress the difference between part-time and full-time workers; that industry would not be able to afford this; and that the economic effects of these adjustments would be so damaging that a considerable number of people would lose their jobs. The Government cannot have it both ways. Either there is considerable inequality which will cost a great deal to redress or there is not considerable inequality, in which case any remaining inequalities will cost very little to redress. I regret that I shall not be present to hear the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, when he explains the logic of his statement, but I will, of course, read it with very great interest in Hansard tomorrow.
I accept that it may be that this directive is yet another example of the passion which the Commis-
1352
sion seems to have for going into a degree of detail for which a directive is not an appropriate instrument. As I understand it and have always understood it to be, a directive is meant to indicate the objective to be attained on a particular principle in a particular area of policy, and that the members of the community are allowed to adjust their existing legislation in such a way as to achieve that objective. But I have always understood that the directive is not supposed to lay down in very great detail how that objective is to be achieved.
It seems to me that in recent years—and this point has been raised before in your Lordships' House—there has been a marked tendency for the Commission to put into directives a degree of detail which tends not to be compatible with what a directive is supposed to be. To that extent I agree that there are details in this directive which it would be desirable to have adjusted, and surely the Government of this country. which—as the noble Lords, Lord Seebohm and Lord Glenarthur, have already pointed out—has a very high number of part-time workers and a very high percentage of them in relation to all other members of the EEC except Denmark, are in a very strong position to argue for the kind of directive and details, if we must have details in a directive, which are appropriate based on our considerable knowledge of part-time employment and the problems and issues which it raises.
That, I fear, is as far as I can possibly go in agreeing with the point of view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. It seems to me that there are two overwhelmingly strong reasons why we must urge the Government to reconsider the approach they are basically taking towards this directive. The first has to do with the position of women in the labour market. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, will speak with greater authority and in much greater detail than I can on this aspect of the directive, but to me there can be no doubt that, in the past and at the present time, a great many women have been extremely anxious to obtain work on a part-time basis—for domestic reasons, and because of the great inadequacy of the child care provisions in this country, which have made it impossible in practice for a very large number of women to take employment unless that employment is part-time. Whether they should be in part-time employment or not and whether other steps should be taken to make it easier for them to take full-time rather than part-time work is another issue, and one that we are not discussing this evening. In any event, it has undoubtedly been the wish of a very great number of women to obtain part-time employment.
The fact remains that, for a great many women, part-time employment has been a snare because these jobs have been seen as jobs exclusively for women and as jobs at a very low level. They are almost "ghetto" jobs in that they are jobs from which a woman has very little chance of advancing and which offer very low levels of pay. A great many women have settled for jobs of that kind. Had the position been different, they would have certainly advanced much further into the labour market and made a contribution to the economy far more in keeping with their capacities than they have been able to do. Women have to a large extent been trapped in these jobs.
There is no doubt also that part-time workers are relatively difficult to organise from the point of view of

1353
the trade unions and, as a result, they have to some extent been exploited. If one is serious about one's desire to give women appropriate opportunities—opportunities compatible with their capacities—then one must adjust the position of part-time work so that it is not seen as being exclusively work which women take; and that is the view taken of it at the present time, although I know there has been an increase in the number of men in part-time work. Overwhelmingly, it is women who still go in for these jobs. They are jobs which are regarded as being very low-grade, dead-end jobs with very little opportunity for getting out of them. It is urgently necessary from the point of view of women in the labour market that the nature of part-time work in this country should be altered. If there were no directive, there would be a very strong argument for saying that we want to see some of the differences of conditions between part-time workers and full-time workers reduced, if not totally abolished.
The second reason why the Government should reconsider their approach is that surely we want to encourage people to take part-time work—men as well as women. When we have been debating questions of unemployment, as we have done on a number of occasions over the past months, we have all agreed that the hope that all men as well as all women are going to obtain full-time jobs is a will-o'-the-wisp for many years to come. It is highly desirable that men should be encouraged to share jobs. The Government have been sufficiently converted to this point of view that they are encouraging the splitting of jobs in older age groups. But it ought not to be only among the older age groups that it is made acceptable for men and women who wish so to do—and of course it will always have to be voluntary—to enter into job-sharing arrangements.
As the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, has said, if those part-time jobs do not have the same benefits proportionately—one is only saying they should be proportionate—as are carried by the full-time jobs, what hope is there that all except a very few men are going to volunteer for jobs of that kind? In particular, there is the question of training, so that as new opportunities develop' people will be able to take advantage of them. Above all, there is the question of pensions. If there is one thing that is going to stop the development of job sharing it is the effect the job sharing has on pensions. As long as part-time work does not carry appropriate pension rights—it is difficult enough if it only carries proportionate pension rights—there is no hope whatever that more than a handful of men in their middle years are going to consider job sharing, because they simply cannot do it.
So for these two reasons, the opportunity that this directive gives us to change the nature of part-time work being carried out by women, often to their long-term detriment; and the even stronger reason perhaps at the present time, to make part-time job sharing a reality for both men and women in all age groups, with appropriately good conditions, as a Continuing contribution to reducing the total number of unemployed, I do very much hope that the Government will take a root and branch look at their present opposition to this directive and see in what ways they can meet its intentions.
6.12 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I want to do two things this evening. I want, first of all, very much to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and his committee on an excellent report, with which I think we on this side broadly agree. I will say a little about that in a moment. Secondly, I want to explore what I take to be the main objections raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, which are, as we would have expected, the usual alliance of views of the Secretary of State for Employment and a representative group of small businessmen, the Institute of Directors and the rest of the circle of people who go round and round the mulberry tree in Lord North Street.
But before I do that I would like to congratulate the committee. Here I think the Minister was very selective in his quotations. As I understand them, they are saying two things: first, there is no case for the present Government's position, there is no case for outright opposition to this directive. That did not come out in the Minister's speech. Secondly, there may be a case—and here I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said a lot of things with which I would also agree—for some amendment, for some change in the draft of the directive as it exists at the moment; in particular, for some change perhaps in the kind of conditions which appear to be imposed for pension schemes, both occupational voluntary pension schemes and statutory pension schemes. That seems to me to be the general position of the committee. I would go along with that.
The only point at which I would disagree with the committee—I am not sure I have got them right, but I think I have—is that in paragraph 16 they seem to be saying that they would be in favour of a general lowering of the exception limit, so that it would not be absolute and there would be some people in some circumstances who would be, as it were, outside the net. I think that might be all right in the particular case of occupational pension schemes and statutory pensions and national insurance contributions, but I would not want to say that there need to be any exceptions of any kind in respect of, for example, employment protection legislation; I see no justification for that at all.
Therefore, one comes to explore what one takes to be the main objections raised by the Government. As I have listed them and understood them, they are six. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said, there is no discrimination really worth talking about, and that which there is is not very significant. Secondly, if there is any significant discrimination, then workers are not complaining about it; they seem to be perfectly happy with it. Thirdly, in any case, even if they were complaining about it and it did exist, there must be some justification for discrimination, for less than equal treatment, because it costs more to administer the employment of part-time workers. Fourthly, even if that is a little implausible to justify the degree of discrimination which is there, and which is there in the report, you cannot do much about it because it is quite objective; it is related to the relative market values of part-time and full-time workers. Fifthly, even if this is a bit far-fetched, it so happens that if you eliminate it by law you just reduce the number of part-time workers, because, although there is not much of it, it

1355
is so expensive that it will put part-time workers out of a job.
There I think I bow to what I would call the Seear's paradox, or if I can mix my metaphors, the upper and nether millstones of the noble Baroness's argument. I look forward to seeing how the noble Lord the Minister gets out of it when he comes to speak. So, they say, "If we do anything about this we would be reducing employment". Finally, if all else fails, the Government say you cannot do any of this because the Commission, in suggesting this kind of thing, has exceeded its mandate; the original resolution was to facilitate employment of part-time people and it has gone far beyond that. These seem to me to be the six arguments of the Government.
First, the Government say that there is no discrimination worth talking about. The Secretary of State in his letter to the committee, at page 131 of the report, said:
"There is no clear evidence that part-time workers are being unjustly treated."
This kind of approach was repeated by the noble Lord this evening. The trouble is that such statements are exposed by the evidence of this report, most notably by the evidence put in by Professor Hepple, by the Equal Opportunities Commission, by the evidence of the Low Pay Unit, and indeed by research, actually sponsored by the Department of Employment itself, admittedly by the previous Government, encased in the Robertson and Briggs Department of Employment Gazette article of July 1979.
If you put all this evidence together it shows quite significant discrimination; for example, that part-time women get up to 10 per cent. an hour less than full-time women. It is very difficult to believe that all that is due to job classification, as the Minister suggests. It suggests that, so far as the benefits package is concerned, this is usually inferior for part-time workers as against full-time workers; most of them get no sick pay, no holidays or pensions, or significantly less than those of full-time workers. It suggests that they are the first to be declared redundant irrespective of how long they happen to be employed. We do not need research for this because the Government admit it. There is a whole range of statutory rights, employment protection rights, redundancy payments and so on, where part-time workers below an arbitrary threshold which has never been defended, are excluded from all legal rights.
So it seems to me that the mere publication of this report destroys the first leg of the Government's argument, that there is no discrimination worth talking about. So they must rely upon the second of their five or six defences, that nobody is complaining. Once again the Secretary of State in his letter to the committee said that such differences as exist are,
"a fact which part-time workers are ready to accept as a consequence of the nature of their work. In our view, arrangements between part-time workers and their employers are best left for voluntary agreement either individually or through collective bargaining."
My Lords, it is tempting to say, how does he know? It is tempting to ask, do they have an alternative?
The fact is, as the noble Baroness said, that we are dealing for the most part here with ghetto areas of the labour force, with groups who are extremely difficult
1356
to organise, to unionise, and which need statutory protection. If the argument that the people who suffer these things are not complaining were to be generally accepted, we would never have abolished slavery, we would never have established the trade laws for sweated industries, which the Government are about to abolish, and we would never have taken children from the mines. Of course, just because people are not complaining it does not mean they are not suffering. That is no kind of argument at all when one is dealing with these areas of the labour force.
We come to the third argument, the third defence, that it costs more to administer part-timers and, therefore, one cannot expect to have parity. Once more I refer to the Secretary of State's letter which he sent to the committee. This is presumably what is behind the Secretary of State's somewhat delphic references to "sound economic and commercial reasons." That, presumably, is what he means. There are several answers. First, how does it come about that these sound economic and commercial reasons precisely mirror the size of the gap? How do they precisely establish the fact that, for example, in general terms one sees a 10 per cent. wage difference between part-time and full-time women workers? How do these administrative extra costs justify the absence of sick pay? How could they possibly justify the total exclusion from all forms of statutory unemployment and sickness benefit anyone who earns less than £32·50 a week?
There are two points to make about the relative costs of employing part-time rather than full-time workers. The first is—once again one must take up the drift of the Minister's argument—that there is now a considerable body of research, much of it listed in this excellent report, by people such as Robinson, Robertson and Briggs, Hakin, Morley and Sawbridge, and so on, which totally takes away any mystery about why British employers are employing more and more part-time workers. It is a consequence of changes in the structure of British industry and of a move away from manual work in the heavy industries towards distribution and commerce, and so on. It is a function of the fact that in those industries there are substantial technological and organisational advantages to employers in a move toward part-time labour; that part-time labour provides for flexible extended hours coverage; that part-time labour results in lower rates in absence and turnover, especially in dull, routine jobs, and that part-time labour appears to produce higher rates of productivity over a wide area. Indeed, research from other countries—for example, Denmark and the Netherlands—indicates that these advantages to employers survive when rates of pay and benefits are equalised. There is no mystery about this and the general drift of the body of research is against the Minister.
The second point to make is that where we can get details—and often we cannot, particularly from objectors to the general drift of the directive—of the costs of removing discrimination, as the noble Baroness said and as the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, said, they turn out to be trifling. For example, on page xv of the report we are told:
"The biggest single employer of part-time workers is probably the Public Sector … preliminary estimates from the Management and Personnel Office indicate that they would add less than 1 per cent. to the pension bill and that overall 'the cost' "—

