Sitting of 18 February 1983

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
BILLS PRESENTED
  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. Secretary Younger, supported by Mr. John Mackay, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to termination of tenancies of agricultural holdings in Scotland and to variation of rent for such holdings; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Monday 21 February and to be printed. [Bill 87.]
  PORTS (REDUCTION OF DEBT)
  Mr. Secretary Howell, supported by the Secretary King, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, Mr. Norman Lamont, and Mr. Reginald Eyre presented (under Standing Order No. 91 (Procedure upon Bills whose main object is to impose a charge upon the public revenue)) a Bill to make provision for reducing the indebtedness of the Port of London Authority and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Monday 21 February and to be printed. [Bill 86.]
Orders of the Day

  Right of Reply in the Media Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  9.35 am
  Mr. Frank Allaun: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  In having the privilege of opening the debate. I wish to show the aims of the Bill, the need for it, what it proposes, why the existing safeguards are not good enough and, finally, the arguments against it.
  I declare an interest. For many years before I came to the House I worked as a reporter on evening and daily national newspapers. I still retain my membership of the National Union of Journalists.
  The Bill aims to give the ordinary man and woman some protection against powerful newspapers and radio and television programmes. The object is to protect individuals, companies and organisations against unfair, ill-founded and inaccurate reports. With the growth of vast press monopolies and the concentration of newspaper ownership in fewer and fewer hands, the dice are loaded against ordinary people. Five groups control 95 per cent. of all daily newspapers, and 96 per cent. of all Sunday newspapers. Within each group there is usually one man with the power to control.
  Let us consider Rupert Murdoch. He owns The Sun, the News of the World, The Times, and the Sunday Times, and chains of newspapers in Australia, America and elsewhere. Like everyone else, Mr. Murdoch has only one vote, but he controls newspapers that influence the minds of millions every day of the week. One day's issue of The Sun may be bought by 4 million, and read by 12 million. A television programme may reach an even larger audience.
  From my private public opinion poll, I gather that most media magnates do not like the Bill. However, most of the public do. I shall show that the aim is to extend democracy, not to restrict it. Genuine mistakes can be made in reporting and subbing, as I know from personal experience. Most editors of respectable newspapers would put them right as soon as the facts were made known, but there are villains, and the Bill is aimed at them.
  I shall give two examples of misreporting that should have been put right or, better still, might never have occurred if the Bill were in operation. I know that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) believes that an unfair and irresponsible item on a television programme has had a catastrophic effect on a building product and caused the liquidation of at least one company, with resultant unemployment.
  Next, the Daily Express—I could go on for much longer than you would want, Mr. Deputy Speaker—made a harmful allegation that a mother and her children had jumped the council housing queue. It also said that the family had come over from Ireland to do so. Both allegations were false. She was not jumping the queue but was offered a house due for demolition and entirely unsuitable for the waiting list. She had lived for 25 of her 30 years of life in England and was born in Britain. The Daily Express refused to print a denial and the case went to the Press Council. That body upheld the complaint, but

  573
  the adjudication was made so long afterwards that the damage was done. Hon. Members will understand what grief and trouble it caused to the mother among her neighbours. If this Bill had been law, she would not have had this unnecessary suffering inflicted on her.
  What happened during the struggle over wages in the National Health Service dispute last year? The Government issued a large advertisement attacking the unions. I have a copy before me. It covered nearly a whole page of The Times and other newspapers. The trade unions involved immediately issued a statement saying that the so-called facts and figures in the advertisement were incorrect and misleading. Several newspapers reported, the denial, although usually in a short paragraph in the middle of a long story. Many papers, however, did not report the denial at all. Consequently, the print workers in Fleet Street went on strike to secure the printing of the union reply. If this Bill had been law, it would not have been necessary for the newspapermen to walk out to obtain the printing of the denial.
  Now I shall quote a case which applies to Members of this House. I stress and readily admit, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that most Members of Parliament are quite capable of looking after themselves. It is ordinary people with whom I am concerned. A fortnight ago, I went to discuss this Bill with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who will reply to this debate. I said to him, "Let us consider a hypothetical case. Suppose the Daily Dishcloth said that you, a Conservative Member, and I, a Labour Member, are considering joining the Social Democrats. It is doubtful whether it would be libellous, but it would be exceedingly damaging to both of us."
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): It would be exceedingly damaging to the Social Democrats.
  Mr. Allaun: To my astonishment, the Minister replied, "Far from being a hypothetical case, it actually happened to another Conservative Member who is a friend of mine." So I checked up with the Member and he confirmed that it was so, and that he had had the devil's own job to get the regional daily paper concerned to print his denial. Surely that was wrong.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: Norman Tebbit.
  Mr. Allaun: It was not Norman Tebbit.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: That case is not so hypothetical because it happened to a number of us, including myself, with The Sun. The truth is that, unless one proposes to enter financial commitments into which most of us are simply not prepared to enter, there is, in fact, jolly little redress, so it is no laughing matter.
  Mr. Allaun: My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is right, and I shall come to that point later.
  The Bill would give the public a right of reply to factual misreporting or misrepresentation of themselves in the media. In the case of daily newspapers, there would have to be a publication of the reply within three days. Where weekly or monthly papers were involved, it would have to be in the next issue. The reply would be published
  574
  without charge and in the same position as the original report and would be of the same length. This does not mean that a story of 10 paragraphs would have to be followed by a denial of 10 paragraphs. If the allegations complained about were only one paragraph in length, only one paragraph would have to be printed. It could not be tucked away at the foot of column 8 on page 16, where nobody would read it or people would disregard it as unimportant. If the false report had appeared on the front page, the denial would also have to be on the front page, and rightly so.
  On radio or television, the reply would have to be published at an equivalent time. If the original report was made at peak broadcasting time, the denial would also have to be at that time. If the editor published the reply, that would be the end of the matter—no trouble.
  What would happen if the editor denied inaccuracy? What would happen in the case of frivolous complaints by cranks? The case would go to a panel headed by a judge with experience of the subject and consisting of experts from the media and representatives of the general public. If the complaint were upheld, the reply would have to be published within three days after the case had left the panel. Failure to comply would mean a fine of up to £40,000. I shall explain in a moment why that sum has been fixed.
  I hope that no hon. Member will say that the Bill is impracticable. A closely similar measure has worked, and worked successfully, for many years in West Germany, France, Denmark, Canada and many western countries. Britain is lagging behind in this aspect of civil liberties and rights.
  I shall quote just two sentences from a five-page report that I have received from Dr. Soehring, a distinguished lawyer who practices in these matters in West Germany. It states:
  "The Axel Springer Press estimates that about 50 counter-statements are published annually in the boulevard newspaper Bild, which is by far the largest paper of West Germany with about 5 million copies a day."
  So its circulation is even bigger than that of The Sun.
  "The NDR, one of the big German public radio and TV stations which serves the northern territories of West Germany with three federal states and additionally handles the TV service for all of West Germany, estimates that about 20 demands for broadcasting a counter-statement, both on radio and TV, are made per annum. They will actually broadcast about 5 to 10 counter-statements a year, as was estimated by their legal department."
  The Bill is on almost identical lines to the French law. Some hon. Members may think that television is a more difficult terrain for the right of reply to operate in than the press—possibly it is. In France, in the case of television, in the years 1976 to 1979, in 19 instances the right of reply had been exercised by private individuals, and there were 13 instances on Radio France.
  In addition, the right of reply has been exercised three times on French television by opposition parties.
  Mr. Phillip Whitehead: Will my hon. Friend tell the House, because it is not clear from the Bill, whether the panel would supersede the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, which is charged with the duty of providing the right of reply and has statutory backing?
  Mr. Allaun: I am glad that my hon. Friend has asked me that question. In about half a minute I shall deal with it.

  575
  It may be asked, why go to all this trouble for 35 cases? Surely the answer is that the law has meant that hundreds or thousands of other cases have been prevented because television and radio editors and producers have become more responsible.
  I shall now consider the objections. The first is that complainants could take out a libel suit instead. That is not so unless they are extremely wealthy. It is possible for Sir James Goldsmith, but not for the ordinary man or woman. Legal aid is not available in libel cases. I stress that the libel law would not be altered in any way by the Bill. As the House knows, newspapers have highly paid lawyers. One has 15. They also have heavy insurance policies.
  It may be objected that the Bill is attempting to do the job of the Press Council. The National Union of Journalists and many others make justified criticisms of the Press Council, although the Manchester branch of the NUJ, to which I belong, first asked for the establishment of the Press Council in 1947. The criticisms are threefold. The first is that the Press Council has no power to require a newspaper to publish a reply and no power to punish it. Secondly, there are often delays of six or nine months before an adjudication is made, by which time the damage is done irreparably. I had a successful case before the Press Council, which it upheld, but a hell of a long time elapsed before the adjudication was made. The final objection is that the Press Council is overloaded with and over-influenced by press proprietors' representatives.
  Another argument raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), is that the Broadcasting Complaints Commission can do the job. It cannot. Although the Annan committee recommended that it should have the power to prescribe remedial action for treatment that it found to be unfair and to require the responsible broadcasting authority or company to broadcast an apology to any justly aggrieved person, the Broadcasting Act 1981 ignored both those recommendations. Therefore, the Broadcasting Complaints Commission has no such power.
  As a Member of the House for 27 years, I have balloted on every occasion for motions and Bills, and have never been lucky till now. Therefore, I decided to choose an issue that I thought was useful and important, and had a chance of success. The 12 sponsors allowed include six Conservative Members and six Labour Members. The Bill was inspired by Tom Baistow, an experienced Socialist journalist. I have received great help from the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), one of the most distinguished lawyers in the House of Commons.
  I do not claim that the details of the Bill are perfect. I would be amenable to the Bill being amended in Committee. I hope that those who are sympathetic to the principle of the measure will support it. It is not a panacea. As long as we have a press that is owned and controlled by millionaires, there is no complete cure. This is a limited reform. In the interest of extending democracy, I ask hon. Members to vote in favour of it.
  9.56 am
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I congratulate the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) on his good fortune in the ballot after so long a waiting period and on the good use that he has seen fit to make of it. I congratulate him, too, on the persuasive and
  576
  moderate way in which he has put his case. I thank him most sincerely for his kind and characteristically overgenerous reference to me.
  Surprise has been expressed in some quarters at my association with the Bill and that of some of my hon. Friends—a sort of "Is Saul also among the prophets?" I do not apologise for making common cause with the hon. Gentleman in the Bill, nor do I find it an occasion for surprise. Fortunately, political enmity is not characteristic of our parliamentary system. I recall my father telling me years ago of a remark made to him by the late Chuter Ede. My father attended a dinner at which Chuter Ede and Walter Monckton were the principal speakers. Afterwards my father said to Chuter, "How nice it is to see two political enemies like you and Walter on such friendly terms tonight." He replied, "My dear Jonah, Walter and I are not political enemies. We are political opponents. The political enemies are the chaps on your own side who are trying to pinch your job." Fortunately, I have no job, so I have no political enemies. No doubt the House will hear expert testimony on that interesting point from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).
  Although Chuter Ede, that great democrat and parliamentarian, made that observation in a jesting way, he would agree, as we all would, that one of the cherished characteristics of our parliamentary democracy, this great heritage bequeathed to us by our forefathers, not without toil and sacrifice, is that the things which unite us are much greater and more enduring than those that divide us.
  There is, or should be, nothing to shock or surprise in hon. Members of various political persuasions and allegiance being joined in the promotion of what they believe to be a worthwhile and proper objective. The Bill is such a case. The end that the Bill seeks to serve is good, no less than the proper application in this context of the great principle of natural justice. That being so, propose to seek to show why the Bill accords with that principle; why it does not conflict with the proper freedom of the press; why some such measure is necessary at this time; and why, while, like all Bills, it is capable of improvement in later stages, its mechanics do not deserve the criticisms that have been levelled against them.
  It is called the "right of reply" Bill, but it might equally have been called the "right to be heard" Bill. The right to be heard is one of the basic ingredients of the great concept of natural justice which is one of the great principles of the rule of law that constitutes one of the twin pillars of our constitution according to Dicey's description of it. It is formulated on the maxim audi alteram partem—hear the other side. It is a concept which that great authority, Professor Wade, has said is fundamental to fair procedure and one of the most far-reaching principles of natural justice.
  Indeed, as Mr. Justice Fortescue observed in the seventeeth century in Bentley's case:
  "Even God himself did not pass sentence on Adam before calling on him to make his defence: 'Adam', said God, 'Where art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the Tree whereof I comanded thee that thou shouldst not eat?'"
  If God accorded to Adam the right of reply, how can the media claim to be exempt?
  We are here concerned, then, with a fundamental principle and a long-standing precedent. If it is right that a citizen has the right to be heard and to put his own case