1357
that is, the overall cost of carrying out the directive—
" 'would probably be minimal.' "
Again, if we take the representatives of Sainsbury and Barclays Bank who gave evidence to the committee, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, their evidence is that the overall cost would be trifling, which is not to say that it would not be significant for the individuals concerned.
One must admit that all this contrasts sharply with the much more alarmist suggestions of the Institute of Directors, the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses, the Mail Order Traders Association or the Secretary of State himself. In that letter he said,
"Our consultations have confirmed that the effect of the directive would be to increase employers' costs and decrease industry's efficiency"—
a magnificent non-sequitur—
"thus resulting in a reduction in the number of part-time vacancies available and an increase in unemployment".
There are several things one could say about that. The first obvious point is that it just shows who the present Secretary of State consults. We know he does not consult the TUC. Apparently he does not consult Sainsbury. Apparently he does not open the letters he gets from Barclays Bank; and apparently he does not ask his own Management and Personnel Office in the Treasury, which says, and it is the biggest single employer, that the overall cost is trifling. So who does he consult? Consultation like this is a bit like the practice we are told used to occur in the last days of Hitler in the bunker. Hitler would get up every morning and send out for good news. He would say to the generals, "And don't come back until you get some." That is the sort of consultation that the Secretary of State wants—consultation with the Institute of Directors and the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses and the Mail Order Traders Association who agree with him but, unfortunately, have absolutely no figures to support what they say.
Secondly, it just shows the level of economic analysis which is a great fall away from the good days of the Department of Employment when I used to know it. This is worth a word or two. Every first year economic student knows that even if labour costs rise, and even if they rise significantly, it does not follow automatically that one has an employment effect. It depends on the extent of the cost increase, on whether labour costs are a high proportion of total costs, which they often are not in this area; it depends on whether they can be offset or whether they feed into prices; it depends on whether prices rise and that affects product demand, and on whether the fall in demand is transmitted to labour demand. But most important of all, it depends on whether the employer decides to have the increase in cost measured in terms of an employment effect or in terms of a wage effect.
If the Secretary of State came to us and said, "The trouble with this is that it will not benefit these poor God-forsaken women, because all that will happen is that if, by statute, you impose an additional cost on the employer all he will do is not give them a wage increase next year, both men and women". In other words, there will be a price-wage effect rather than an employment effect. That would be implausible, but his
1358
economic logic would at least be defensible. But no, he does not tell us about the extent of the cost increases or the amount of the offset. He just assumes automatically that this will be an employment effect. I suggest that any first year economic student who handed in an essay of that kind would be asked what he had read. Therefore, on these grounds we cannot defend the Government's defence number four, that discrimination is limited to the difference in market values—there is no evidence that it is—or defence number five, that to eliminate by law would necessarily undermine employment.
We come to the final, the sixth, justification; the sixth veil which surrounds the Secretary of State or the Minister, that even if all this is so we cannot do it because the Commission has exceeded its mandate. Indeed, somewhere buried away in this report—I apologise to the House because I cannot find it—some chap who came along to the committee actually said that it was against the Treaty of Rome. I think that is good. This little thing is against the Treaty of Rome or, in the words of the Secretary of State, such proposals would be contrary to the declared aims of the Council's resolution. That is the ultimate disingenuousness. It is only true if one accepts the Government's own unlikely scenario; that there is an iron link between marginal increases in labour costs and the rate of unemployment; that there is no possibility of a price-wage effect or of the cost being absorbed; that this wipes out all the advantages and, therefore, one cannot protect any worker or any group of workers—this is the logic—however much they may be, as the noble Baroness said, ghetto workers, working in a ghetto. This is put forward as laissez faire economics.
That type of argument was rejected by Marshall. Even Marshall was in favour of protecting workers in ghetto situations. These people go back to before Marshall. That is the approach which has led to the Young Workers' Scheme, when millions of pounds of public money has been showered down without evidence of one extra job. That is the logic behind attempts to drive down the training rate of the Youth Training Scheme; that is the logic behind the threat to abolish wages councils and the fair wage resolutions depite our obligations to the ILO; and that, of course, is the philosophy which underlies much of the determination of the present Secretary of State to press on with the grandson of the 1980 Employment Act. Those of us who do not live in the dark ages and who do not subscribe to this broken doctrine, have no reason to agree with the Government.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I rise to speak in this debate with very considerable diffidence when I look at the expertise of the other Members of your Lordships' House who have put down their names to contribute, because I can certainly claim no expert knowledge. However, as a member of Sub-Committee 'C, I found the subject a fascinating one and I should like to pay my tribute to the way in which my noble friend Lord Seebohm guided us through our deliberations of what is really a rather complicated matter, and to the way in which he has so succinctly put the main considerations affecting this draft directive in his speech this evening.

1359
I am afraid that I find it difficult to speak with quite the same enthusiasm about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, however, elegant its phraseology. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I was rather puzzled at reconciling two of the main elements of that speech: one, that there is nothing really wrong at the moment at all and there is no evidence of abuse but, secondly, that it would ruin industry to correct the abuses which do not seem to exist. I wait with some interest for the end of the debate to hear the Government's explanation of how these two are reconciled.
I must say that I personally began with some prejudice against the directive. I cannot help thinking sometimes that in this country there are rather too many restrictions already on the use of labour, and at the start I wondered whether this was another effort by the Brussels bureaucrats, with their passion for harmonisation, to go in for even more restrictions when there was no real need. But the more evidence we heard—and I began to doubt a little in the earlier speech whether the noble Lord's advisors had really read the evidence—the more I became persuaded that there was a real issue here and that the Commission proposal had rather more to it than I had originally appreciated.
The figures which the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, quoted at the beginning of this debate show how important—and increasingly important—part-time work is in this country; and the question of how this very considerable section of the community is to be treated raises issues which simply cannot be swept under the carpet.
Some of the difficulties in going down the path signposted by the draft directive speak for themselves. Everyone would agree that it must be right to look very carefully, and to look more than once, at anything which might increase the costs of employers at the present time and possibly—although I take Lord McCarthy's point—as a result put existing jobs at risk. Looking at the draft directive itself, I am sure that there would be general agreement that not all the articles would do as they stand.
It was of some interest, though, as regards the visit to Strasbourg to which the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, has already referred, that we met representatives of the Commission who made it clear that they had already taken aboard some of the criticisms made of the draft in the report that we are discussing this evening, and seemed prepared to accept the validity of at any rate some of them. I am well aware that other countries have also been filing in observations and suggested changes, and that not all the suggested alterations may in the end turn out to be of advantage from our point of view. It is no good denying that there are, indeed, formidable problems in accepting what the draft directive proposes, either in its present form or in the form in which it might later take shape. But there are very important considerations pointing the other way.
A good deal of the evidence we received suggests that the extra expense involved, and the risks of actually curtailing employment, may not be as great as is sometimes suggested—for example, in the propaganda we have all had from the CBI. It is fairly clear that many of the large firms are already well within the intentions of the directive, and that the
1360
extra cost of implementing the main provisions of the directive would not be all that great. It is also not to be overlooked, as has been pointed out, that the directive is concerned only with those employed under a rather formal agreement, and is not aimed at the casual worker, the seasonal worker or the self-employed.
Quite often, too, the simple fact is that there is a genuine need for a part-timer to do a particular job and that it just does not make economic sense, or any other type of sense, to employ someone full-time to do a part-time job or to do away with a job which needs to be done. Certainly the prospects of getting a wider use of job sharing would be enhanced if conditions of service for the part-timer were improved. I am sorry that the noble Lord did not comment on this very important point which the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm made, but I expect that he will do so when he comes to reply to the debate.
It is no good blinking the fact, though, that there is a problem in relation to some of the small firms on whose prospects the economy is greatly dependent. One particular aspect of the problem relates to Article 3 of the directive which has been mentioned and which deals with social security benefits. With us, the threshold for national insurance is calculated on the basis of pay, not hours (unlike the entitlement to redundancy pay) and the threshold, at £32·50 a week, as it soon will be, is pretty high. Article 3 is drafted in such terms that our arrangements would be acceptable under the directive as I understand it, but the fact remains that the figure at which the threshold is fixed, and the consideration that if you step over the threshold you are then in the national insurance scheme 100 per cent., results in a considerable distortion of the part-time labour force.
Hours and rates of pay may well be adjusted to make sure that the employee is paid below the national insurance figure so that there is no national insurance contribution to pay, but no national insurance benefits to be received either, apart I suppose from industrial injuries benefit. It was for that kind of reason that the report urges the DHSS to undertake a review of the present scheme at the bottom end and to consider whether there is perhaps some prospect of altering it so that those near or below the threshold pay a reduced amount and become entitled proportionately to reduced benefits. We realised well enough that this could mean extra administrative costs and the further complication of a scheme which is not at present characterised by undue simplicity, and we were not so foolish as to think that a solution could be worked out overnight. But the present position is not satisfactory, and there are many people involved. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has already pointed out, entitlement to pension will be absolutely crucial if the job-sharing scheme is to develop.
Then there is the problem about occupational pensions. Article 3 of the draft directive should anyway be amended to make it clear that there is no obligation to provide even better treatment for the part-timer than for the full-timer. I gather that there is some pressure from other countries that the provision about occupational pensions ought to be cut out of the draft altogether. But if it is kept, and if it is altered to make provision simply that the part-timer should be entitled, in proportion, to the same rights as the full-time employee, it would mean that there would be new

1361
burdens on employers, whether or not the scheme was contributory. If it was contributory, then the employees would have to pay more, and certainly many would be reluctant to do so.
This problem clearly would not arise in the very many small firms which do not have their own occupational schemes. Where it would arise it is anyway for consideration whether this is not a price which should properly be paid for improving the lot of the part-time worker in a particularly important respect. In my mind there is not very much doubt that some improvement is necessary as a further instalment on our long history of labour legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, argued that the directive would militate against the flexibility which currently holds the field. But flexibility to do what? To continue to employ on a considerable scale—hundreds of thousands of people—people who fall outside the law protecting employment? To get by with giving a lower rate of pay? To bypass the legislation about sex discrimination and equal pay? To avoid giving proportionate access to sick pay, holidays and the use of social amenities? To ensure that there is no entitlement to national insurance benefits?
Other countries, we know, have doubts about some of the provisions in the directive and want to see changes, but, as I understand it, we are the only country which so far has taken a root and branch objection to the whole directive. I wonder whether it is right that this is a proposal on which we should remain the odd man out, and I hope that the Government will think again about their stance. I believe that they should.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has raised some interesting points on the various articles, but as, like my noble friend, I am opposed to the directive as a whole, I am sure he will forgive me if I do not follow him on those points. I am a director of companies which employ a large number of part-time workers and to that extent, of course, I declare an interest. But I am expressing an entirely personal view in the points that I raise and they are not necessarily those of the companies to which I have referred.
The purpose of the directive is to assimilate the rights of part-time workers with those of full-time workers. It is well intentioned, but, like my noble friend on the Front Bench, I believe that it will cause most damage to those whom it is intended to benefit. We in this country are particularly vulnerable. As has been pointed out, we have the highest proportion of part-timers within the Community, with the exception of Denmark. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, on the work that his committee put in and I found the report very readable, although, as your Lordships will hear, I am unable to agree with its conclusions. The conclusion reached by the committee was that there was a need for legislation. I do not agree and I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Glenarthur and the Government do not agree, either.
The opinions expressed divide into two groups. First, there are those in favour of the directive who, with great respect to your Lordships, largely appear to
1362
be from the academic school. There are those—and this appears from the evidence—opposed to the directive who, in the main, are the employers. Indeed, my noble friend said that the Government had widely consulted employers and that they were unanimously opposed to the directive. I find almost surprising and somewhat disappointing the arrogance—and I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me but I use the term "arrogance" in no personal sense—with which the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and some others from the academic world think that they know so much more about the problems facing industry and commerce than those who spend their lifetime engaged in it. It is a somewhat recurring theme. I found it disappointing that in the report so little weight appeared to be given to the arguments of those who were opposed to the directive.
First, we had the evidence of the CBI. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, refer to the evidence of those opposed, saying that they were small groups going round and round the mulberry tree of Lord North Street, I hardly think that that would be a description that he would wish to apply to the CBI, which represents such a large part of British industry and commerce. At page 32 they say:
"this proposal could undermine the competitiveness of some enterprises and would, therefore, reduce the ability and willingness of enterprises to provide more opportunities for part-time employment. The proposal has no apparent relevance to its original aim of reducing unemployment in the Community"—
and so on.
Then we come to the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Limited. I quote from their evidence at page 41:
"There is little point in making part-time work more attractive to employees if, by doing so, it is made less attractive to employers".
How right they are. The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, referred to the evidence given by Barclays Bank and to the additional costs which they stated they would incur, as being minimal. As is shown in their evidence on page 51, it is an increase of 1 per cent. on their salary bill or some £4 million. I do not consider that to be minimal, even with a very large company, particularly when their evidence goes on to say, as it does:
"I do not think that it would lead us to employ more or fewer".
In fact, it would have no impact at all upon the level of employment of the part-time worker.
Then there was the evidence of GEC Telecommunications Limited, and I quote from page 113:
"We believe the Directive interferes unnecessarily with things which are currently easily settled between employers and employees and that it is likely to create more problems than it will solve".
I turn to the Retail Consortium; very large employers of part-time workers—or their members are. From page 143, the directive,
"may well have the effect of making part-time employment uneconomic, increasing the costs of retail enterprises, and jeopardising the full-time jobs of workers in those enterprises where flexibility is required in order to maintain a competitive service—a flexibility which necessitates the employment of a certain proportion of part-time staff."
The Institute of Directors, on page 158;
"The Institute of Directors is in no doubt that the proposed Directive should be utterly opposed by the UK Government."
It goes on to give the reasons.

1363
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, quoted Sainsbury's, and implied that Sainsbury's saw benefits in the directive. What he omitted to say was that in their evidence—and I think this comes on page 38 of the report—they said that it could cost another 3·3 per cent. on the total labour costs full-time and part-time. I do not believe that those can be looked upon as being insignificant costs; they would have to be passed on to the ultimate customer, unless there are some real benefits to be gained from incurring them.
Every employer, and employer organisation, that gave evidence was either strongly against the directive or, at the best, said that it would produce no benefit to unemployment. We cannot fly in the face of such advice. These are the people giving evidence, or members of the association that put in evidence, who provide the jobs. I do not believe that their advice should be disregarded in favour of advice from academics or university professors, however distinguished they may be, but who have less practical experience of working in operations which involve a large number of part-time workers.
Your Lordships will probably recall the Employment Protection Act 1975.I believe that many of your Lordships will agree that that Act cost far more jobs than any other single measure in recent years. It was amended in 1980. The directive would reverse the benefit that came from the amendments made in 1980. The directive could have a savage impact upon the small firms. I will not attempt to go over the evidence included in the report to show what weight of support there is for the argument that the small firms would suffer substantially from this.
The directive would add significantly to bureaucracy. It would add to the administrative costs of companies. The only benefit for employment would be the additional bureaucrats involved. I was told today of a large company which, in one department alone, has 70 separate forms of contract for part-time workers. They said how impossible it would be to try to introduce proportionality, or profit sharing, for each of those contracts which covered such an enormous range of different operations. You may suggest, for example, that a part-time worker may have to be paid more than a whole-time worker if travelling costs, late-night working and such, absorb a greater proportion of the take-home pay. There are countless permutations. In one department there are 70 different special conditions which apply to people in that department.
I shall not repeat the arguments which have been put forward in the report, or which have been so well put forward by my noble friend. I believe that we should tell the Commission to concentrate on areas which will increase employment and stop interfering in relations between employers and part-time workers which are very satisfactory, and the terms of which have been satisfactorily settled between the parties direct.
There is a final point prompted by Lord McCarthy's reference to the constitutional issue, or to the powers under the Treaty of Rome. It is made—I think well made—in the Institute of Directors' submission in paragraph 14. Their objection to the directive being brought in under, I think, Articles 100 and 117, is
1364
correct. I shall not pursue that, because my objection to the directive is on its merits or, perhaps I should say, on its lack of merits.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say this. The noble Lord has referred to my reference to Sainsbury's. Would he agree with me that if you read the report carefully, what the representative of Sainsbury's was saying—and this is on page 38—is that his assumptions of 3·3 per cent. were of the worst kind; that is to say, nocontracting-out of his own pension scheme and no statutory scheme?—both assumptions which are in fact quite false.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, of course I agree with that. I said "could". I accept fully what the noble Lord says that as the directive is at the moment on the most adverse interpretation it could add 3·3 per cent. to the total. I fully accept that.
6.57 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, it is apparent that we are debating a difficult issue. Whatever the demerits of your sub-committee's reports may be, obscurity is not among them. I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, in expressing my thanks, and I am sure those of other committee members, to the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, the committee's chairman, for the skill and ability with which he guided our discussions. I found the speech of the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, narrow, disappointing and depressing. He referred to what he called the pragmatic view of the Government that nothing is wrong, and also stated that little is known about part-time workers. Yet he did not hesitate to make confident and highly speculative assertions about the effect of implementing proportionality between full-and part-time workers upon the willingness of employers to employ part-time workers.
However, I do not wish to discuss the details and present day problems. To the regret of the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, I am an academic person and I intend to inflict an academic commentary, mercifully short, upon your Lordships. I wish to stand back from the immediate issue and provide a perspective from which I think one can make a commentary upon the Government's view of the report. I start with a silent demographic revolution which has taken place during the last 50 years. There have been changes in the sex ratio. The surplus of unmarriageable women has disappeared. There are now more men in the marriageable age groups than there are women. We have more marriage. We have a high propensity to marry. We have younger marriage. All this, associated with the continuing habit of mild reproduction which has become firmly established, has had the result that extremes of family size have been eliminated. Very importantly, we have been engaged in the process that the Registrar-General calls compressing our fertility, by which he means that nowadays the very large majority of babies are born in the very early years of their parents' marriage. And there has been a considerable increase in the duration of marriage, with one major result: in the past, women, if they were lucky, got a husband, he fathered upon them the maximum number of children they were physiologically capable

1365
of bearing, and they reared them and died. Nowadays, the average mother has 20 to 25 years of active adult life after her youngest child has reached school-leaving age.
Those demographic changes have resulted in fundamental changes in women's entry into the labour market and in their occupational experience. First, there is the myth that women came into the labour market only as a result of the two world wars. In fact, women have constituted 30 per cent, of the country's labour force for the last 130 years, a proportion which has now risen to more than 40 per cent. In other words, more than 40 per cent. of our labour force is made up of women.
On the eve of Hitler's war, only 10 per cent. of women in the labour force were married. The remainder were out at work between leaving school, younger than they do today, and getting married, later than they do today, and when they got married they withdrew from work altogeher. Today, almost two-thirds of women workers are married, and the pattern of women's work is that a high proportion of women are at work in their late teens; the proportion falls steadily during the process of family building; in their 20s and early 30s, it then rises again as the children go to school and become reared, with a situation in which two-thirds of women aged 42 or more are back at work, and there they continue, their numbers dropping slowly until the age of retirement.
It is against that background that we have to see the huge increase in part-time work in the last 30 years, to which the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, referred in the opening part of his speech. The number of women part-time workers—83 per cent. of all part-time workers are women—has increased four fold since 1951, and it stands now at some 3½ million. Although there are only 700,000 male part-time workers today, their number has grown sixfold in the last 30 years, and the committee were told that as many men as women were now prepared to take part-time work.
I set out those figures in order to make the same point, from a slightly different angle, that was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. What we are here looking at is a core development in the so-called emancipation of women. For the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, changes in the industrial structure and in the demand for labour have resulted in an increased need for part-time workers. This increased need has coincided with demographic and social developments which have brought women, as part-time workers, in large numbers because part-time work enables them to adapt the process of family building to the needs frequently of their families for a supplementary income during the period when children are at their most expensive.
Therefore, just at the point of time when Victorian emancipation—that is, the achievement of formal legal equality—was coming to an end, in the 1950s, very large numbers of women were going on to the labour market in their mid to late 30s, and they were going to stay there, on a part-time or full-time basis, for 20 years or more. There they were in a society which promised them equality, which said they were equal, but which gave them a grim taste of the inequality of the labour market, in which two-thirds of all women were doing unskilled work for rates of pay running at two-thirds of those of the lowest paid men.
1366
That seems to me to be the situation against which we must view our discussion of part-time work. Somehow or other we must find a social capacity to draw out the consequences of the new relationship between motherhood and work which became widely visible in the 1960s. Our failure so far to do that is why the movement for emancipation has resulted not in satisfaction but in a demand for liberation.
There are, therefore, reasons enough for the importance which your committee attached to the problem of part-time work. What I think has emerged from the debate that is relevant to what I have been saying is that there is not one cost of dealing with part-time work; there is, of course, a cost to the employer of increasing the real costs of employing part-time workers by treating them proportionally with full-time workers. But the other cost is the social cost of women workers. It is the social cost of providing half of the population, who have a very much harder life than men, with an adequate and dignified means of discharging their dual role as mothers and workers.
The committee's report undoubtedly demonstrates that there is inequality, and there is certainly, from the evidence which the committee received, a strong feeling among part-time workers and the bodies which represent them that they are being treated in accordance with a double standard of occupational morality. That, I think, is the fundamental case—albeit perhaps an academic one—for justifying the acceptance, not necessarily of the directive in the terms in which it is issued from the Commission, but of its basic principle.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I must apologise to the House and to my noble friend Lord Seebohm for not being in the Chamber at the very beginning of his speech. I wonder whether he dealt with what I consider to be the most misleading title of this debate. When I looked at it yesterday morning I thought that it related to meals-on-wheels, social services visits, and that kind of thing. It was only after a fortuitous meeting that I discovered otherwise. As I was walking along the Embankment yesterday morning coming to the House I met a member of the staff of the Institute of Directors, and he drew my attention to what in fact the directive is really about, which is how to deal with all part-time workers in paid employment. I am quite certain that quite a number of other Members of your Lordships' House were under a similar misunderstanding. I know at least one noble Lord on the Benches opposite, with whom I talked today, who had not realised the implications of the debate, and I am quite certain that he would have taken part in it had he known them. So I complain that the debate's title, relating to voluntary part-time workers, has been extraordinarily misleading to us; in particular to those of us on the Cross-Benches who do not have the staff to support our researches.
Having said that, I want to say that I am not an academic and am rather astounded at the way that the academics whom we have heard so far seem to have neglected what I think is the most important, the greatest, priority that we must look at today, which is the huge figure of unemployment in the country. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of