  577
  when assailed by one individual, how can it be otherwise when he suffers or believes that he suffers at the hand of a great organisation with a mass circulation?
  On the face of it, the answer is clear. It is what lawyers call an open and shut case. It must be so, unless there can be shown to be some overriding reason to exclude it—for example, that the application of this great principle would breach some other principle of equal or even greater value.
  Indeed, it is that which is alleged in this case. It is said that the right to be heard, as here proposed, would involve a derogation from that other great principle of the freedom of the press. If that were so, it would impale us on the horns of a painful dilemma—an unwelcome choice between breaching one or other of those great principles. Fortunately, it is not so. There is no such conflict and no such dilemma. There is nothing in the Bill that injures the freedom of the press as it is properly understood and exercised. The freedom of the press is certainly a great principle and one that is essential to a free society. I wholeheartedly and unreservedly concur with that.
  Every schoolboy knows, to adapt Macaulay's dictum in another context, the pronouncement in the dedication to the letters of Junius:
  "The liberty of the press is the palladium of all the civil, political and religious rights of an Englishman."
  The reference to the palladium did not then carry the possible double entendre that might arise today. Perhaps it is not wholly inept in some cases and circumstances. Nevertheless, the concept of freedom of the press and its great importance, as expressed in Junius's famous words and, 100 years or so earlier, in Milton's classic condemnation of censorship in the Areopagitica, is implanted deep in the breasts of us all.
  Nevertheless, the practice of that general principle does not invest all the content of the press with a special sanctity or immunity from correction or control. I remember, at a lobby lunch about 30 years ago, the function of the press being expressed in less sonorous and respectful terms by no less a man than the late Herbert Samuel. He had a brilliant mind and was a great Liberal statesman—we are all ecumenical today. He said:
  "The function of the press is to separate the wheat from the chaff and to print only the chaff."
  There is a tendency perhaps to read more into the phrase "freedom of the press" than it properly and logically should have. It was referred to by William Cowper as the "God of our idolatry", but it is in fact a human institution with its fair share of human error and imperfection. Freedom in the context of the press is subject to the same constraints and limitations as in the case of individuals and other institutions.
  Freedom confers no right of special privilege and no right to injure others, without affording them remedy or redress. Freedom most certainly does not involve giving a free hand to the strong to oppress or vilify the weak. The press is an institution of enormous strength. It commands great respect in the proper exercise of that strength and it must, like all who have great strength, be careful not to abuse it. It must constantly keep in mind the words of Shakespeare in "Measure for Measure":
  "O! it is excellent
  To have a giant's strength, but it is tyrannous
  To use it like a giant."
  It is clear that the principles of natural justice, of which the right to be heard is one, require rights such as are
  578
  contained in the Bill, subject to proper safeguards. Subject to one improvement to which I shall refer, there are proper safeguards. There is the right of appeal to, and adjudication by, the proposed panel with its judicial chairmanship. The panel will comprise a balanced and informed membership, including full participation of the various aspects of the media. That should guarantee an expert and impartial decision which, I hope, will be acceptable to all. The only alternative that has been suggested is that put forward by the Guild of British Newspaper Editors. It says:
  "The complex issues of right of reply are best handled by the Editor exercising his independent judgment within a framework of principle developed by a voluntary Press Council."
  With great respect, that is unrealistic and unacceptable. To suggest that the editor of a newspaper against whom a complaint is made can make an independent judgment is obviously absurd. In those circumstances, the editor is a vitally interested party to the dispute, and in an adversarial position to the complainant. How can he possibly make an independent judgment? He would be making an ex parte decision and be acting as judge in his own cause. That position is incompatible with the principles of natural justice.
  I shall deal briefly with the other criticisms of the Bill as the hon. Member for Salford, East has dealt with them. With the single exception that I shall mention soon, I believe that they are groundless. It is true that other remedies already exist. For example, there is the right to sue for damages and an injunction for libel. However, such a remedy is not a substitute for what is here proposed. It is slow moving, uncertain, expensive and attracts no legal aid. Many an aggrieved citizen would understandably shrink from risking his possibly slender resources on such a hazardous exercise.
  Another criticism is that the Bill does not distinguish between errors of fact and misrepresentation. In this context, that distinction is without a difference. Misrepresentation, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, means
  "to represent improperly or imperfectly; to give a false account of".
  The only difference, therefore, between misrepresentation and misstatement of fact is motive. Motive would be relevant if the remedy were damages; but as it is merely correction and reply, the motive is immaterial.
  The Bill is also criticised because it includes a reference to distortion. Again, I find it difficult to understand why. Distortion, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, means
  "the twisting or perversion of words, facts, history, etc."
  There is a long usage of that phrase—it dates back to the seventeenth century—and it is well understood. Like the elephant, distortion is difficult to define but easy to recognise, certainly by an expert panel such as is here proposed.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is it my right hon. and learned Friend's understanding that prosecutions under the Bill will be brought by the police or the private person? If it is the latter, as in common sense it must be, does not that involve the private person in all the problems of litigation about which he has just warned us?
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith: As my hon. and learned Friend knows, my practice of the law does not make me

  579
  a frequent attendant in the criminal courts where he practises with such expertise and acclaim. I can refer that matter of detailed mechanics for his opinion in Committee.
  When dealing with distortion, there is an element of suppressio veri just as much as suggestio falsi, and the suppression of a truth would come within the ambit of distortion.
  I come finally to the one criticism that I believe has some validity, and which I would ask the House to consider if the Bill goes further. It is the alleged danger of a flood of unfounded and irresponsible complaints. That danger can be met by the safeguard of an award of costs in proper cases. Such a power to award costs, if given to a statutory tribunal, should be expressly conferred in the statute setting it up. For example, section 18 of the Arbitration Act 1950 gives the arbitrator power to award costs. There is no such power in the Bill as it stands. It may be better perhaps to await the views of the House and Ministers on Second Reading, but proper provision can be made, if the House thinks fit, in Committee.
  I have found an appropriate precedent in rule 11 of the Industrial Tribunals (Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1980, which enacts that a tribunal shall not normally award costs, but may award them against a party where, in its opinion, that party has acted frivolously, vexatiously or otherwise unreasonably. A similar provision directed against frivolous or vexatious conduct would be an effective safeguard in this context. If the House wishes, I would propose that such a provision be inserted in Committee.
  I believe that the incorporation of that safeguard would result in a fair and workable procedure and meet the one valid criticism of the Bill as it stands. The Bill thus improved will benefit not just the citizen—which it plainly will—but the real interests of the media by removing a cause for criticism and complaint which is widely held today.
  I ask the media to see it in that light and not resent it as an attack upon it, which it neither is nor is intended to be. If the media are minded—wrongly, as I think—to resent it, I would commend to them the exhortation addressed by Hamlet to his mother when she resented his criticism:
  "O Hamlet! thou has cleft my heart in twain",
  to which he replied:
  "O throw away the worser part of it, and live the purer with the other half."
  Acceptance of the Bill would harm only the "worser" half of the media and by it alone should be resented. For the rest, I believe the majority, the Bill can do no conceivable harm. On the contrary, it will do good by removing grounds for reproach and by assisting it to enjoy and deserve, without qualification or abatement, the regard and esteem of the public.
  I hope that, on reflection, the media will see it in that light, as I believe they should. I believe that the Bill gives effect to a basic and valid principle; it will do good to many and harm to none, and will operate fairly and even-handedly between all parties. I believe that it would be a welcome and useful addition to the statute book, and I ask the House to give it a Second Reading.
  10.14 am
  Mr. Tony Benn: I should like to join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) on having sought the
  580
  opportunity to raise this subject in the House. It is a modest Bill. The fact that it attracts the support of Conservative Members shows that. I shall certainly study with great care what the right hon. and learned Member for Hertford, East (Sir Walker-Smith) said in supporting it, if for no other reason than that he defined parliamentary democracy in a way that I think would merit much deeper and more analytical thought.
  It is surprising how rarely the House of Commons discusses the media, given the fact that they are a subject of wide discussion outside Parliament. While supporting the Bill, I want to argue that the problem goes rather deeper than the issues it raises. I believe that it is a genuine tragedy—I choose my words carefully—that we do not have a pluralistic press. I say "pluralistic" deliberately because, whatever view hon. Members may take about the appalling problems confronting the world and Great Britain—how to safeguard the peace, how to create jobs, how to meet need and civil liberties in a world where technology and centralisation increasingly threaten the citizen—people do not have access through the media to all the facts, to a full range of options or to an opportunity to understand the rich traditions and variety of ideas that are at our disposal if only we were allowed to know about them.
  I do not want to make this speech an occasion for undue criticism, but I confirm what was said by my hon. Friend in moving the Bill, that press ownership is tightly controlled by a relatively small number of powerful people, some of whom are like Lord Beaverbrook, who frankly admitted to a Royal Commission that he owned his paper to make propaganda. Other newspapers, such as The Sun, are in the hands of big multinational companies. Not surprisingly, such newspapers reflect their owners' interests.
  If one takes some of the crucial questions of the day, all the newspapers, whatever they may say on eve of poll about which party they recommend their readers to support, are united in favour of Great Britain's established defence policy. They are pro-Common Market, as we learnt during the referendum, when 8 million people who voted "No"—I was one of them—were denied the opportunity to read a national newspaper that shared that view. By and large, they are all anti-union when matters arise involving a conflict between capital and labour.
  There is a small minority press—one daily paper which is the organ of the Communist party, the Morning Star, with a small circulation. There are other newspapers which put a different point of view but generally the newspapers reflect the establishment view, which does not meet the needs of many people.
  The BBC and ITN are in an area where the framework of ownership is different. ITN is statutorily required to balance its argument, and the BBC is covered by a charter approved by the House. Despite those statutory rules, the BBC and ITN, in the presentation of the news, are still largely—I leave outside some special programmes that they may produce—the establishment voice, in the sense that there is a formula coverage of what happens. I have read the views of people who have monitored the media and I have watched and indeed taken part in many programmes. The news bulletins are almost always anti-trade union when there is a conflict with capital or with publicly owned industries. There is almost always a cold war item, a law and order item emphasising crime or disaster and, in the past 12 months since the Government