1367
Durris, I would say, yes, in a good world where there is plenty of employment I would entirely agree with what he had said. But when we are trying to reduce the enormous figure of 3½ million unemployed, or whatever it is—it might be less today, under the new counting system—even to think of entering into, or supporting, a directive such as this is, to my mind, quite astonishing. Therefore, I say that I support entirely the speech of my noble kinsman on the Front Bench and the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Boardman. They have looked at the problem with realism—which is very different from the academic point of view.
By listening to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, I was very tempted to follow the theme that I have pursued more than once in your Lordships' House about married women and about how better it would be if we could persuade them not to stay in full-time employment. But I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, that I do not propose to follow that theme this evening. No, my Lords, my theme is that of the problem of small businesses. The report itself states, in the introduction, at the top of page xii:
"The evidence received suggests that a high percentage of part-time employees work in small firms. It also appears that small firms have an above average proportion of part-time employees".
I emphasise small firms—not Barclays, not Sainsbury's, not the public services—which at the moment offer the only hope of quickly providing more jobs; unless the Government can be persuaded to follow some of the recommendations of the Select Committee on long-term remedies for unemployment. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, that one of his recommendations could be implemented very easily and fairly cheaply so as now to bring about a certain reduction in unemployment.
But apart from that, it is only the small firms that will produce the extra jobs, and if they are to do that, they must not be encumbered with the disincentives that appear in the scheme that we are considering. Small firms cannot be expected to apply the Employment Protection Acts of the last decade in the way that large firms can apply them, in particular with regard to redundancy payments, maternity pay, and so forth. If they are expected to do that—-and the draft directive would seem to imply that they should be compelled to do it—not only will they fail to expand, but very likely they will even lay off some of their present employees; and that is something that we must avoid at all costs.
The decade of the 1970s was the decade of employment protection, and I do not think that it is fortuitous—I believe that here I am following the noble Lord, Lord Boardman—when I say that that decade has shown an enormous increase in unemployment. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, that the Employment Protection Acts of 1975 and 1978 are very much to blame for that. Luckily, in their Employment Act 1980 the present Government reduced the effect that the earlier Acts had on very small businesses—businesses with fewer than 20 employees. Personally, I should like to see the maximum limit raised to nearer 50 employees. But it would seem that if implemented, the draft directive would compel the Government to do away with that small relief, which I do not think can be contemplated with relish by any small employer.
1368
So I feel that the Government are quite right to state their objections to the directive. Let them amend the directive so that it affects the Barclays and the Sainsburys of this world. That is all right; they can cope. And as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, there could even be amendments to help the worksharing which is now being developed. But I hope the Government will stand firm in not allowing such a directive to be applied to the small firms in our country.
7.20 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I should like to welcome the report and to thank the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and the members of his committee for the very detailed way in which they approached their task. I agree with their broad conclusions, and I also agree with some of their recommendations on the tightening up on some of the draft articles in the directive. I have a reservation. I would go even further than they do when they enter doubts that this particular draft directive may not provide a workable balance for us in this country. I would suggest that it does provide a workable balance.
When I read the report and the evidence that had been submitted, I wondered on occasions whether there was not some confusion about the purpose of such a directive and the purpose of some of the articles included in the draft. I must also confess that, listening to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, I had to wonder whether or not there was not some confusion in his mind about the purpose of the directive. He talked about regulations. A draft directive or a directive does not impose regulations. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, a directive is intended to set out a general purpose and general principles, and then it is left to individual countries to adapt those principles to their own institutions and statutory provisions. As I read the draft directive, I thought it had taken aboard this approach with some sensitivity.
As I looked at the evidence, too, on a number of occasions I wondered whether there was some misunderstanding about the growth behind part-time employment during the past two decades. There have been two parallel and complementary developments taking place simultaneously. In the first place, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said, there has been a change in the structure of industry. In the manufacturing sector there has been the introduction of new methods and new machinery, and of new techniques, which have required a growth in the shift system. In the service sector there has in itself been a tremendous growth, but there has also been a growth in jobs requiring less than a normal full day's work. In other words, this growth and this change in industry has produced its own specification, and that is a specification for part-time work.
Economic reasons, and all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Spens, has been referring to, may bring about a decrease in the demand for labour, both full-time and part-time. But I think it is a fact that improving conditions of part-time workers will not in itself necessarily reduce demand for part-time workers. I think it was the noble lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who said that it would really be a very expensive exchange if we were to replace a person who

1369
was doing a part-time job with a person who was available full-time.
The second development that there has been, as the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, has said, is the emergence of a hidden resource; in other words, married women seeking to return to the labour market. It we look at some of the factors surrounding this return of married women to the labour market, we find a number of pointers. Currently, almost by definition, part-time work means married women workers. The report says—and some noble Lords have referred to this fact—that 84 per cent. of part-time workers are women. If we look at those workers between the ages of 16 and 59, or 16 and 64, whose main employment is part-time, then we find that of this group 95 per cent. are women. This is 95 per cent. of part-time workers whose main work is part-time; not those who are doing peripheral work, perhaps an extra job in the evening. The statistics show that these women are most frequently working between 17 and 24 hours per week.
The second factor is the demographic factor: that part-time employment for women is the time when they have had their children and they are seeking to return to the labour market. Of all the women working part-time at the present time, all but 7 per cent. have had at least one break in their employment pattern for child-rearing. Therefore, we can say that part-time work is related to family formation. If we look at the statistics, we find that 47 per cent. of part-time workers are women with children between 5 and 9 years old. If we look at the number of married women with no dependent children, we find that 42 per cent. of them are working full-time. Therefore, there is this pattern emerging of married women using part-time employment as an intermediary in their full-time employment pattern—full-time before having their children, then part-time and then full-time again. This is particularly so of the current generation of young mothers.
I would suggest that there is a need—a social need and a very real need—to protect the employment of these women, and to help them build up their pension rights. In this House we are fully aware of the difficulties in relation to marriage breakdown these days. It is a fact that the lifestyles of most families are now based on two incomes. This means two incomes in times of employment and two incomes in times of retirement. Therefore, it is important to ensure that this period of part-time employment for married women is an integral part of their employment pattern, and that it does not prejudice their opportunities for protection in their own right and their opportunities for earning a pension in their own right.
The third factor is, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, have said, that part-time work is associated with low pay. One of the objectives of the directive—and the directive is part of a package that is coming out of Europe—is to encourage other groups to come into the category of part-time employment. Other groups will be encouraged into this category only if the provisions are right. Therefore, I suggest that the development of part-time work underlines two needs: the first is to open up more opportunities for part-time work in
1370
more highly skilled areas. Many of the women who are working part-time are now having to work at a level below their skills and training because part-time employment is not available in the high levels. I hope that in looking at job sharing schemes we can concentrate on this aspect of providing part-time employment in other areas and in other levels of jobs.
The second need is to recognise the significance of part-time employment in the labour force. When we are talking about 20 per cent. of the labour force who are in part-time employment, we are not talking about an insignificant sector. The Employment Protection Act to some extent helped to recognise this significance. The draft directive would take us further. The draft directive that we are considering is not something which is going to apply to this country only; it is of course something that would apply to the whole of the Community.
Those who gave evidence and said that there was no indication of discrimination against part-time employees—and I include the Minister in this category because he said it, too—I suggest are ignoring the facts of the situation: the statistical evidence that is available and the case law under the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equal Pay Act. On two important aspects they have shown that there is unlawful discrimination against part-time workers. I regret very much that the Government have taken the attitude that they have towards this directive. I suggest to them that by changing the method of collecting and collating statistics we are not going to change the facts. The facts of the situation are that there is still this reserve of labour, these married women who, even if they are not included in the unemployment statistics, are still there.
The noble Lord, Lord Spens, said that the most important job was to solve the unemployment problem. These married women, the part-time workers, are part of that unemployment problem. If we pretend that they are not there, we are hiding our heads in the sand. Incidentally, we are, of course, adding to the cost of family income supplement and supplementary benefits because where these women cannot get employment the families might have to resort to these benefits.
The Government have recently introduced a job splitting scheme. That would have been an excellent opportunity for us to take on board the principles in the draft directive. I very much regret that the job splitting scheme has made no concessions at all to the status of part-time employment. It has not in any way tried to enhance the status of part-time employment. Indeed, it could prejudice the protection of those people under the Employment Protection Act if they move into job splitting schemes. It certainly could complicate pension arrangements. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, we are not going to encourage men into part-time employment or into job splitting schemes unless their pension arrangements are safeguarded. Of course, the new job splitting schemes totally exclude those married women who have been shown to be in the greatest need of part-time employment.
I suggest that instead of taking advantage of an opportunity to recognise the principles in the draft directive and link them with the job splitting proposals, we seem to have gone in the opposite

1371
direction. For all these reasons, I hope that the Government will look very seriously at the report from the Select Committee and see whether they can add their weight to the introduction of such a directive in Europe.
7.36 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I want to deal with only one aspect of the subject under discussion tonight. It is the importance of providing greater opportunities for part-time work for qualified married women. I stress the word "qualified". I raised this matter in a Wednesday debate about 10 years ago, and fortunately I was able to combine the Motion with one proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who was then a senior Minister. After the debate he very greatly improved the conditions for married women working in the Civil Service. Although I had the full support of noble Baronesses in the House, I never subsequently managed to get any real interest from the industrial Peers and to make some impact in their field. Later, with unemployment rising, the climate was much less propitious, and I am afraid that I did not continue the campaign.
Apart from a few women who put a career beyond any other considerations, most will I think agree that if they start a family there is a period when they cannot and should not work at all; then there is a time when they could work part-time, followed, if they so wish, by a return to a full-time career. If we do not accept this, we are losing a high proportion of those who have been given expensive training at university—and I include some of our most able citizens. The same of course applies to other skilled persons.
However, there is much more to this matter. Many women are better wives and mothers if they have work and interests outside the home and can use their abilities. There have been too many changes in their absence from work to make it easy to return unless they can get part-time work quickly as soon as they can work at all. There is, however, another aspect to the usefulness of part-time working. With motivation, almost as much can be achieved in four hours as it can in eight. It used to be said that part-time teaching or nursing was impossible; but later it was accepted. Part-time research was unthinkable. If this is true, most university professors and lecturers are ineffective researchers. One can easily go on with the list. For example, what about a really able part-time secretary working in the morning and one less able working in the afternoon? Then the chances of having no secretary at one time are very much reduced.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Spens, thinks that with unemployment as it is, a woman's place is in the home; but let us look for a moment at the statistics. There are now over 4 million part-time workers in Britain, 83 per cent. of whom are women; and the general trend is increasing. I am sure we cannot possibly discriminate against this. In fact, by accepting at least some of the EEC recommendations and improving conditions for part-time work, it could well be that more full-time workers would decide in favour of part-time work; and this of course would help the unemployment situation. Moreover, if it costs the Government in all something like £5,000 a year when
1372
a person is unemployed, they could in some areas gain the benefit of improved service and still have something in hand by introducing a quota of part-time workers. Teachers are a case in point, because smaller classes are desirable and there would be little or no added infrastructure such as larger buildings or the purchase of materials involved. That would seem to be one answer to getting more people working usefully at no cost to the Exchequer.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may answer some of the questions which have been raised in the debate, which I think has been a very interesting one. Many very sound remarks have been made, although I am afraid I cannot promise that the Government will necessarily change their minds in the light of what has been said. However, I am quite certain that my right honourable friend will take note of all the points that have been raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, referred to other member states and their attitudes to the directive, and it might be helpful if I tell him that I think perhaps he was slightly out of date in that at least three or four other countries share the United Kingdom's reservations about the proposals: they are, Germany, Denmark, Holland and, to some extent, Ireland. The noble Lord also talked, as did others, about the job-splitting scheme. I will talk a little more about that later; but of course that scheme is aimed at encouraging more part-time work and is fully consistent with the Government's policy.
The Government are against the directive because they believe it will reduce the opportunities for part-time work. It is as simple as that, and I think the Government have been supported in a very helpful way by my noble friend Lord Boardman and by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, in this regard. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Allen, indicated that there was some inconsistency in what I have said. There is, my Lords, little evidence of unjust equal treatment of part-timers. The directive seeks to give proportionate treatment in all circumstances, regardless of commercial and economic considerations. The Government believe that this will lead, again, to less part-time work being made available.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, in his usual eloquent way, tackled the Government on the six "legs" by which he claimed we did not agree with the directive. So far as discrimination is concerned, the Government do not claim that there is no unjust discrimination but they feel that the effect of the directive would be to tip the balance too far in favour of employee protection, to the detriment of part-time work.
There have been many arguments advocated this evening about the need for further protection of part-time workers. In respect of the unemployment situation, the Government believe that part-time workers should have broadly the same rights to protection as other workers. However, we also believe that before acquiring rights, employees need to show a reasonable level of commitment, and there is therefore a minimum hours qualification. One form of protection that part-time workers could avail themselves of