  581
  got tough with the BBC and the other media about the Falklands, there is generally an item in support of that policy.
  As one who believes profoundly in the democratic process, I believe that any group that has power to set the agenda has a very great influence. That is the real power of the media. I cite just a few examples. Why has there been so much greater coverage of the attacks on civil rights in Poland than of those in Turkey where the leaders of the peace movement and the trade union movement are on trial for their lives? It is, of course, because Poland is a member of the Warsaw pact and Turkey is a member of NATO. Thus, in relation to those two countries, both under military control, people have not been allowed to appreciate, because it would be awkward for the establishment, that civil liberties are far more seriously threatened in terms of lives at stake in Turkey, which is one of our allies, than in Poland.
  I am not arguing that the situation in Poland should not have been covered. I strongly oppose the arrest of Walesa and the way in which things have been handled in that country, but the people of this country are equally entitled to know that among our allies are some of the most rotten military dictatorships in the world.
  Mr. Tim Brinton: In describing BBC and ITN news programmes, the right hon. Gentleman referred to items portraying this or that and to the setting of the agenda. The right hon. Gentleman has experience of professional broadcasting. Does he accept that the agenda for a broadcast, and especially for a news broadcast, must be set by the editor in charge, because someone has to do that job? Will he also confirm that he differentiates between an item being the voice of the newsreader or newscaster and the freedom of speech and views of individuals invited to appear in the programme?
  Mr. Benn: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will speak in the debate, as he raises important questions. My point is this. Mr. Speaker does not set the agenda for this House. He presides over a House in which the agenda is set mainly by the Government but also by the official Opposition on Supply Days, by an hon. Member such as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East who wins the ballot, or by another hon. Member such as my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) tabling a question. The principle of management prerogative, as applied to Parliament, would mean that Mr. Speaker would decide exactly what was to be discussed, who was to be called and what the outcome would be. Hon. Members should be cautious about suggesting that there is only one way of doing things. In a free society, the people must set the agenda according to the issues that they raise.
  The second aspect of the setting of the agenda is the differing treatment of dissidents. Our comment on the Soviet Union is rightly based on the belief that those who criticise the Government should have fair coverage. Yet British dissidents such as the women from Greenham Common, who are now in gaol, are treated quite differently. For more than a year when they lived in their plastic bags outside the camp they were scarcely mentioned—until they were gaoled under the Justices of the Peace Act 1361. If Conservative Members do not accept that, I can only say that that view is widely shared.
  582
  Thirdly, on the question of who is or is not to speak, I occasionally listen to "Farming Today". Interestingly enough, farmers are not merely allowed, but are encouraged, to criticise the Government. Everything that they say about agriculture policy is fairly reported over breakfast, with the views of this or that farmer in Northamptonshire or wherever. Yet the criticisms advanced by the trade union movement receive very different treatment. I cite just one example that greatly worries me—the treatment accorded to Derek Robinson of British Leyland. That man's character was virtually assassinated by the media although he was saying exactly the same thing as Lord Ryder said in the report that I appointed him to write. Because Derek Robinson was a member of the Communist party and because he was criticising the views of Sir Michael Edwardes, who had just been appointed, he was never allowed to make his case. Yet everything that he said about policy towards BL turned out to be right.
  The fourth power of agenda setting lies in deciding what is to be covered in our domestic affairs. I was much struck by comment in the newspapers after the Toxteth riots, when the present Secretary of State for Defence took a busload of industrialists round Toxteth in an attempt to encourage private investment. Having been round Toxteth in the bus, the industrialists expressed amazement at what they had seen. Why were they amazed? It was because the problems of poverty do not normally reach the agenda until there are riots. There is then mass coverage of violence, having ignored the problems that led up to it.
  It is amazing how much more coverage is given by the BBC and the ITN to the state of the pound sterling to six decimal points and to the state of the stock market than to the problems of millions of people in this country afflicted by long-term unemployment, lack of housing, education problems, and so on. Moreover, those who step out of line are subjected to misrepresentation, abuse and harassment and are crushed by the media. I make no complaints on behalf of public figures. Any public figure should be able to stand up for himself. I am therefore not arguing about what may be said about Mr. Livingstone, Mr. Scargill or myself. I have certainly never complained. Nevertheless, people who step out of line are misrepresented and their views are distorted. The Bill is designed to protect those people.
  In all seriousness, I believe that the way in which the media are now structured and operated obscures the real issues, concentrates on personalities to the exclusion of real issues, denies understanding of the choices open to us and to that extent is a direct threat to democracy. I wish to identify some ways in which we might achieve a pluralistic press and pluralistic media.
  First, the passage of the Bill will assist in that aim, although I am doubtful about an amendment in relation to costs, as costs may be used punitively if those with power to award them against complainants choose to do so, just as the possible cost of libel actions might frighten people off.
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that. I almost wondered whether he had read the Bill with his customary care. If effect were given to that proposal, the panel would be headed by a High Court judge. Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that such a person would abuse the power to award costs.
  Mr. Benn: I am simply saying that many of the people covered by the Bill would be inexperienced in these matters. They would not normally think in terms of libel actions, but they might well be advised that if their action failed costs might be awarded against them. Knowing the costs that the legal system imposed on those who use it, people with a grievance might be frightened off by the amendment that the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East suggests. We must go further. If it is our desire to maintain a pluralistic press, it must be properly financed.
  I appreciate that the idea of public funding of the media is suspect because some people say that we are arguing for a state press. I am opposed to that. But all parliamentary candidates get the benefit of one free post. All candidates are allowed to circulate to each of their constituents statements of their positions. That is the public funding of the media. Admittedly, it is only done once every five years, but the principle of funding dissent has long been accepted. Every candidate, whatever his opinion—in Bermondsey there are 26 candidates—receives money from the public coffers to circulate his arguments.
  The schools are a form of media. We do not have commercial schools, and every child who goes to school is entitled to a full range of knowledge. In adult life we deny that funding of pluralism which is at the heart of the democratic process. It is also necessary that the censorship now exercised against the distribution of literature is lifted by public demand.
  The anti-monopoly elements referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East need to be dealt with. If the House wants a pluralistic press, it should no longer accept the Official Secrets Act. The House should argue for a freedom of information Act to allow the press access to what goes on in the recesses of government.
  What is required is a wider range of opinion. If people ask, "What is the test of fairness?", the answer is simple. If somebody hears his or her view presented on the media, the test of fairness is whether he or she says, "That is my view." It is a self-monitoring process. What people say about those views once they have been publicised puts it in the domain of legitimate comment. Nobody, but nobody, should allow a position to arise where his or her view is misrepresented, and then a discussion takes place on the basis of that misrepresentation.
  Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: Is it not the case that one man's legitimate comment will be another man's distortion?
  Mr. Benn: I am not opposed to comment. If the hon. Gentleman doubts what I am saying let us consider the respectful way in which religious faith is covered. I have always been interested in theology. I listen to programmes about liberation theology in Latin America, about the views of the Quakers, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs and Jews. I watched the Pope's visit. If we apply the same test of fairness to political opinions that the media apply to religious faith, I would be satisfied. If there was a programme that treated the trade unions as fairly as the farmers are treated, that would also satisfy me.
  The House must accept that hon. Members are discussing a fundamental matter. The media in our society occupy a position similar to that occupied by the medieval church. Centuries ago there was a priest in every pulpit, in every parish on every Sunday who told the faithful what
  584
  the King wanted them to know. Today we have a pundit on every channel doing much the same thing. Proprietors use the guises of managerial prerogative or editorial discretion to ensure that ideas hostile to the status quo are not normally allowed out without some penalty of distortion.
  I go further than the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East who defined parliamentary democracy in such an interesting way, by saying that we are now going back to the 17th century when the independents—the churchmen—who would not accept the Acts of Uniformity fought for and won our liberties. The people who demanded the right to speak, despite the five mile Act which kept them five miles from the centres of our cities, brought us our liberties. If dissent is ignored, crushed and distorted it will be more difficult to deal with the problems that confront this country, the world and the House. We shall find it harder to answer those problems.
  Although I have been arguing the case of those who share my political views, what I have said should equally commend itself to those of different views. Hon. Members do not and cannot know, and only history will tell us, which views will be proved right in the end. We are all entitled to hear them all now, fairly represented and without the misrepresentation to which the Bill seeks a proper and overdue remedy.
  10.36 am
  Mr. W. Benyon: I am driven to remark that, with friends like that, who needs enemies or opponents, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) would say. So much of what the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said has nothing to do with the Bill. It has nothing to do with editorial policy, with reporting poverty in Toxteth or with the plurality of the press. The Bill concerns the right of reply.
  As a sponsor of the Bill, I hope that it will be given a Second Reading. The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) would not contend that it is perfectly drafted in every respect, but it enunciates an important principle. It should have a Second Reading and be considered in Committee.
  I have certain reservations, one of which has already been mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East. The word "serious" should be incorporated in clause 1, because it has a good legislative and parliamentary lineage. The House is talking about serious misrepresentations and inaccuracies. That must be emphasised. The Bill should contain a penalty for a frivolous complaint. I do not accept what the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East said about the possible repressive nature of a High Court judge sitting with others imposing costs for frivolous complaints. However, those are Committee points and do not detract from the main thrust of the Bill.
  The borderline between liberty and licence is difficult to define. The freedom of the press is very important, but it has never been an absolute freedom. It has been curtailed by the laws governing libel, obscenity, sedition and, more recently, racial prejudice, among others.
  The Bill is different from previous legislation. The Bill does not state that one cannot publish or that, if one does publish, there will be a penalty. It simply states that, if an inaccurate report is published, it can be answered. No

  585
  penalty or restriction of freedom is involved unless the appeal to the tribunal is successful and the newspaper or other form of media does not comply.
  It is unjust to lump all newspapers together. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East mentioned the power exercised by newspaper proprietors. Mention has been made of Mr. Rupert Murdoch of The Sun. A leader in The Times today, albeit not totally in support of the hon. Member for Salford, East, strongly supports the proposition that something must be done. When we talk about responsible journalism, there are good and bad newspapers, but one rotten apple affects the whole barrel.
  There is general agreement that the press is not held in high esteem. It is thought by the general public to be powerful, unaccountable and, by and large, unscrupulous. The recent disclosures of cheque book journalism and the appalling harassment of the royal family have served only to strengthen those views.
  That is unhealthy, and the press has only itself to blame. The Press Council, the industry's self-regulating body, was supposed to put matters right. Yet some newspapers hold it openly in contempt, and others completely ignore its findings. It is a paper tiger, if that is not too much of a pun. It is now being suggested, especially in The Economist, and today in The Times, that the Press Council should have teeth. One possibility is that its findings should be published on the front page of the newspaper concerned. That is not very different from the measure that we are suggesting today. However, there is another aspect to that. We all know that Fleet street is in a mess and, sadly, the disease is spreading to television. Whatever the reasons, and wherever the blame lies, there is no doubt that the employees of newspapers are killing the goose that lays the golden eggs instead of persuading the goose to lay many more, but smaller, eggs.
  Eventually management, which also bears a large share of the blame, must act in concert to rectify the position. But before that happens there will be more casualties. Everyone realises that, and that more of the circulation will be concentrated in fewer hands. Consequently, the power without responsibility will be far greater than when Baldwin used his celebrated phrase in the 1930s. Even the dear old Daily Herald was operating then.
  It has been and will be said that the Bill is political—that is why I was so distressed by what the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East said—and that I and my hon. Friends who have sponsored the Bill are dupes of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Trades Union Congress. It does not appear to me that the media are especially one-sided in their attacks or inaccuracies, as many of my hon. Friends will testify. But whatever we may think of the TUC and the various documents that have been circulated in support of the Bill, hon. Members on both sides of the House must agree that it is not healthy for the body politic if a large and important section of our society feels so bitterly about the media, as the trade unions definitely do.
  We are talking not about comments but about facts and inaccuracies in the media. Recourse to the law of libel to remedy that is only for the rich and powerful. It is important to give the right of reply to the individual citizen or organisation. Unless we do that, as The Times said this morning, the demand for more oppressive legislation will grow, and the freedoms that we all wish to preserve—the
  586
  freedom of the media to say and publish what they wish about all aspects of public life—will be threatened. That is why I hope that at the very least we shall give this Bill a Second Reading and allow it to be discussed in Committee.
  10.42 am
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), who opened this debate so well, I shall begin with a statement of interest. I am a member of the National Union of Journalists and I am employed as weekly columnist by The Guardian and by Punch, and I occasionally find employment on other newspapers. I describe that involvement in detail not simply because of my fastidious concern for the conventions of the House, but because I wish to make it clear that I am not offering the comments on British newspapers and television that I shall offer this morning as one of its alienated and irreconcilable opponents. I am proud to be part of British journalism, or, to be more precise, I am proud to be part of part of British journalism. What is clear from most of today's speeches, and what will become increasingly clear as the day goes on, is that there are several different strands, trends and traditions in British journalism. Some newspapers would be largely unaffected if my hon. Friend's Bill were passed, but many would be directly affected by it. Their conduct would be changed by it, and our society would be better for those changes.
  It is impossible for anyone who works with or reads British newspapers not to realise that they are afflicted by deep and serious problems that do not afflict newspapers in other Western democracies. My comments this morning are about newspapers rather than the BBC and independent broadcasters. However, I share my hon. Friend's view that his Bill, if it comes amended into law, should apply to the broadcasting media no less than to the printed word. For years the BBC has produced programmes of a high quality that is matched only by the arrogance of its response to any criticism when it falls below its normal high standards. I have no doubt that if there is to be some balance or influence towards objectivity, pressure to provide the right of reply must be extended to broadcasting no less than to newspapers.
  However, I wish to put the Bill in the context of newspapers. As I said, British newspapers are afflicted with a malaise that is peculiar to this one country in Western society. The problem is the polarisation of those newspapers. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) said rightly that the debate is not about politics in newspapers but about protection for those who suffer because of newspapers. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) is equally right to say that the polarisation of British newspapers causes problems for individuals who fall foul of the newspapers' prejudice. I refer to polarisation because bias is clearly not the right word. All newspapers are biased. The great newspapers of the world are biased in one direction or another. The extraordinary thing about British newspapers is that they are almost entirely biased in a single direction. The bias applies not only to national but to local newspapers.
  Many years ago I accompanied Senator Muskie on one of his campaigns to obtain the Democratic presidential nomination. In state after state, his morning began with a briefing at breakfast when one of his aides would explain

  587
  to him the political position of the newspaper in the town where they were that morning. It struck me then that anyone making such a tour of Britain would not need to waste his time with such information. He would always know during the train journey the political position of the regional or local newspaper in the area where he was campaigning.
  My complaint is not that the bias or the polarisation is concerned with views different from mine, or with attacks on the party of which I am a member, but that it has an extraordinary effect on the way in which newspapers react to individual issues. It makes newspapers feel that when those issues are assumed to concern the establishment, they must be on the side of the establishment.
  On this ecumenical occasion, I must say that that process has been enormously encouraged, and therefore society has been enormously damaged, by the recent practice of newspaper editors accepting knighthoods. It is extraordinary that men who are responsible for the policy of a newspaper should accept knighthoods from a Government. The three knighthoods that were conferred were greeted on the more serious side of Fleet Street with reactions that ranged from contempt to derision. However sensibly Fleet Street reacted to those three ennoblements—if that is the correct description—a newspaper that announces that it is being edited by a man who has accepted an honour from the Queen, but for which he was nominated by the Prime Minister, is asking for the complaints that are more and more justified and which that editor demonstrates and exemplifies.
  I must emphasise that those complaints are not that newspapers are generally against the Labour party. Those of us who have been in the Labour party for 30 years have learned to live with that and to regard it as the natural course of events. It is that, because they are so geared to one point of view, they give less than just treatment to individuals who fall outside that point of view. I mean, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East said, trade unions, members of all the minorities and radicals in general.
  I do not mean so much today's issue that radical causes do not get adequate treatment. My concern is that radical individuals will be treated by newspapers in a way that is possibly detrimental to them and ought not to be accepted and allowed in a free society.
  The Bill is concerned about the individual's right to protect himself from newspapers. I make it clear that, when I talk about individuals, I talk largely about individuals who want to lead their own private lives in privacy. I take the view that people such as Members of this House, who have chosen to move into the public domain, cannot complain when they receive the sort of publicity that they would not wish to be directed towards them. If we choose to live public lives, we must pay the penalty of that publicity.
  My concern is for very many people whose names we cannot remember—people who want to live in an obscurity which is their right—and who find that, because of circumstances over which they have no control, newspapers say things about them that have an adverse effect on their normal existence for the next decade. I give an immediate example of what I mean.
  The principal victim of my example is in fact something of a public figure, but his family, who were cruelly treated as a result of what happened, are private individuals who wish to remain private. This is a man whose son died from
  588
  an overdose of drugs. Being a man whose name would be known to this House and is certainly known to many newspaper readers, he took the sensible and, many of us here would think, the dignified course of making a short statement concerning his son's death which the more respectable and responsible newspapers published as a matter of fact and proper concern since the son of a public figure had died.
  He then, as many of us would do—I suspect that all of us would in these circumstances—chose to say nothing more in public but to retreat with his family into Ovate grief, only to discover to his astonishment that The Sun had published what purported to be an interview with him, describing what they claimed were the lurid conditions of his son's death and the lurid conditions that preceded it.
  This man was advised that there might be a case in law. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) will tell us whether that is true. But he was told, as are so many people, that there can be no certainty in these matters except enormous fees and cost, which the press barons could afford a great deal more easily than he could. He was also told that the net outcome would probably be weeks of speculation after the case about the circumstances of his son's death and about things that surrounded him. The outcome would probably be representatives of the same newspaper arriving at his door and at the doors of remote members of his family to ask for intimate details about his son's life immediately before the tragedy. He was told that in practice he had no recourse other than to go to the Press Council to see what it might do.
  The Press Council, in my experience, does two things: the first is nothing and the second is to ask for a retraction and an apology; and even when it gets a retraction and an apology it turns out normally to be something that has been honed by the individual editor to be as offensive to the Press Council and the complainant as possible.
  I give an example. A distinguished solicitor was accused by Sir John Junor in his column in the Daily Express of going out of his way to find famous clients whose fees would be paid out of public funds. The two parts of the allegation were both wholly untrue. The case went to the Press Council and the Press Council required Sir John Junor to make an apology and a correction. He wrote in his column the following week—I will not use the gentleman's name, because it has been bandied about enough—
  "I am delighted to accept … assurance that his headline-making clients are paying their fees out of their own pockets."
  That does not seem to me to be redress of a sort that would be regarded as reasonable by any reasonable man, although it is, I fear, typical of the best that is presently obtained from the Press Council.
  The worst that is obtained is a great deal worse. It is indicative of whether there is a better form of improving press standards than the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East recommended this morning—whether the British newspaper industry will ever regulate and discipline itself and struggle to improve its standards. I do not believe that it is possible to read our tabloid newspapers and come to the conclusion that there will be a sudden desire to improve their standards and to change their conduct. If anyone still holds that view, it is worth while examining the, case of the Daily Mail, as arraigned in front of the Press Council a few weeks ago.