1373
is membership of a trade union, and at the present time only one in four or five part-time workers belong to trade unions. That is perhaps a question more for others than for me but, so far as I am aware, there is no bar to part-timers joining a union and I assume that their opportunities in the union are no less than those of full-timers. Protection through membership of a trade union is therefore a matter for personal choice and there is no role for the Government in it.
So far as the cost to employers is concerned, which was another of the points raised by the noble Lord, the Government most certainly did consult with the TUC and have seen evidence from individual employers. It is apparent that the directive would impose the greatest cuts on small employers, as was well demonstrated in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Spens. As the noble Lord said, it is in the area of small businesses that the greatest potential in the economy exists.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, referred to the "insurance trap", which is referred to on page 125 of the report. What I should like to do is to draw the attention of my right honourable friend in the Department of Health and Social Security to the points that he made. So far as occupational schemes are concerned, perhaps I might say that the draft directive, as laid before Parliament, would give part-timers greater rights to access to occupational pension schemes than full-time workers. It would oblige employers to admit part-timers to their schemes even in circumstances where full-time workers are excluded, irrespective of their age, health, length of service and so on. This is unacceptable in principle. The aim, we believe, must surely be to give equal, but not better, rights.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am sorry: I did not wish to interrupt the noble Lord, but that was precisely the point I made. I said that the draft as at present drawn was unacceptable and that it ought to be amended to ensure that part-time people were given the same right proportionately, but no better right.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said and for agreeing with that particular part of what I have said. The Department of Health and Social Security have considered also the feasibility of having no threshold for the national insurance scheme, with a sliding scale of contributions based on earnings and hours worked, which was another point which was raised. My right honourable friend would be against such a proposal on the grounds of both principle and practicality in this case.
On the question of principle, the Department of Health and Social Security have a lower earnings limit which is set at the same level as the basic retirement pension so as to ensure that those with minimal earnings do not have to pay contributions. If there was a liability to pay contributions on any earnings, very small sums would become due. That would mean that the Department of Health and Social Security would have to introduce some system of pro rata benefits—those paying a small contribution receive a flat rate benefit at a higher level than their normal weekly pay and at a disproportionate amount to the
1374
contributions they have paid. This system, without expanding on it at any great length, would lead to a number of practical difficulties.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and others, talked about, in particular, women. Women do have considerable protection already in their work both under the Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Acts and also—and the noble Baroness referred to this—in the maternity provisions of the Employment Protection Act. These provisions go a long way to putting women in employment on the same basis as men. As your Lordships will know, the Equal Pay Act is shortly to be amended. Part-timers have, and will have, exactly the same rights under the Equal Pay Act as full-timers. They can claim equal pay with a part-time or full-time named comparator of the opposite sex, before an industrial tribunal. Therefore, in principle, there is no reason why women should be unjustly discriminated against when working part-time. Indeed, part-time work, with its intrinsic flexibility, often suits women with their family responsibilities, to which, of course, the noble Baroness referred.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, also asked specifically about the regulations and what they impose upon the Government. An EEC directive has to be implemented exactly in domestic legislation, except where discretion is specifically given to member states to adapt individual provisions to their own legislation. Perhaps I may draw her attention to Article 10, which specifically states that,
"Member States shall implement the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this directive not later than 1st January, 1984, and shall notify them to the Commission without delay",
and,
"Member States shall communicate to the Commission the texts of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions which they adopt in the field covered by the directive"—
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, if I may say so, I was drawing a distinction between a regulation and a directive—a regulation which applies throughout the Community and a directive which leaves it up to the individual Governments to introduce their own domestic legislation, in order to comply with the principles in the directive. I do not think that that conflicts with what the noble Lord has just read out.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. As I understand it, regulations would be needed and they would follow on from the directive. We could not be very wide of the mark in the way in which we implemented the directive in our own legislation.
The noble Baroness also referred to the job splitting scheme. As she will know, the Government have decided to introduce the scheme. It is an important new scheme to increase job opportunities for the unemployed by offering them part-time jobs. There is no restriction on age, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, suggested. As well as reducing unemployment, the scheme should offer participants valuable work experience and training. It should also ensure a better use of public money through the payment of grants to cover the cost to employers, rather than payments to the unemployed.

1375
Concern has been expressed about setting a minimum of 30 hours to be worked in a fortnight. It is not correct that employers are being encouraged to avoid employing those who would qualify for rights under the employment protection legislation. The 30 hours is a minimum only and, in any case, all participants will have their attention drawn to a leaflet setting out the potential effects of their legislative rights. The noble Baroness also asked about the scheme confining benefits in respect of sex discrimination. There is only one reason for restricting the scheme to benefit recipients; that is, the need to make the scheme self-financing. There is no sex discrimination. Women who are eligible will be as welcome as men.
I hope that that covers many of the points that have been raised. No doubt there are many that I have not answered, but I do not wish to detain the House for much longer. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, talked about the need to create jobs and this is, of course, paramount. So far as possible, we are all determined to reduce the level of unemployment. But it is industry which is in a very good position to judge exactly what the effects of this directive are likely to be.
I do not think I shall weary the House by producing any more quotations from letters or evidence that have been submitted to this committee or to the Department of Employment, but the Confederation of British Industry, the CBI Small Firms Council, the Association of Independent Businesses and others clearly indicate that the directive would not encourage employers to employ part-time workers, because of additional costs and so on. My noble friend Lord Boardman made the point much more cogently than I can.
I have no hesitation in saying that of course my right honourable friend will take note of what has been said tonight in what has been a very good debate. However, I am afraid I cannot promise that he is likely to change his mind, or that the Government will be able to accept the directive, any more than I have been able to indicate that they have been able to accept it so far.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Lord made an extremely important statement on behalf of the Government, and I want to make absolutely certain that I have got it right. As I understand it, he said that there was some unjust discrimination, whereas the Secretary of State for Employment, in his letter to the committee, stated on page 131:
"There is no clear evidence that part-time workers are being unjustly treated".
Is it now being said that the Secretary of State is wrong, has changed his mind, and that part-time workers are being unjustly treated? If they are, would it not be sensible for the Government to do what this report suggests; namely, to go for detailed amendments and not for the thing which sets us out from every other country in Western Europe—total opposition?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there is, no doubt, a small measure of discrimination, yes. I do not think my right honourable friend would deny that for a moment. But I am certain that when he has read what
1376
the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has said, he will bear in mind his views and the views of other Members of your Lordships' House.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate indeed, and it would be quite improper for me to start another speech at this time of night, although I could blow a number of holes in a number of things said by the noble Lord the Minister. I hope that he will read the Official Report carefully tomorrow; in particular, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. The noble Lord completely misinterpreted at least two things that he said, which I shall not go into now, on the pension and insurance side, both of which I think he got wrong.
I was rather surprised that the word "threshold" was practically never mentioned by anybody. We state in our report that we hope that the directive, when it comes forward, will leave the various member countries free to set their own threshold. This could, probably—it depends on where it is fixed—help to solve a lot of the problems which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Spens.
The other point I want to make is that I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, helps his case by sneering at academics. I saw the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, here during most of the debate. He was on my committee and he will, no doubt, be as pleased as I am to be called an academic, but I do not think we have that intelligence. We have only one academic here today who was on our committee, and I thought that the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, was very splendid indeed. His background to the report gave us very strong support.
I shall end by simply asking two questions—apart from thanking everybody who joined in the debate. Why should 4· 3 million people be so disadvantaged, in comparison with the rest of the workforce, just because they cannot work full-time? Surely what we are proposing is an inevitable progress for a new, logical—and I repeat, "logical"—and efficient employment system.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Zimbabwe: Harassment
8 p.m.
Lord Paget of Northampton Lord Paget of Northampton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement about the harassment of the Zimbabwean opposition and public service in Zimbabwe.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Unstarred Question which appears in my name on the Order Paper. I feel it is time that we looked at what is happening in Zimbabwe. This state is very largely the creation of the present Government. When they came to power, Bishop Muzorewa was heading a multiracial government. This government had been endorsed by an election which I personally attended and which internationally was largely regarded as fair. The Government could have accepted the Muzorewa government. Instead of that, they rejected it and insisted at Lancaster House on a new constitution and