  589
  The House will recall that the Press Council examined one of the more sordid passages in British journalism—the pursuit of the memoirs of Mrs. Sutcliffe, the wife of the man whom the newspapers had chosen to call "the Yorkshire Ripper". Many newspapers offered this unfortunate lady money. The Daily Mail did not offer Mrs. Sutcliffe money. Indeed, the editor, Sir David English, made it clear that he did not intend to pay Mrs. Sutcliffe money. He made that clear to his deputy editor. The deputy editor was required to give Mrs. Sutcliffe the impression that they were offering her money, for, although they did not want to buy her memoirs, as Sir David said, they wished to
  "keep their lines of communication open and prevent the information going to other newspapers."
  Very rightly, in the view of many hon. Members, the Press Council censured the Daily Mail for what it had done. What was its response? Was it the response of the romantics and sentimentalists about British newspapers—that it would try to do better in future? It was not. It was an assertion that its conduct had in no way been discreditable; that its subterfuge—the word "subterfuge" appeared in the article written on the subject by the editor—was wholly justified; that this was the nature of the free press. Whenever individuals like my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East, the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East or the hon. Member for Buckingham want to curtail the rights of the press to do enormous damage to the lives of private individuals, the newspapers say that their right to do that is essential in a free society.
  Mr. Whitehead: Is not the case made more serious by the fact that the Press Council only discovered the information that it did about the behaviour of the Daily Mail and a number of other newspapers because Mr. Sutcliffe's defence counsel had happened to keep the chits and promissory notes pushed through Mrs. Sutcliffe's door? The newspapers had withheld information about the transactions in many cases.
  Mr. Hattersley: That is absolutely true. It is a bizarre situation. The Daily Mail told the Press Council that it had no intention of buying Mrs. Sutcliffe's memoirs. That was literally true. What it did not tell the Press Council was that it had gone out of its way to deceive Mrs. Sutcliffe into believing that it intended to buy her memoirs.
  The response from the editor of the Daily Mail was that the subterfuge—to use his word—was wholly justified in terms of freedom of the press. It is not freedom of the press about which such people are concerned. In this particular, the Daily Mail was anxious to prevent the story from getting into other newspapers—into the hands of its competitors. What newspapers are concerned with on these occasions is circulation and profit. One of the more nauseating aspects of the entire debate is that, when newspapers make money out of exploiting grief and suffering, they always justify it by talking about their eternal liberties which they pretend they are attempting to protect.
  I believe that our eternal liberties involve balance, justice for individuals and, as the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East said with such eloquence, the right to reply. For all those reasons I propose to vote
  590
  for my hon. Friend's Bill at 2.30 this afternoon. I do not pretend that the Bill's application is without difficulties. Indeed, trying to write about it in one of the newspapers in which I wrote, I made an essay at paradox and said, not very successfully perhaps, that I regarded it as largely unworkable and wholly desirable. That is my attitude. I would much prefer an instrument that we could be sure would work with precision. I would much prefer a newspaper industry in which the Bill was not required.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East shares my view that we are not prepared to consider the Bill, with its admitted inadequacies, on the basis that the British newspaper industry is perfect. We are trying to get a better world and, for all the difficulties involved, I believe that my hon. Friend's Bill will help to provide that better world.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: Naturally, I am grateful for the support of my right hon. Friend, who has instanced some very important cases, but he is suggesting that the Bill might be unworkable. I assure him that the Bill is drafted very closely in the light of the experience of countries which have operated such a measure successfully over many years. Therefore, if it can be done there, it can be done here.
  Mr. Hattersley: I accept that entirely.
  I talked about my attempt at paradox in Punch, as my hon. Friend will recall. While everything that I say in the House has to be taken with the literal seriousness with which it is intended, sometimes the things that I write in Punch, like other things in Punch, verge on the border of being humorous. I never say that they fall over the right side of the line but sometimes they hover around it.
  I accept without qualification that, perhaps with a couple of amendments, it would be possible to make my hon. Friend's Bill the workable instrument that we want to see, although there are some difficulties, and it is only fair to describe them.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) talked about the bias which is in itself damaging to individuals. He talked about its effect on individual members of trade unions. I was deeply offended 10 days ago by a television broadcast which had dealt with the water strike. It showed an isolated example of a hospital where there were temporary difficulties. There had been a mains burst which had not been repaired with the speed with which it would have been repaired had there not been a water dispute. By any standards, that is a sort of bias. It was not typical of the situation and it did not contribute to the argument about the merits of the dispute; but it was clearly damaging to the lives and reputation of water workers in the area of that isolated example. It may be damaging to the reputations of water workers throughout the country. In my view, it was a disgrace; an example of selective journalism of the worst sort. I cannot imagine how in those circumstances there could be an adequate reply.
  Therefore, even with my hon. Friend's Bill there would be some problems and some remaining injustices. There would be some occasions when people who had been injured would not get proper recompense for their injury.
  I repeat what I said at the beginning of my speech. I believe that the state of some British newspapers, in terms of their relationships with individuals—very often humble individuals—is such that the lives of the latter are damaged

  591
  to a considerable extent without there being an adequate opportunity for them to defend themselves. Therefore, a step in the direction of my hon. Friend's Bill is absolutely right.
  I am reinforced by no less an authority than the chairman of the Press Council. When he made the adjudication on the Sutcliffe case—the purchase of Mrs. Sutcliffe's memoirs—he said that unless the newspapers started to regulate themselves, the demand for some statutory regulation would be overwhelming. The response to that judgment by the chairman of the Press Council was Sir David English's announcement that his subterfuge was wholly justified.
  The newspapers will not regulate themselves. Therefore, in my view, the sort of measure that my hon. Friend recommends is wholly necessary.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor)rose—
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Those of us who have been here for several Fridays recently have noticed that the Ministers taking part in debates have taken an inordinate amount of the time devoted to private Members' business—often 45 or 50 minutes. Will the Chair give some direction in that respect with regard to our business today and in the future?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): The hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) has raised a point which is very close to my heart, because I think that many hon. Members take a long time in making their speeches, whether from the Front Benches or the Back Benches. Mr. David Mellor.
  Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One understands and welcomes the fact that the Front Benches wish to make their interventions in the debate at the appropriate time. The debate has continued for one and a half hours, but there has not yet been one speech in opposition to the Bill. Therefore, I find it very strange that a Minister should intervene before we have had a full debate on the merits of the Bill.
  Mr. Lawrence: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I first came to the House in 1974, Ministers and Opposition Front Bench spokesmen used to speak early in the afternoon. It was recognised that that was done because Ministers had to get to their weekend constituency engagements. There was some acceptance of the practice. But we now find that Ministers and Opposition Front Bench spokesmen are speaking earlier and earlier in the debates. Indeed, it looks as though it may not be long before they will be opening the debates on private Members' motions and Bills.
  Mr. Dalyell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point that I wish to make is the same as that just made by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). Supposing that some of us want to ask questions in order to obtain clarification of the Government's attitude on important issues, when are we to be answered?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The points of order place the Chair in some difficulty because it is usual to call Front Bench speakers when they rise. Therefore, when the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr.
  592
  Hattersley) rose, I naturally called him. If the Minister chooses to rise now, I shall by convention call him. I do not know whether he wishes to do so.
  Mr. Whitehead: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we appeal through you to the Minister to restrain himself until a later stage in the debate?
  Mr. Mellor: I should be happy to do that, but with some discomforture, because I imagine that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who has just spoken, would have expected me to follow him. However, I think that I sense the mood of the House on each side, so I shall resume my seat.
  Mr. Hattersley: That releases the Minister from any obligation that he feels. I received a note from the Whips asking me whether I would speak next and stating that the Minister would speak thereafter. As usual, I was obedient—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that they are taking time from the debate.
  11.7 am
  Sir Angus Maude: I am the first hon. Member who has been called to oppose the Bill, but, although I rise to oppose it, and although I have spent most of my working life in journalism—part of it as a newspaper editor—I do not intend today to make a stirring defence of the press and its behaviour, let alone of the behaviour of the electronic media. I well understand the motives which have prompted my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Bill. I think that I understand even better the reasons which have prompted the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) and his hon. Friends to put forward the Bill yet again.
  I agree entirely with the closing words of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), that unless the press made some effort to deal with justified complaints and the distrust which the public felt for it, some measure of this kind would become unavoidable and that the demand for it would be irresistible. The question is whether this Bill is the right way to deal with the problem.
  I want to deal first with the principle and then with detail and workability.
  The political implications of the Bill—which have certainly not been stressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith)—are much deeper and much more powerful and obvious than have been suggested so far by the proponents of the Bill.
  I was glad that the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) and the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook brought the political issues out into the open. I sympathise with the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East. More often than not I have disagreed with what he has said, but I believe that he has had a rotten deal from the press and the media of this country; that they have built him up into some sort of ogre, either by deliberate distortion or by the omission of parts of what he has said, so that his genuinely held views have been distorted. But when he talks, as both he and the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook did, of the need for a pluralistic press, this is a very dangerous road to go down, especially if he also talks about public subsidies. I am sorry to have to tell the

  593
  right hon. Gentleman that it will not work, anyway. In view of the very large sums of money which the British trade union movement has had at its disposal in the past, there was no reason why the Daily Herald and its successor should have folded and why another Left-wing newspaper should not have been started. It never has worked, and it will not work.
  I will venture to explain why it will not work. It is because the earnest and well-intentioned people who run Left-wing or leftish newspapers will insist on trying to give their readers what they think those readers ought to read. The wicked capitalist employers and their editors know perfectly well that the only way to enable a newspaper to survive is, by proper market research and attention to the circulation figures, to give their readers what those readers actually want to read. That is why those newspapers survive and the others do not. Deplorable though it may be that the taste of some readers produces some newspapers that the high-minded do not like, that is what free choice and democracy are about.
  I can understand the disapproval of Opposition Members. I can understand their political frustration. I can imagine what I would feel if all the national daily newspapers were controlled by Mr. Ken Livingstone or the members of Militant Tendency. I should not like it in the least. However, that is most unlikely to happen because none of them could make a go of a newspaper for more than about a month.
  But there are political implications here. There is no doubt that many journalists and editors believe that the press is already too circumscribed by the libel laws, by the law of contempt of court and by the Official Secrets Act. Opposition Members have tried on several occasions to get some of these constraints liberalised. But these do not go to the root of the complaints which have been made against the press. There is no legal aid in libel cases, they take far too long to get to court, and the sort of complaint which has been made about individual cases here is not met by those legal restraints on the freedom of the press.
  There is a great deal of inaccuracy in the modern newspaper. By the time that the printers have finished with it, sometimes it is difficult to tell what a sentence was even intended to mean, let alone what it means when it emerges in print. But inaccuracy is inevitable in newspapers. There is no escape from it.
  The great editor of the Daily Express, Arthur Christiansen, once called his staff together—this story was also given in evidence by the late Mr. John Gordon to the first Royal Commission on the press in 1949—and said, "You and I know that if we read any story in a newspaper on a subject about which we have some direct or expert knowledge, something in that story is always wrong." That is as true today as it ever was, as we all know.
  Inaccuracy is virtually inevitable at some stage in the production of almost every newspaper. It is partly a problem of time. Those who talk high-mindedly about the deficiencies of newspapers very seldom have any idea of the almost traumatic experience of trying to get a daily newspaper out on time and of the pressures which it involves on everyone. Stories change, to say nothing of the uncomfortable habit of Wall street opening in the afternoon and the Australians insisting on doing their business in the middle of the night, so that at awkward hours and between editions new stories arrive, pages have
  594
  to be replated, stories have to be moved from one page to another and paragraphs have to be cut out. I know from bitter experience that rapid cutting by a harrassed sub-editor can do more to distort a story and make it inaccurate than deliberate or accidental miswriting in the first place.
  There is another reason why inaccuracies are perpetuated. It is due to the cuttings files in newspaper libraries. These perpetuate error in the most remarkable way. I remember a case of which I had personal knowledge. The distinguished political correspondent of a Sunday newspaper wrote a story many years ago which included one misstatement of fact which I knew to be a misstatement of fact. That misstatement of fact appeared regularly in almost every newspaper which dealt with the subject for the next five years or so, until finally I got fed up and wrote a letter to someone about it.
  The material which gets into the cuttings file is established, and an inaccuracy tends to be repeated. This can happen again and again. All this is inevitable as long as people want daily newspapers, and people will want daily newspapers as long as it takes for the electronic media to replace them. I assure the House that when the electronic media have replaced the printed newspaper, the difficulties of getting rights of reply will be infinitely greater than they are now.
  Is this Bill right in principle? I noticed that in what I thought was a well-balanced leading article in the Financial Times yesterday the leader writer said:
  "The classic case against the law intervening in these matters was made by Thomas Jefferson 170 years ago: 'I deplore … the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed, and the malignity, the vulgarity and mendacious spirit of those who write for them.'"
  That is probably a fair reflection of the views of some Opposition Members today. Jefferson said that this was an evil for which there is no remedy; our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.
  I am not sure that I go quite as far as that. I am content to rest my argument on the conclusions of the last Royal Commission on the press, which reported in 1977, dealing with the proposal which had been put to it for a legal right of reply as had been operating in West Germany. That Royal Commission was not a notably Right-wing body and certainly was not overweighted with representatives or champions of the press. I think that I am right in saying that neither Mr. David Basnett nor Mr. Geoffrey Goodman, who were members of the commission, dissented from that part of the Royal Commission final report. The Royal Commission said:
  "Our objections are on grounds of principle … we believe that the press should not be subjected to a special regime of law, and that it should neither have special privileges nor labour under special disadvantages compared with the ordinary citizen. That argues against a special measure for ensuring a right of reply. We prefer a non-legal method of securing corrections."
  That was the conclusion of an impartial Royal Commission which had spent a great deal of time on the matter and had heard a great deal of evidence about how the system worked in other countries and had considered the question of principle. The House should attach a great deal of weight to that conclusion.
  The Royal Commission went on to recommend that the Press Council should see that newspapers
  "make editorial space available to those they have criticised inaccurately so that they may set the record straight without delay."

  595
  That is an unexceptionable proposal. The Royal Commission went on to say:
  "We recommend further that, as part of the process of conciliation which we have proposed, the Press Council should involve itself actively in obtaining the publication as soon as practicable of counter-statements on behalf of people who have been criticised unfairly on inaccurate information".
  It is worth noting that, in both those passages, the test which the Royal Commission laid down involve criticism of the complainant based on inaccurate information. Therefore, the test requires both inaccuracy and criticism, which would cut out many of the cases which we have heard today. The Bill goes much further than the test laid down by the Royal Commission and some of its definitions and phraseology in fact ensure that it will be unworkable. The Bill does not define a newspaper and there is no doubt whatever that that will cause trouble. There are probably about 1,200 newspapers in Britain on a fairly narrow definition of the word and, in addition, there are many other journals which could be held to be newspapers.
  How does one define what "involves" a person and what can be considered reasonable grounds for considering something to be factually inaccurate or distorted? I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East would say—indeed, I think that he did—that the judge who will head the proposed panel would use a conventional common law test to decide whether an appeal was reasonable once the case came before him. But it is before the case gets to the panel that the test of what is reasonable is important, because at that point it is not objective, as it would be to the judge, but purely subjective. The demand will be made if the individual himself thinks that his case is reasonable.
  I must tell the Bill's proposers that it is not only reasonable people who will complain. Everyone from the mildly eccentric to the wholly paranoic will consider that he has reasonable cause for complaint. There are people, familiar to all Members of Parliament, who write us letters underlining words in different coloured inks and complain that they are being persecuted by the checkout clerks at Tesco, the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury. The point is that their complaints are not frivolous to them. My right hon. and learned Friend may think that the threat of costs will cut down the number of complaints which come to the panel. It will not, because these are not frivolous complaints; they are deeply felt complaints and entirely reasonable to the person who makes them.
  Mr. W. Benyon: Can my right hon. Friend explain why such nut cases do not exist in Germany or France?
  Sir Angus Maude: I have no doubt whatever that they do. I suspect that the reason is simply both that the German newspapers are somewhat different from ours and that the Germans are much more disciplined people and keep their nut cases under much better control than we seem to do.
  I assure the promoters of the Bill that it will not be just the tabloid dailies which will cause the complaints, as they genuinely seem to believe. No doubt they do most harm, but there are 1,200 newspapers, and local resentments can arise from reports in local newspapers, which can run very deep indeed. A misreport of who won the cake baking competition at the women's institute can cause a great deal of trouble, particularly when we go beyond "factually inaccurate" to the rather ominous word "distorted". The range of claims that could be made is almost unlimited.
  596
  I should like some supporter of the Bill to tell me what the Bill would do about the factual reporting of other people's speeches.
  Dr. Shirley Summerskill: Will not the Bill act as a deterrent to factual inaccuracy? Perhaps journalists on small or national newspapers will be more careful to get their facts right in future.
  Sir Angus Maude: They are careful now but inaccuracies will always creep in. Every hon. Member knows what happens when that ghastly group photograph is taken before a civic or association dinner, when the photographer is desperately trying to get the spelling of names right and the town clerk or the agent is desperately trying to get people to the table. The names are always wrong and some glamorous blonde who belongs to a visiting business man is identified as the mayoress, which infuriates the mayoress and embarrasses the mayor. I am afraid that such inaccuracy is inevitable.
  There will always be someone who thinks that something in a speech involves a distortion. To take an extreme case, what would happen if The Times were to devote a double column on the front page to a lead story on a speech by President Reagan attacking the Soviet Union's policies? Would Mr. Andropov or the Soviet ambassador have equal space on the front page next day to deal with what they would undoubtedly consider to be distortions? The Bill would have political effects.
  Mr. Dalyell: Mr. Andropov, or whoever represented him, could write a letter to The Times. Is there riot a distinction between those papers that carry a letter page and those that do not?
  Sir Angus Maude: Yes, I recognise that. The letter page can do something to deal with that problem, but not many would think it was wholly satisfactory.
  I am satisfied that the Bill is wrong in principle and unworkable in practice. But the demand for something similar to it will increase unless the press soon does something more to regulate itself. The Press Council says that it will speed up its procedures. That is all to the good. But editors, even if the Bill is passed, will have to be pretty careful about the right to reply. They will have to bear in mind the salutary warning of the case of Miss Honor Tracy and the Sunday Times. She wrote a story that attracted a libel writ to the Sunday Times. Its editor, not liking libel writs, decided not to contest it and published an apology and a retraction—whereupon Miss Tracy sued the newspaper. She claimed that her professional reputation had been defamed because the contents of the article were both true and in the public interest. She won her case. Editors have had to be a great deal more careful about giving the right to reply and making retractions following that case.
  The Press Council must be the answer. The Royal Commission recommended that it should have more staff, more funds, conciliation machinery and a recognised code of practice that could be enforced. That would be fine, but it would require a great deal of effort to achieve it. Unless the press is prepared to set up a body that is as effective for it as the Advertising Standards Authority is for advertisements, some legislation will be inevitable.
  I hope that the House will not give the Bill a Second Reading today, but that that will not be taken by the press as a continuing licence to sin.
  11.32 am
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) on choosing for debate a subject of fundamental and topical importance. Often those who have an opportunity in the ballot choose a worthy but rather trivial topic. They may be right to do so if they want their Bill to reach the statute book.
  The speeches today, on both sides of the argument, have been interesting and of good quality. It would be a crying shame, a terrible pity and a lost opportunity if the Bill were to be snuffed out at 2.30 pm. Surely, after all that has been said, the House should give the topic a structured discussion. We shall miss that opportunity if a great many hon. Members who have not heard the speeches vote at 2.30 pm and snuff out the Bill.
  One problem is that if any apology is forthcoming it is months, or even years, later. That raises the whole question of delay. The contents of the original article may often have become as remote as the Dead Sea scrolls, but the mud and the pain remain. I find the Bill enormously attractive because it gives some urgency to the right of reply.
  The issue to which I wish to devote my speech is the right of reply when the Prime Minister of the day is involved—a subject in which I have been interested for 17 years, ever since that extraordinary afternoon during Question Time when the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt), from the Bench now occupied by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East, entangled my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) in what became known as the "D-notice affair." I believe, retrospectively, that that was the beginning of the undoing of the 1966 Labour Government.
  Until last year, while recognising the importance of the issue, I confess to having hesitated about whether legislation affecting politicians should be deemed necessary. Recent events, however, have quelled my doubts. All Prime Ministers have naturally tried to put the best face on matters, and some, like the combination of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton and Mr. Joe Haines, from time to time have come fairly near the limits of the acceptable. But any doings of Harold and Joe are as small beer compared with the operations of the Prime Minister and Mr. Bernard Ingham during recent months.
  I referred in the House yesterday to the "Panorama" programme on which my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) and the hon. Members for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) and Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) appeared. Mr. Robert Harris, on page 78 of his remarkable book "Gotcha!", said about that programme:
  "Finally, the Prime Minister—'transfixed' is how one source described her—heard Cockerell describe how one of her 'former Cabinet Ministers with excellent Ministry of Defence contacts told me that there had been reservations from the start about the Falklands mission by the Chiefs of Staff', specifically Sir Michael Beetham, Chief of the Air Staff."
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no!"] This is relevant. Pressures are now being imposed by Foreign Office Ministers about last Monday's "Panorama" programme on the costs of Port Stanley airport—reported in today's Daily Express as £880 million.
  On 7 February, the Leader of the House said in reply to the Consolidated Fund Bill debate on the Prime Minister's relations with the media—
  Mr. Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order, even in a Second Reading debate, not to address oneself at all to the subject matter of the Bill?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): I am listenting carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). It would not be in order to illustrate his point at great length. But it is in order to use some illustration to amplify his support for or opposition to the Bill.
  Mr. Dalyell: The Leader of the House said about the Prime Minister's visit to the Falklands, and the release of the Franks report:
  "I do not suppose for one moment that this debate will close the topic."
  To truncate my remarks, I shall refer to the Consolidated Fund Bill debate that took place at 8.15 am last Tuesday. I start from the basic and passionate, if commonplace and seemingly trite, belief that working journalists should be uninhibited in writing what they really think and believe to be true. Whether what they say suits me or any other politician is immaterial.
  As a preface to my remarks, I wish to record that in 21 years as a Member of Parliament I have never yet made a complaint to newspapers about any of the less than flattering remarks that they have thought it proper to make about me from time to time. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that if we wish to live public lives we had better not squeal on our own account.
  It is a serious matter when attempts are made at news manipulation at the highest level. That brings me to a crucial issue—the embargo system and the lobby in the House of Commons. On 7 February, the Leader of the House said that Lord Marsh, chairman of the Newspaper Publishers Association, had written to Mr. Ingham saying that every endeavour would be used to ensure that embargoes were honoured. The Leader of the House said:
  "The way is now clear for some relaxation of the tight restrictions placed on the operation of the system following the wholesale breach of the Falklands honours and gallantry list embargo in October."—[Official Report, 7 February 1983; Vol. 36, c. 837–8.]
  Let us be candid about why that embargo was breached. Fact No. 1 is that the list was given out on Thursday 7 October. Fact No. 2 is that the embargo should have been lifted on Monday 11 October—an extraordinary and unusual four-day period. This is explained by fact No. 3, that the Prime Minister was addressing her party conference on Saturday 9 October and did not want her speech to be overshadowed by the publication of the honours list.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is filibustering, but is he not becoming more and more out of order? What on earth have his remarks to do with the Bill, which we want to discuss? It is an important Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will not go too far down that road. It is in order, of course, to use illustrations, but I am finding it difficult to relate the embargo arrangements to the subject of the Bill.
  Mr. Dalyell: The truth is that, in this case, the embargo was imposed not for the convenience of the press but for