1377
new elections. I do not think that the Government can really escape responsibility for that constitution. It required the assistance of British citizens, service personnel, civil servants and administrators to make it work. Those men are in Zimbabwe only because our Government gave them assurances and advised them to be there.
The constitution provided for a public service which should be non-political and non-racial and for armed services which should work under the kind of rules to which civilised society has become accustomed. We advised senior officers of our armed forces, including the Royal Air Force, to accept service in Zimbabwe under the new constitution and also—this is most important—to accept Zimbabwean citizenship.
It is very natural and understandable that Zimbabwe should wish to have its own citizens commanding its own forces. That is perfectly right and proper. But were those officers warned before they accepted Zimbabwean citizenship that this would involve the abdication by Her Majesty's Government of all control over their interests and of all consular services? This has become a formidable consideration.
Senior officers from the Royal Air Force joined the Zimbabwean Air Force, took control of it and commanded it. By custom, in a service of that kind, the discipline within the service is a matter for the service. Certainly senior officers can be negligent, can do wrong. Many senior officers in our Navy have been court-martialled for hazarding their ships. I have no doubt— I was not in the Royal Air Force; I was in the Navy—that the same thing has happened in the Royal Air Force. But that, if it be justice, is trial by the service. When one moves over and finds that instead of the service looking to its own discipline, a political force, the CIO, moves in—not even the civil police—and arrests those officers, one begins to have one's suspicions.
On 24th August last a considerable part of the Air Force was sabotaged on the ground at the Thornhill base. Somebody—we do not know who—cut a gate through the surrounding barbed wire, got in and destroyed a large number of aeroplanes. It may have been the South Africans. I believe this was suggested by the government. That is unlikely. One cannot really see its objective. If they wanted to take out the Air Force they had an overwhelming superiority with which to do so. It may have been the Matabele who have been in rebellion against the Mugabe Government. But that does not stand up. It seems to me to be far more likely to have been the Communists, because at that point the Air Force was the only organised instrument of force which was not under Marxist control. Whatever it may be, those aeroplanes were destroyed.
As one would expect, the Air Force ordered a court of inquiry under Air Commodore Pile, of which Group Captain Briscoe was a member. Before that inquiry could report, Air Commodore Pile and Group Captain Briscoe were arrested, as was Air Vice-Marshal Hugh Slatter—not, your Lordships will observe, by the services, not by the civil police, but by the new political police who have no legal existence under the constitution.
Another curious thing to observe is that where an Air Force is attacked on the ground one would expect
1378
the people responsible to be the people responsible for guarding the ground: the guards, the Air Defence Regiment. None of them were arrested. No action was taken against any of them. It has merely been taken against senior white officers of the Air Force. The charge against them, of conspiring to destroy their own means of livelihood and their own jobs, seems almost too improbable to be taken seriously in any circumstances. This is politics. It is nothing to do with justice.
These officers were denied access to their lawyers. Somebody instructed a very distinguished firm, Gardner and Hartmann. At a press conference they said that they had been denied access and that their clients had been tortured—as, indeed, they had been and as is now acknowledged. They had been tortured by the application within their bodies of electrodes and they were in a pretty bad case.
What happened? The lawyers were arrested. On 25th September our Secretary of State for Defence went to Zimbabwe. We are told that he inquired about the detainees, these people who had been so very shockingly arrested, but that he got no satisfaction on that score. On the other hand, Mr. Mugabe requested an increase in our mission to train and provide them with an army and air force. This request was granted.
I do not know whether the people who asked to take part were warned of the kind of support they would be likely to get but it does seem incredible. What will happen? I presume that these officers will eventually be brought to trial and we shall probably be faced with "confessions"; "confessions" that they conspired to destroy their own airplanes. Confessions of that sort prove absolutely nothing except the efficiency of the tortures.
I will leave that subject and turn now to the other conditions of this constitution, of which we were really the authors and are responsible; the idea of the rule of law. The rule of law constitutes a police force responsible to the law and responsible to the constitution. Since then we have had a Minister for Home Affairs whose name I will not attempt other than to say that he is generally known as Dr. Ushe. Dr. Ushe has said very loudly and politely that he does not like white men. He has first created the CIO with its agents, which is a sort of Gestapo of the place—the political police force. Within that there is what may be described as the new SS, the Zipolis, with 300 specially selected men responsible to Dr. Ushe, in his own words,
"to deal with whites who have not fully accepted black rule".
We have an example of the operation of this police force. Mrs. Grace Cauvin had a son who, perhaps, did not fully accept black rule. She is the matron of the Queen Elizabeth Home for Children in Bulawayo. The Zipolis called to inquire about Mrs. Cauvin's son. Those who found Mrs. Cauvin some time later found that both of her hands and both of her feet were heavily bandaged to cover extensive cigarette burns apparently inflicted while she was under interrogation. They found that her face and much of her body was badly bruised and her eyes and mouth swollen. This is the matron of a children's home who happened to have a son which this body of new police wished to interrogate. Is this the kind of rule of law which we expected when we introduced this constitution?
The third point I would like to mention, which was very much in our minds when we introduced this constitution, concerns the legality of the Opposition. There should be an Opposition Party and that Opposition Party should have the right to criticise and the right to contest. When the elections came, the leader of the largest Opposition Party was Mr. Ian Smith. As provided by the constitution and as expected, this was a white interest. Did we expect him, his party and the Opposition to be treated with the kind of courtesies which my party in Opposition here expect and receive from the Government? I do not think we set a very good example.
Right from the start, when Prince Charles went to the celebration of independence, neither Mr. Smith nor any members of his party—the main parliamentary Opposition party elected to Parliament according to the constitution we created—were invited. According to the Daily Telegraph of two days ago, neither Mr. Smith nor any member of the official parliamentary Opposition party have ever received an invitation to anything at the High Commission. I would ask the noble Lord the Minister to reply to this question specifically: We have many ambassadors and a good number of high commissioners, yet is there a single high commissioner, other than this one, who has never invited the leaders of the Opposition in the country to which he was accredited to any high commission party? I do not suppose so, but if there is, he should be sacked.
Now I want to turn to how some members of this Opposition have been treated. First I will refer to Mr. Wally Stuttaford. Mr. Stuttaford was a Member of Parliament. He came from Bulawayo and he was interested in the Matabele; they were his constitutents. He was charged—I do not know how—with conspiring with Matabele politicians in order to upset the Government by violence. He was arrested. He is a man of 63. He was tortured. Biro pens were put into his hand until his knuckles were crushed. He was forced to jog until he became exhausted. Handcuffs were twisted on his wrists until they were cut and crushed. The back of his hands have now lost all feeling as a result of that torture. But he was a very brave man—I am sure a great deal braver than I am.
He resisted, but there were certain black witnesses. First there was Monwadisa Malumisa, who had been a Minister in the Bishop's Government. He made a statement incriminating Mr. Stuttaford. So did two brothers named Manhlela, both prominent Matabele politicians. When, after 10 months of detention, the matter was brought to trial, these three black witnesses who had been released from all charges some 10 weeks before the trial went into the witness box and there totally repudiated the statements which they had made incriminating Mr. Stuttaford. They said that they had made the statement under torture because the Home Office, that is the doctor, wanted to get Stuttaford. With this happening to their witnesses, naturally the case was thrown out; Mr. Stuttaford was acquitted.
Immediately afterwards he was re-arrested. What was said to Mr. Stuttaford was this, "Don't you imagine you can be protected up there. We are the bosses here and we rule this country". Every newspaper was on to this; I do not know this, but I
1380
think Mr. Mugabe, greatly to his credit, intervened, and that night Mr. Stuttaford was duly released. But the unfortunate witnesses are arrested and are still in prison. As to the principal charge with which they have been jointly charged with Stuttaford they have been released. The charge for which they are in prison now is telling the truth. I do not feel that we should stand for that. I do think that of all things I am raising tonight possibly those three witnesses may be the most important, and I would like to see some of the various organisations which go to the assistance of the wrongly imprisoned pay a bit of attention to this one.
The next man I would like to refer to is Mr. Walker, another Member of Parliament, a member of the Opposition, a man who had held Cabinet office in both Mr. Smith's Government and in Bishop Muzorewa's Government. He had been a Minister of Mines. When Mr. Stuttaford was arrested warrants had been issued at the same time for the arrest of Mr. Walker, who happened at that time to be on holiday in South Africa with his family. He heard of Mr. Stuttaford's arrest and he heard that he had been tortured. And with the kind of courage that I certainly do not know, that I could not meet or live up to, he came back to Rhodesia to face it. He came back, slipped into the Parliament and appeared in the Parliament on the Thursday, and when he was seen there he was cheered, not only by the white Members, which was a fairly remarkable demonstration. At that meeting he made a formidable speech attacking the Rhodesian Government over their attempt to seize the mines; he had been a Minister of Mines. He pointed out that this was in order to provide the North Koreans with those metals according to a bargain way below the world prices. This was the conspiracy which he denounced in Parliament. He was referred to in the press as "the hunted M.P." And after that meeting and that speech he disappeared. In point of fact, he had gone into his constituency, he had gone into the country. Then, to the astonishment of everybody, on the next Tuesday suddenly there he was in Parliament again. The report came that the CIO had got the place surrounded, they had their men on every back door; they had them everywhere except the front door. He walked out of the front door, straight down the steps into a car, and disappeared. He is now in England and I was with him this morning. That is a very brave man. But you cannot really conduct an opposition on those kind of terms.
Now I come back to the latest, smallest but widest, where the Leader of the Opposition, and if you like to call it so, the Shadow Cabinet, and its inner Committee, are at an art show, a show by an artist of his works, and are arrested again by this CIO on the ground that they are holding an illegal meeting. This is in flagrant breach of the constitution which provides for the right of meetings. It is some hours before they are released. Can one really conduct a civilised Opposition, a civilised Parliamentary system when this sort of thing happens.
Are we not, in a very broad moral sense, the guarantors of that constitution? At least we are its paymasters, and to a large degree its paymasters. In the days of illegal rule, when they were subject to sanctions, the Rhodesian economy had the strongest currency in Africa, and at one point I think the second

1381
largest capital expansion in the world. But since then that has not happened. Their economy is in an appalling mess and it exists on aid. It keeps going on aid and we provide a good deal of that aid. Certainly if we said, no, I have little doubt that the Americans, who I think are an even bigger contributor, would act with us. Before we go on financing and maintaining this form of Government ought we not to be a little firmer in seeing that the constitution is observed just a little sometimes, or even occasionally? At present they are passing over to a form of one-Party oppression, in which the Opposition are harassed and a racialist policy is being applied to terrorise one section of the population. Surely the Government cannot just sit back and say nothing.
8.29 p.m.
The Marquess of Salisbury: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paget, for raising this rather depressing matter, and I would like to congratulate him on the way he has presented his case. It is indeed a formidable one and one that deserves the widest possible publicity. He has covered most of the aspects of the subject matter and I do not want to go over the same ground again, but there are one or two points which he made that I would like to emphasise, and one or two further questions I would like to ask. First, may I ask something about the formulation of the constitution? I hope that, just for information, the Minister will be able to tell me what the position is. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, when he opened the Lancaster House conference, said
"The United Kingdom intends to take direct responsibility for the Independence Constitution".
So far as I have been able to discover, there is no mention on our statute book of any constitution. There is, however, Command Paper 7802 of January 1980. Is that the constitution as agreed? Is it regarded as binding? If not, I do not follow what the position is and what Lord Carrington's guarantee can mean in legal terms. I ask for some enlightenment on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, mentioned the election that took place after Lancaster House. From such information as I can gather it appears that there were matters that took place during that period which would not be acceptable in a normal democratic country. There were accusations of intimidation, of altering the roll and other things of that sort. I am driven to the conclusion that when protests were made, as indeed they were, our representatives there did nothing about them because they were anxious to get out of what was then Rhodesia as quickly as possible without running into further trouble. However, they reported the election to be fair, although I question whether in fact it was as fair as the election held some months earlier. That election was pronounced fair by a number of noble Lords, such as the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton, the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, himself, the noble Earl, Lord Crawford and Balcarres, and others. However that may be, it seems to me that this election was the beginning of the rot that set in and of the conditions which have arisen that the noble Lord, Lord Paget, described so cogently.
1382
After that, Zimbabwe was completely independent. Mr. Mugabe is on record as having said that he accepted the arrangements at Lancaster House. He did so in his address to the nation on 4th March 1980. In that address he also stated:
"Only a government that subjects itself to the Rule of Law has any moral right to demand of its citizens obedience to the Rule of Law".
Surely we must ask ourselves, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Paget, said, whether he has stuck to that statement or not.
I draw attention to some of the provisions in the Command Paper dealing with the rule of law, the rights of individuals, the personal freedom of individuals and the freedom of the press. They all seem to have a bearing—at least, to me they do—on the matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, has drawn attention. First, in the preamble to the constitution it is stated that there shall be no oppression by a majority of a minority. I wonder whether your Lordships will consider that this treatment is being accorded to the Matabele by the present Zimbabwean Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, dealt with most of the points in dealing with the cases of arrest, but again I wonder whether either the CIO or Zimpol are subject to the commissioner of police as laid down in the Command Paper. If not, clearly they have no right to exist under the constitution as it is set up. I emphasise this because it is one of the most important points that the noble Lord made in his speech. However, he has pointed out the effects of this unconstitutional force more than adequately and I shall not say any more about it.
The noble Lord also referred to torture. This, again, is expressly forbidden in the Command Paper. The noble Lord said enough to show exactly what is happening in that country. I support him entirely in asking what Her Majesty's Government intend to do about it? Do they accept that that is a reasonable way to behave? Surely they have a responsibility in view of the part they played in drawing up the constitution.
The protection of the individual is clearly covered in the Command Paper. First, there has to be freedom of expression. I do not know how much there is, but it seems to be very truncated. For instance, the television and broadcasting systems are not only controlled by the Government but are heavily censored. I am told that they pour out a constant flow of Government propaganda, communist propaganda and vitriolic anti-white sentiments. Again, that is against what was laid down in the Command Paper—that there should be no differentiation on grounds of race. The only paper is the Herald which is controlled and censored. I am advised that foreign correspondents resident in Zimbabwe take their line from the Herald because they do not feel it is safe to say anything not mentioned in it.
The second protection written into the Command Paper is a Bill of Rights. I believe it exists, but it seems to be conspicuous by its lack of application. The third protection is the appointment of an ombudsman. He is supposed to protect individuals, as in this country, especially against incursions on their rights by civil servants. The sole exception, I believe I am right in saying, is in matters connected with defence. In fact,

1383
the exception has been extended to cover the activities of a number of other Government departments. It would seem, therefore, that the function of the ombudsman has been entirely negatived.
We may ask ourselves; on what grounds have these sections of the constitution been abrogated? I believe the reason given is that there is a state of emergency. We should seriously ask ourselves whether there is a genuine emergency or whether this is not a case of finding an excuse for setting up a tyranny. To me it looks like the beginning of a Uganda-type situation. We must remember one thing: that mosts of the whites in a serious emergency would probably be able to leave the country even although they were destitute, but most of the Africans would not be in a position to do so. They would have to stay and suffer under the rigours of the régime. Many whites have already left. Others are leaving, having found the present situation to be intolerable. Do Her Majesty's Government regard themselves as having a responsibility for those unfortunate people? Many of them will be destitute, as I said. Will Her Majesty's Government consider giving some form of compensation as was done in the case of Kenya? I concur with the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, in saying that there is an obligation when the present situation is largely of Her Majesty's Government's making.
I should also like to ask whether the noble Lord in his reply could say something about dual citizenship, which is expressly included in the Command Paper. I believe that it is unusual because, for obvious reasons affecting nationality problems, it has usually been excluded from other constitutions on the granting of independence. I can only presume that it was included to afford some protection for citizens who previously had some connection with this country.
I understand that recently an Act has been passed in the Zimbabwe Parliament giving the Government there power to make changes in the status of citizens with dual nationality. I wonder whether Her Majesty's Government have been consulted about this, because presumably it affects the citizenship of people for whom we have a certain responsibility. Is anything being done about it? Will Her Majesty's Government consider giving full United Kingdom citizenship to those inhabitants of Zimbabwe who are of British descent on either side? I should like to remind your Lordships that that was suggested for the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands during the passage of the Nationality Bill and it was rejected. However, I note that on Monday the Government changed their mind in that case and are now offering them citizenship. Clearly the two situations are not entirely comparable, but in both cases one would be looking, by the granting of citizenship, to giving protection. I should have thought that there was just as compelling a reason in the case of the people in Zimbabwe as there was for the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands.
I should like to ask for a little more information on the question of the hand-outs given by Her Majesty's Government—a matter which has already been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Paget. How much have we given so far? Is there more in the pipeline? Are we promising more? I support the noble Lord entirely in saying that strings should be attached to it. It is
1384
taxpayers' money which is being paid out to support a tyranny, and surely that is an intolerable situation. I urge that as regards any further grants of money Her Majesty's Government take steps to see how the money is spent and to control it if necessary. That is perhaps the most effective weapon we have in making our feelings clear to the Government of Zimbabwe.
Finally, in view of the rapidly deteriorating situation, I suggest that the time has come for Her Majesty's Government to take some action. At present they give the impression that they do not care what is happening to the people of Zimbabwe; they only have a desire not to get involved again. They might just care to remember that it is not only the condition of the people of Zimbabwe that is at stake; there is their own reputation, and that of the people of this country.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I apologise for not having put my name down to speak on this Unstarred Question, but I had no idea as to whether I would be able to get back for the uncertain time at which it might begin. The noble Lord, Lord Paget, who asked the Unstarred Question, has always puzzled me. In my observations of him when he was in another place, and since I became a Member of your Lordships' House, I have known him as a man of great kindness and compassion, at least so far as the social affairs of this country are concerned. Yet for many years now he seems to have been obsessed by skin colour and I cannot understand why. It is unfortunate that this is an Unstarred Question and therefore the noble Lord does not have the opportunity to answer my question, but perhaps the occasion will arise in the future.
Why is it that the question of the alleged ill-treatment of these white airforce officers in Zimbabwe and white politicians in Zimbabwe, so agitates the noble Lord's mind when it is a matter of less than three years ago that black Zimbabweans were being treated, and had been treated for many, many years, in at least as cruel a way as he has described the alleged ill-treatment of the white members of the Opposition today? I do not know the answer to that question; I would be fascinated to discover it.
As I said during an intervention on a Question put, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, last week, I believe that all Members of this House and, indeed, the population of this country as a whole, condemn any form of torture as inhumanity, irrespective of the skin colour of the victim, and I certainly do so. Whether the allegations that the noble Lord, Lord Paget, makes are true or untrue, accurate or inaccurate, I do not know; nor do I believe that anyone will know until the trial is held. They may very well be true; it would not surprise me. Anybody who has visited what was Rhodesia during the war there, who has had experience of life over the past 20 or 30 years in that part of the continent of Africa, would not be surprised if cruelty persists, because cruelty has been one of the basic elements of life for many, many years, and it is only over the last two and a half years that the responsible authorities have been black rather than white.
I also ask myself: Why does the noble Lord pay such attention to the alleged cruelties in Zimbabwe? And why does he, and the noble Marquess who has just

1385
spoken, concentrate on what is happening in Zimbabwe when I at least, in a long experience of attending both this House and the other place, have never heard either of them mention the kind of things that have been happening in South Africa? I say to the noble Lord who is to answer for the Government that it would appear to me that the British Government have no direct responsibility for what is happening in Zimbabwe once Zimbabwe became independent.
But if it is suggested, as the noble Lord, Lord Paget, suggested, that we have some responsibility because we participated in the drawing up of that constitution, then I ask: did we not participate in the drawing up of the constitution of South Africa? Was the constitution of South Africa not an Act of this Parliament? Why is it then that these allegations come—and if they are correct I condemn them as absolutely as the noble Lord and the noble Marquess who have spoken—when they are perpetrated against white people, but not against black people? Why is it that Zimbabwe is picked out, and not South Africa? Why is the provision of overseas aid by the British Government to Zimbabwe picked out, but not the provision of overseas aid, say, to Chile, Turkey or Pakistan?—where surely noble Lords will agree not only is there no opposition, but there is no civilian government; not only is there proven torture and cruelty, but there has been constant British economic assistance over many years. Why Zimbabwe?
All I would say from my own experience of this part of the world—that is, the whole of the southern part of Africa—is that I find it quite amazing that after the cruelties, the tortures and the oppression that have been characteristic of this area for so many years, since these countries, including Zimbabwe, became independent there has been so little racial discrimination, so few attempts at paying back, at taking revenge, for what has happened in the past.
Remember that Robert Mugabe, the Prime Minister, was detained for 10 years. Remember that Joshua Nkomo was detained for 10 years. Remember that Joshua Nkomo's house in Lusaka, which is very near where I have been living for the past two years, was destroyed by Rhodesian forces. Yet it is only a few weeks ago that I was playing cricket in Lusaka against a cricket team from Zimbabwe that consisted of black, brown and white players. Remember that Robert Mugabe has two Europeans in his Cabinet; that it is not all the whites in Zimbabwe who feel oppressed or who feel in danger. Certainly there are some, and I grant you that there is a very disturbed situation in Zimbabwe, and some of us have been predicting that that was the inevitable consequence of the illegal régime of Ian Smith and, going back even further, of the Central African Federation. Certainly there is a desperately dangerous and complex conflict between at least the majority of the Matabele tribe and the majority of the Shona. Certainly there are great problems for the Government of Robert Mugabe to overcome. He has had only two and a half years as Prime Minister.
I would suggest to the noble Lord who represents the Government here that the pleas to make public denouncements of this Government are destructive, if not in their purpose certainly in their effect. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to help us, or, if he is not able to tell us—which might be indiscreet—I hope that
1386
the British Government's representative in Harare is giving quiet advice. I hope that he will maintain the economic aid from this country which we owe to a country that was our colony and which we abandoned to an illegal Government. I hope, and I would believe from what I know of the British Diplomatic Service, that our representative in Harare is talking quietly and constructively with the Prime Minister of that country. I know that there are many white men, women and children in Zimbabwe who are anxious that the experiment will succeed, who know the terrible problems with which this Government were left, but who recognise that there is, at least among the vast majority of Africans living in that country—not all, I will give you that—a desire to make this an equally non-racial society as that in their neighbour, Zambia.
8.56 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Paget and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, have described to us a number of the acts of cruelty and tyranny occurring in Zimbabwe, because although neither I nor, I think, anyone here is in a position to state exactly how much of these accounts we believe, I do not think there can be any doubt that there have been serious acts of cruelty and tyranny and that in many cases the victims of them have been white people and people for whom this Government have morally, if not legally, a responsibility. We shall, therefore, want to hear from the Government, so far as it is prudent for them to tell us, what steps they are taking to help these unfortunate people.
In addition to those two speeches, we have had one from my noble friend Lord Hatch, who has invited us to put the matter in a wider perspective of Zimbabwean and African history. It seems to me that we must do that, because the present Zimbabwean Government is inescapably and unavoidably the child of violence. First, there was the violence inflicted on the British colony of Southern Rhodesia by the illegal usurpation of power by Mr. Ian Smith; there was the violence by which Smith's Government was brought to an end. I think that we ought not to talk as if Her Majesty's Government at Lancaster House were in a position to frame an ideal constitution and plant it on the people of Zimbabwe. What was to happen there was to reflect the power structure in Zimbabwe. There is no getting away from that. I think it is inevitable, therefore, that Mr. Mugabe and his party should emerge as the rulers of Rhodesia.
In this country we can look back on a long history of legal development of government and of human rights. The history of the Government of Zimbabwe is, as I say, that of a child of violence and of conflict. In addition to that, there were the personal rivalries between Mr. Mugabe and Mr. Nkomo and the tribal differences which they personified. In addition, there was the inevitable suspicion of white people in Zimbabwe and the constant wondering by black rulers of Zimbabwe whether they could rely on the loyalty of white people. In many cases, of course, they could rely on the loyalty of white people. In many cases, of course, they could, but I think that this was one of the things poisoning the general atmosphere.
So these factors—the history of violence, the tribal conflicts and the suspicion between black and white—gave a situation in which any Government