  599
  the political purposes of the Prime Minister. To use this excuse for failing to give an advance issue of the complex Franks report in the form of a confidential finally revised issue is a shameless attempt at the manipulation of the press.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have just told the hon. Gentleman that I am finding it difficult to relate his remarks to the Bill. Will he please come to the subject of the Bill?
  Mr. Dalyell: I am referring to the reply when the press is manipulated or attempts are made at manipulation. I shall give an example.
  On the following morning, since journalists had had such a short time to write what they had to say about the Franks report and could only pick out certain key words such as "exonerated", of course there was a predictable result. Had there been a right of reply 24 or 48 hours later, there may have been the type of comment that The Sunday Times thought fit to give the following Sunday. The truth of the matter—this is why it is relevant to the Bill—is that those politicians who succeed in getting their first gloss and their interpretation of events are at an enormous advantage. The immediate issue is that, as long as the embargo system lasted, as long as it was properly used and not abused, there was less argument for having the type of Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East is putting forward. As soon as people start tampering with the long-existing lobby system of a civilised embargo for 24 or 48 hours, the time it takes a man or a woman to read the complex report, urgency applies to the type of right of reply that my hon. Friend is putting forward.
  Mr. Proctor: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's arguments and to relate them to the Bill. I think that he is talking about a report with which he disagrees. Was he mentioned in that report? Were any of his colleagues who hold similar views to his mentioned in the report? If they were not, according to clause 1 of the Bill, the hon. Gentleman would have no right of reply. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman could not use the Bill to help him.
  Mr. Dalyell: I am afraid that the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) has struck unlucky, because I was mentioned in the report; I gave evidence for an hour and 20 minutes to Lord Franks and his colleagues and had some locus along the lines that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. The answer is that in this case the Bill would be highly relevant and not irrelevant.
  By the manipulation of what she did, the Prime Minister was home and dry. She had put her first gloss on the report. The nature of the press being such, anything that followed—I shall not say that it was like the Dead Sea scrolls—did not matter too much by that time.
  Some of us agreed strongly with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said about BBC Television News. I make no complaint about Independent Television News, BBC Radio or Independent Radio News, but there are problems about inhibiting the long-term objectivity of the BBC which Alasdair Milne, whom I welcome very much as the new directorgeneral—those of us who knew him in Scotland have great confidence in him—and the new chairman of the board of governors—some of us are sorry to hear about the illness of George Howard and hope that he will have a speedy
  600
  recovery—be it Sir Nicholas Henderson or whoever it may be, should give their minds to the issue of the expression of minority opinions in what turn out to be highly emotive situations.
  The pressures on the BBC worry many of us I quote again from "Gotcha!" on a subject of considerable concern to many hon. Members. On page 60 Robert Harris says:
  "The BBC was told not to use a picture of a body in a bag, not to use the phrase 'horribly burned', not to show a pilot confessing, jokingly, that he had been 'scared fartless' on one mission. 'Clearance', rather than emotive words like 'censorship' or 'vetting', was the Ministry's euphemism for this extraordinary process."
  The BBC will have to develop a policy on such pressures. Where there can be the type of argument, which has been revealed, between Mr. Protheroe and Mr. Ingham where, rightly or wrongly, the Glasgow media group has revealed some of the internal workings—I do not know whether they were purloined but they have been revealed, although it was none of my doing—the fact is that the pressures of the BBC have come to light by hook or by crook. Nevertheless, they are there and in the light of this information it seems to me more and not less important that we discuss legislation such as my hon. Friend's Bill and, above all else, even if the Bill does not become an Act in this Parliament, we do not snuff out serious discussion of these delicate and important issues. Let my hon. Friend at least have his chance.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member, may I again appeal for short speeches? This is an important debate in which there is a great deal of interest on both sides of the House. Many hon. Members are hoping to speak.
  11.47 am
  Sir Philip Goodhart: I do not suppose that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will recall, although I am sure many other hon. Members will actively remember, that it is almost exactly 26 years since the great Beckenham by-election. In that by-election I was the victim of a great inaccuracy in the Beckenham Journal. It reported that I had said the John Foster Dulles was a good friend of this country. I had in fact said the precise opposite. On the advice of Conservative Central Office I abandoned my campaign and went hot-foot to the chambers of Mr. Helenus Milmo, who was the leading libel advocate of the day. He, alas, said that no libel had taken place although a great inaccuracy had occurred. There was no redress.
  I do not think that it made the slightest difference to the Beckenham by-election and in the 26 years that have passed since then I have not been the victim of any major inaccuracy by the local press, either deliberate or accidental. What one encounters only too often is the problem of ineptitude in reporting. One finds reporters who are subject to all sorts of pressures. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Sir A. Maude) described them. As a working journalist for many years, I am well aware of them.
  The Bill would be unworkable in practice. In his moderate speech, the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) referred to an advertisement that had appeared in the press about the rates of pay that were in contention in the National Health Service dispute. Yesterday afternoon, while driving to the House, I listened to a report of a speech by a trade unionist from the National Union of

  601
  Public Employees on the current water dispute. If the employers and the Secretary of State for the Environment are to be believed, every fact and figure that I heard on LBC yesterday afternoon was wrong. No doubt, if the Bill had been in operation and the tribunal had been set up, the Department of the Environment and the employers' side in the dispute would be putting their case to the tribunal for a right of reply.
  The hon. Gentleman believes that his Bill will protect the small man. I suspect it will protect pressure groups and the big battalions of public relations officers. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) told us that he believed that the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the women from Greenham Common had not had much publicity until recent weeks.
  Some months ago I had a debate in my constituency with Mrs. Joan Ruddock, the chairperson of the CND. The local press gave a fair and accurate account of that meeting and, as was only right and proper, it gave my speech more space than hers. During the next two or three weeks the most tremendous reaction came from the CND, which said that the report was wholly disgraceful and distorted the facts. In practice, the pressure groups will try to exert influence on the local press. They will not apply such great force on the national press.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: I agree that the Bill would not cure that offence, but suppose that the hon. Gentleman's local paper quoted Mrs. Ruddock as saying something that she did not say. Surely she should be entitled to the right of reply in that paper, and surely equal prominence should be given to her statement.
  Sir Philip Goodhart: If Mrs. Ruddock had been misquoted materially, she would be able to write a letter to the newspaper and to have it printed in the newspaper. No doubt she would complain to the Press Council.
  Mr. Allaun: What good would that do? It would take months.
  Sir Philip Goodhart: That would not necessarily be useless. There is no monopoly of the local press in Beckenham. No doubt the rival newspaper that had not misreported Mrs. Ruddock would give great prominence to her complaint to the Press Council. There is great diversity in the press. Usually there is not a local monopoly. That is our best protection.
  If the Bill finds its way on to the statute book, it will curtail the freedom of the press, put undue pressure on journalists and work not on the side of the small individual who is misquoted or harassed but on behalf of the big battalions. It will also work on behalf of the legal profession. I showed a copy of the Bill yesterday to a friend of mine who is an eminent barrister. He said, "This will gum up the works, will it not?"
  Mr. Proctor: Was that gentleman referring to the legal works or the press works?
  Sir Philip Goodhart: He was referring to the press works.
  The hon. Member for Salford, East suggested that in Germany there are only a few score cases every year when complaints are made to the tribunal. I suspect that here there would be hundreds a day. Many would involve the pleas made by lawyers. I suspect that the Bill will not turn
  602
  out to be a gold mine for lawyers as are the laws of libel. However, it would be at least a copper mine for them. Therefore, I suspect that if the Bill became law, it would be bad for the press but good for the lawyers.
  11.57 am
  Mr. Phillip Whitehead: Many hon. Members echo the line in the play "Night and Day" by Tom Stoppard, in which one of the characters says to an offensive journalist:
  "I'm with you on the freedom of the press. It is the newspapers I can't stand."
  The freedom of the press that is enshrined in the serious editorials on the Bill, which I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) on bringing forward, in the Financial Times, The Guardian and The Times represents the acceptable and conscionable side of the press. The tabloid press, in its cut-throat competition and determination to get the story whatever the cost in money or human suffering, is an unacceptable side of the press. The difficulty for all of us today is how to maintain the press freedom that we should like to preserve, to which everyone pays lip service, and in which some people sincerely believe, alongside some redress for those people who find themselves abused by the newspapers and have no effective remedy.
  We have heard a variety of arguments against the Bill. I have not heard all the arguments that can be made against it. I shall invent a few more now so that I can knock them down. The arguments against giving the Bill a Second Reading must lie among three or four categories. The first is that the Bill is extremely dangerous. Some hon. Members have hinted at that, but we have not yet heard the extreme case that has been mounted by opponents of the Bill, which is that this is the first stage towards South African press laws and that we shall soon have a licensed press the like of which we have not had in Britain since the repeal of the Stamp Act. I hope that we shall not hear those preposterous arguments. I see that the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) is stirring. He has already used them in a debate with me elsewhere.
  The second argument, what was aired during the reminiscences of the former editor of The Sydney Morning Herald, is to the effect that it is all impracticable. The argument is that it is not possible to spatchcock continental press laws into British laws. The right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Sir A. Maude) said, "Well, yes, the Germans have it but we do not necessarily need to have those Hunnish practices here. It is something that the more disciplined continentals will accept." I shall demonstrate that they can easily be translated into British law and practice.
  The third argument is that the Bill is unnecessary. The hon. Members who have opposed the Bill today have suggested that a lot of the people who will complain will write backward-sloping green ink complaints about the Pope and Tesco supermarket checkout clerks. They have suggested that that is the type of trivial complaint that will arise. However, there are many thousands of news items in our newspapers every day for each complaint. Moreover, the fact remains that the complaints that appear do not meet effective redress, for reasons that I shall expand upon in a moment.
  The fourth argument is that the Bill is too risky and that if newspapers granted a right of reply they might find themselves open to further legal proceedings. That