1387
would have been bound to go through great difficulties and in which injustices would occur. We have, of course, noticed as this year has gone on growing disorders, connected partly with the activity of ZAPU guerrillas, illustrated by the attack on Mr. Mugabe's house, and, as several commentators have been quick to point out, by the increased use by the Zimbabwean Government of methods whose legality closely resembles the legality of Ian Smith's Government.
Indeed, it is noticeable that commentators who are neither black nor British have been inclined to point out that what some British people and other white people in Zimbabwe are suffering now can be set against, and compared with, what many black people suffered from Smith's régime. This was a point developed by my noble friend Lord Hatch. We are told that the Zimbabwean Government will be unwilling to listen to complaints which come from people who did not, at the proper time, complain about the violence and illegality and cruelty of Ian Smith's Government.
This is understandable, but I do not think that we can let the matter rest there, because some of the complaints against the Zimbabwean Government come from somebody who commands universal respect. I refer to Mr. Garfield Todd. It is he who has said that there is a fear affecting everybody now in Zimbabwe, of whatever race or colour to which they belong. This is something to which the Zimbabwean Government ought to pay attention. It is not enough, although it is very natural, for them to turn round and say, "If some white people have suffered injustices this is no more than many black people suffered at the hands of Ian Smith".
It is going to be a very bleak prospect for mankind if black men are going to try to assert their belief in racial equality by showing that if they are put to it they can be just as cruel and unjust as any white man. We must earnestly hope that that doctrine is not going to take hold, because we have seen this in other African countries, and indeed not in African countries alone. A wrong is committed on one side, a counter wrong is committed in revenge for it, and you go on in an apparently unbreakable chain of wrong and conflict. It is that that Zimbabwe now has to guard against. It is she who is required by the necessities of history to show generosity; to say that, whatever was done in the past, "it is our business to try to create an example of a free and civilised government".
I would not, therefore, urge that Her Majesty's Government should approach Zimbabwe with threats of cutting off aid, but should, by whatever means are appropriate, point out that really it is not a question of what Zimbabwe owes to us or to white men over this matter, it is what Zimbabwe owes to herself. Is she going to take the opportunity of creating an example of a civilised country that can forget wrong, that can assert the rule of law, that can, as it were, turn away the evil pages of Zimbabwe's history and embark on a new chapter? It is that, we hope, she will do. It is that that Her Majesty's Government, by whatever means may be appropriate for it, must endeavour to encourage her to do.
9.3 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government
1388
to Lord Paget's Question on Zimbabwe. First of all, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, for the speech that he has just made, which I thought was wise advice and set in context the matters of concern mentioned in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Paget.
I say that because the first point I feel I have to make is that we are discussing a sovereign independent state. That does not mean that the Government are not concerned with the various points which the noble Lord, Lord Paget, raised, but if I may reply to the noble Marquess. Lord Salisbury, the Command Paper that my noble friend mentioned was a discussion document which pre-dated the statutory instrument that sets out the definitive Zimbabwe constitution, and since independence Mr Mugabe's government has adhered to the constitution. The constitution is in fact set out in the Zimbabwe Constitution Order of 1979. That was Statutory Instrument No. 1,600. Britain relinquished all legal responsibility for Zimbabwe at independence, and Britain is not a legal guarantor of the constitution.
Having said that, may I revert to what I was saying a moment or two ago. Of course, Zimbabwe is a country with which we in Britain have special ties; and since independence we have given it substantial material and moral support. Nevertheless, most of the matters which have been referred to this evening are internal affairs and the responsibility of the Government of Zimbabwe. The noble Lord, Lord Paget, expressed concern about certain particular developments in Zimbabwe, and also referred to the British Government's part in bringing the new constitution into being. I repeat, I share on behalf of the Government some of the noble Lord's expressed concern, but we must see developments in Zimbabwe in a true perspective.
By that I am thinking first of all that when Prime Minister Mugabe's Government came into office early in 1980 it was confronted with formidable political, social and economic problems. From the outset Mr. Mugabe made clear that the time had come for reconciliation: past differences should be forgotten so that all Zimbabweans, no matter what their former allegiance, could work together for the benefit of the country as a whole. That was not pure words. Mr. Mugabe demonstrated his own commitment to this policy by appointing white ministers as well as bringing members of Mr. Nkomo's ZAPU party into the Government.
It is the case that all has not gone smoothly. Mr. Nkomo lost his place in the Government in February, and two Republican Front members of the House of Assembly had serious charges brought against them. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paget, that in the case of Mr. Stuttaford, who remained in the country to stand trial, the charges were subsequently withdrawn and he was released. I would say in passing that I feel anxious on behalf of the Government about the brief detention and now the impounding of the passport of Mr. Smith. However, if the noble Lord, Lord Paget, will allow me to say so, it is not the case that Mr. Smith has never been invited to see the British High Commissioner. Mr. Smith has been received by the High Commissioner and has been invited to High Commission functions. Despite the things that have not gone right, the Government of Prime Minister Mr.

1389
Mugabe still contains members of ZAPU and representatives of the white community, as has been said in the debate tonight.
A particular example of reconciliation—and one for which we can claim some credit—was the amalgamation of the rival armed groups into a united national army. The contribution made by the British military advisory and training team is a matter in which Britain can take pride. Again, there have been problems—desertions and disorder on the part of some soldiers and the arrest of two senior officers in connection with the discovery of caches of arms—yet the amalgamated army has held together, and members of Mr. Nkomo's ex-ZIPRA forces and white people remain among the senior ranks.
Some predicted that independence would be followed by a violent backlash against the white community and a mass exodus of white people. The facts have proved otherwise. White emigration has been running at around 1,500 a month—high, but far from an exodus. Indeed, the vast majority, some three-quarters of the estimated white population at independence, have so far chosen to stay. There is also quite a large number of new expatriates who have been encouraged to take themselves and their skills to Zimbabwe. I do not have the precise figures, but I understand that immigration from all sources has been running at about 600 a month, of whom, it is thought, the greater part have been white people.
My noble friend Lord Salisbury asked about compensation for people who leave Zimbabwe. There is no special financial provision for that. It would have been entirely inconsistent with the spirit of the Lancaster House agreement, which was to create conditions in Zimbabwe in which all Zimbabweans, of whatever race, would be encouraged to stay. But of course any Britsh citizen with a right of abode in this country is entitled to the normal security and other benefits to which all citizens of the country are entitled.
It is fair to refer to the economic growth in the country after independence. In the first two years of independence, an average rate of growth of some 10 per cent. was achieved, though of course there are now the problems of the world economic recession and the growth rate is now more modest. The Zimbabwean Government have retained the mixed economy inherited at independence. The recently-published Guidelines for Foreign Investors reaffirms belief in a "strong and viable private sector", as does the new Development Plan published this week. Where majority shareholdings have been taken in enterprises, that has been done on a fair price basis. The same principle is applied to land acquired for resettlement purposes. I feel bound to say—and I feel this is in line with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart—that it could hardly have been expected that the grave problems which Zimbabwe inherited from its turbulent past would disappear overnight. Tensions still exist, some of them serious, but there are many on all sides who are determined to work together in order to make the new country a success. I am sure that all noble Lords, even though we have had dfferent expressions of view in the debate would agree that this path of co-operation and reconciliation is the only one which gives hope for the future.
Now a few words about particular issues which I
1390
know have given rise to concern. One—this has not been mentioned in the debate—is the prospect of a one-party system. Whatever views we might have about this system of government, it is entirely for the Zimbabweans to decide whether they prefer a multiparty system, as they have at present, or a one-party system.
Mr. Mugabe has repeatedly said that he has no intention of making any changes in the constitution in an unconstitutional way, and of course the constitution agreed at Lancaster House provides the means to change the political system, if the people of Zimbabwe so wish.
Another issue is the policy of Africanisation in the public service. Although the noble Lord, Lord Paget, talked about the public sevice at some length, he did not, in particular, touch on this point. Nonetheless, I would take this opportunity to say that this is an understandable policy, which has been pursued, as your Lordships know, by other newly-independent governments. Mr. Mugabe has, however, recognised the importance of maintaining a balance, and numerous white officials continue to hold high office. The Zimbabwean Government have also reassured public servants that the Government intend to honour their pensions obligations under the constitution.
We naturally take very seriously reports of brutality by the armed forces and police in any country. Such allegations have been made regarding the treatment of a number of both whites and blacks in Zimbabwe; most recently regarding the ill-treatment of the detained Zimbabwe Air Force personnel, about whom the noble Lord, Lord Paget, spoke for a considerable proportion of his speech. I would add that we are always concerned about failure to observe or uphold human rights, especially as we made provision for this in the constitution. But if I may say so, it is misleading to suggest, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Paget, suggested, that we have merely inquired about the welfare of those detained. The fact is that we voiced our concern about these allegations at the highest level when my honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence visited Zimbabwe, and we urged that all detainees, whatever their nationality, should be brought to trial as soon as possible. It should also be said that the law courts in Zimbabwe maintain an impressive degree of integrity, and there is every reason to believe that people receive a fair trial there.
I should like to answer a few of the remaining questions which were asked me. The noble Lord, Lord Paget, referred to people becoming Zimbabwe citizens and, as he very fairly said, doing so naturally if they were going into the public service, but being encouraged by the British Government to do so. It is true that we welcome people taking up employment in the public service in Zimbabwe, though many of them in fact have retained British citizenship, and I am happy to say that many of them remain in senior positions.
So far as this particular point is concerned, perhaps I may reply to my noble friend Lord Salisbury, who expressed concern about what he had heard regarding moves on the status of dual nationality in Zimbabwe. My information is that the Zimbabwe Government have introduced a Bill which would enable the abolition of the right to dual nationality as provided for in the constitution. However, this provision may be amended by a two-thirds affirmative vote from the

1391
Senate and an affirmative vote by 70 members of the House of Assembly.
If I may say so, I do not think that it helps to underestimate the formidable difficulties facing Zimbabwe, and I think this very much the message which came over to the end of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham. But nor does it help to exaggerate them, or to ignore the real achievements in less than three years of independence. When we think of the bitter past, the degree of reconciliation has been remarkable. Today, former enemies are working together as colleagues in the Government, in the Army, in the senior ranks of the Civil Service, and the white community continues to play an important role in the country. Private industry and agriculture are encouraged. Private investment is welcomed, and there is a growing market for British exports. Zimbabwe has emerged as one of the leading countries in the continent of Africa and it has made clear the value that it attaches to its relations with the West.
I repeat that we should not, and we do not, hesitate to voice our concern over certain recent developments in Zimbabwe. But we should also acknowledge freely the real progress achieved by people from all political parties and all tribal and racial backgrounds in the creation and development of their new country.

British Railways (Liverpool Street Station) Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past nine o'clock.

  WORMWOOD SCRUBS PRISON: PROVISION OF VESTS
  WORMWOOD SCRUBS PRISON: PROVISION OF VESTS
  WRONGFUL IMPRISONMENT: EX GRATIA PAYMENTS
  WRONGFUL IMPRISONMENT: EX GRATIA PAYMENTS
  POLICE INVESTIGATIONS: USE OF HYPNOSIS
  POLICE INVESTIGATIONS: USE OF HYPNOSIS
  ALDERMASTON: NEW PLUTONIUM PROCESSING FACILITY
  ALDERMASTON: NEW PLUTONIUM PROCESSING FACILITY