  603
  argument can be disposed of here and now. I should like a qualified privilege extended to the press. That might be the quid pro quo for a Bill such as this. It is wrong that newspapers sometimes rind themselves being sued in the courts when they have given an effective right of reply. I understand that it is only under section 3 of the Defamation Act 1952 that offering a right of reply and a retraction is taken as amelioration if an action for malicious libel is brought. I should like qualified privilege extended to the press so that a newspaper can legitimately say that it is merely reporting what was said by one party about another if the paper is prepared to give a right of reply to the original complainant.
  The law as we would wish it to operate in Britain would not be dissimilar from that in West Germany. It would also be similar to that of several other European countries that have had press law on their statute books for more than 100 years, as is the case with France, where it goes back to the early years of the Third Republic. Press law also goes back many years in the Scandinavian countries, Greece and elsewhere. I do not see why the law would be more abused in Britain than seems to be in the case in, for example, West Germany.
  In the debate to which I have already referred, when I contested the subject with the hon. and learned Member for Burton, the IPI, which organised the debate, drew evidence from three witnesses from various Continental countries. Herr Soehring said that the number of petitions that were brought to courts in various länder in Germany, was not so significant as to be onerous but demonstrated the level of redress that was available. He gave the example of the Hamburg civil court where there had been 101 petitions for a counter-statement in 1981—the last year for which he had figures. He said that half of them had been successful.
  Mr. Lawrence: Is it not the case that in Germany there is only the right to object to misstatements of fact?
  Mr. Whitehead: Of course, there is a right to object to misstatements of fact. I do not believe that that is what the hon. and learned Gentleman wants in British law. I believe that he objects to the Bill in principle. However, if he wants that provision in British law, he should have listened to what his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) said about the proper distinction that can be drawn in clause 1. Moreover, the hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly at liberty to sit on the Standing Committee if he can find time away from the courts to make a simple amendment of those two words.
  We can, therefore, call the German legislation in our aid. Can it be seriously argued by anyone that the British press is more balanced, more scrupulous and more fair than that of West Germany? Do we not need this legislation because there already exists such a high level of voluntary restraint on the part of newspaper editors and such a self-denying ordinance on the part of journalists that such legislation is unnecessary? Hon. Members should watch how they behave. The Daily Mail leads the pack with regard to its ethical standards but others follow. It is not, therefore, possible to assert that voluntary restraint exists.
  We must consider the attacks that are made on people in the newspapers. I am not here referring to big corporations or powerful people who have their own
  604
  effective media for reply; I am talking of people who are singled out by a tabloid newspaper and suddenly made the headline of the day and given a notoriety that might last for a lifetime. That is where we need to provide redress. If a tabloid newspaper describes a 12-year-old schoolgirl in Liverpool as, big, black and very, very nasty, what kind of right of reply does she have? What type of right of redress does she have to that newspaper?
  We have been told that there would be right of redress if only we extended legal aid to defamation cases. That is nothing like the answer. To begin with, legal aid for such cases would only give some assistance in the first stages of the procedure to people who were uncertain of their rights at law and uncertain as to how they could proceed before the law. I do not believe that lawyers are falling over themselves to take up the Liverpool girl's case. It will take many months of legal contest before the matter comes to court.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that people in receipt of legal aid face a different hurdle from those who have the money, and that for legal aid to be given the legal aid panel has to be convinced that the recipient is likely to win the case?
  Mr. Whitehead: I agree with my hon. Friend. The deterrent effects of that would still be extensive.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: In libel cases, legal aid is not available.
  Mr. Whitehead: My hon. Friend misheard me. I was saying that some people have advanced, as an alternative remedy, the extension of legal aid to defamation cases. My point is that that would be insufficient, especially for the people that he, I and others who support the Bill wish to see helped.
  I shall now deal with the other route for a remedy that has been suggested by the thoughtful editorials in the serious newspapers recently. They have suggested strengthening the Press Council. Ho, hum. The right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said that the Royal Commission, the ultimate source of wisdom on matters of the press, decided, having considered rather admiringly the West German model, that it preferred voluntary restraint.
  We were told that the Press Council could provide such restraint. We have been told that it is now speeding up its procedures. In its evidence to the Royal Commission, the Press Council made the following remarkable statement:
  "the Secretariat takes special pride in prompt response to communications … most complaints are dealt with within 3 months, many in substantially less time and some take longer".
  I am one of a group of people currently engaged in a study of the Press Council for a forthcoming book. We have written to many of the people who took their cases to the Press Council. We had to do that because the Press Council reports are so far in arrear. It is only within the past couple of months that the Press Council has produced its reports for the years 1978 and 1979. It is a long and laborious process going through the United Kingdom Press Gazette to extract information about all the other complainants. We have communicated with over 80 of those complainants. The Press Council rejected 40 of the cases, and it might not surprise the House to know that those people were dissatisfied. A good 40 of the remainder whose complaints were upheld eventually by the Press Council said that they were disatisfied by the length of

  605
  time that had been taken, by the obstructions put in their way, and by the inability to give oral evidence and that there were no proper expenses paid.
  The average delay in those complaints was 10 months. The Press Council says that that has now been reduced to six months, but that is still an unconscionable delay. In the case of the Sutcliffe complaints and Mrs. Hill and her admirable redress through the Press Council, of course she had the Queen on her side. The Queen had written to her. It was a great national scandal.
  I want to discuss one further case which will illustrate why I do not believe that the Press Council, in its present form, can offer satisfactory redress. The Torbay operatic and dramatic society mounted a children's musical production of "Guys and Dolls'. It was produced by Mrs. Harwood. The local Sunday newspaper devoted a full front page to the production. It said "Storm over Teeny Strip". The story's implication was that this lady had been engaging young children to perform sensual scenes attractive to perverts, and that she was recruiting children for that purpose.
  Mrs. Harwood took the case to the Press Council. She did not take legal action against the newspaper. She did not have the means and her husband was dying of cancer. It took 10 months to obtain any redress from the Press Council, when it upheld the complaint. The adjudication was carried by the offending newspaper, but it was buried on an inside page and all the other national papers, which had picked up and carried the story and crucified her in the meantime, did not carry any redress and many of them did not carry the Press Council's adjudication. In such cases there should be greater redress.
  The way in which newspapers have dealt with Press Council adjudications, and the open contempt with which the Daily Mail has treated the Press Council time after time, seems to show that there is absolutely no way in which self-denying ordinances and self-restraint will work. The pious editorials we have had from the "heavy" newspapers are rather like prep school headmasters adverting against the dangers of masturbation. All we have had from these newspapers during the past three days will not matter. Up there in the dormitory they are still at it. They will not be prevented by anything that the Press Council, in its present form, can do.
  Let us take the case of Mr. Blair Stothard, who complained on behalf of fellow members of the National Union of Teachers about a cartoon in the Daily Mail. The complaint was eventually upheld on the basis that the cartoon was false and highly offensive. Two days following the adjudication, the editor of the Daily Mail devoted two pages to an extravagant attack upon Mr. Stothard and the Press Council. It republished the cartoon in the process.
  I do not believe that that is the kind of voluntary self-restraint which these newspapers can be relied upon to have. There are matters in the Bill which need amendment, but that is no reason not to give it a Second Reading. In Committee the critics can take the various points of detail about which they have warned us and which they have properly raised. They can amend the Bill if they wish to do so.
  I should prefer a press ombudsman on the Swedish pattern rather than a judicial panel at first instance as set out in the Bill. It is possible to amend the Bill and set up
  606
  an ombudsman by statute. If we do that, and give the Bill a Second Reading, we shall do what Fleet street, the tabloid editors in particular, have shown over the years that they are not prepared to do—bring proper restraint and decency to the British press.
  12.14 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I am delighted to have the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). His remarks were, alas, typical of the well-meaning but fundamentally misguided and muddled thinking that has characterised so many of the speeches in support of the Bill today. My enthusiasm to cross swords with him is tempered with regret and astonishment that support for the Bill should come from a distinguished practitioner of journalism and professional broadcasting.
  That may not be a bad place to start contemplating the Bill because, like the hon. Members for Derby, North and Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), I have to declare an interest as a journalist and member of the National Union of Journalists. That brings one to the question: what are the media and who are its practitioners? I believe that the media have been badly misrepresented and distorted by many speakers today. They consist not of a handful of Fleet street newspapers and proprietors, but of well over 800 newspapers, 80 television and radio stations and 3,000 periodicals. One must take into account also the new phenomenon of several hundred free sheets, all of which have a journalistic content.
  Sir Angus Maude: My hon. Friend may have noted that the Bill does not contain exemptions in respect of Scotland and Northern Ireland. I think that he will find that the number of newspapers in the United Kingdom is nearer 1,200 than 800.
  Mr. Aitken: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for amplifying my point.
  The media are a broad church. The 35,000 members of the two journalists' unions are, as the membership of the Members of the House shows, a broad church. The opinions of members of the National Union of Journalists range from those to the Right of the late General Franco to those to the Left of the late Chairman Mao. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) with his great love for Latin tags would know, tot homines quot sententiae. I was going to translate that for the benefit of my fellow old Etonians, but I had better resist that temptation.
  There are many opinions among journalists, and one of the absurdities of the speeches today, notably that of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), is that they have sought to portray the media as some kind of tightly knit group of politically motivated misrepresenters who leap out of bed every morning at the crack of a whip from Lord Rothermere or Mr. Rupert Murdoch saying, "Oh Lord, tell us what to distort today." That is a wholly false picture. It takes a paranoic, such as the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-West, to dream up such a nonsensical nightmare. The truth is that we have a pluralist media. Their working population is made up of thousands of ordinary men and women who, like British parliamentarians, relish their freedom and exercise it in the vast majority of cases responsibly and fairly.
  The only examples that have been produced today are the hard cases that make bad law, and this Bill would make

  607
  bad law. The media, like Parliament, are not perfect. Errors of fact, taste and judgment appear from time to time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Sir A. Maude) rightly said, they are sometimes repeated with vexing frequency as a result of reliance on the clippings file. One is reminded of Evelyn Waugh's wonderful description of the clippings file as that
  "Compendium of other journalists' mistakes which newspapers have the audacity to call a library".
  Warts and all, however, the British media safeguard some essential British freedoms—including, incidentally, the freedom to be partisan and to speak freely and without fear in support of views and opinions that may upset some of the people some of the time.
  I believe that Parliament should hesitate for an eternity before seeking to restrict that freedom any further than the existing laws of libel, slander and contempt, the Official Secrets Acts and the Broadcasting Acts already do. If we are indeed to go into the business of placing further restrictions on the freedom of the press and broadcasting, for heaven's sake let us do it by legislative methods that are themselves limited and restricted and not by this all-embracing, muddled, zany Heath Robinson legislative contraption which will cause far worse chaos than the alleged abuses that it seeks to correct. The Bill takes us into Alice-in-Wonderland territory. One thinks of the passage in which the Red Queen insists that, if Alice is to have any breakfast, she must first believe six impossible things. The Bill necessitates belief in at least half a dozen impossible things. In the interests of time, however, I shall highlight just three.
  First, impossibly enough, the Bill invites us to make no distinction between factual inaccuracy and distortion. That is the fundamental muddle at the heart of the Bill which, according to clause 1, will be triggered when a person has "reasonable grounds" for considering a report to be "factually inaccurate or distorted". Much has been made of the legislative experience and laws of other countries, but not one of them makes the mistake that the Bill makes and confuses distortion and misrepresentation with factual inaccuracy. That sentence in clause 1 should bring blushes to the cheeks of those who drafted the Bill. It opens an Aladdin's cave for professional protesters and lawyers and a sea of troubles for editors.
  Good editors know all about the distinction between fact and editorial opinion. The great editor of The Guardian, C. P. Scott, said:
  "Comment is free, facts are sacred".
  Mr. Sheerman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Aitken: I must get on, as so many of my hon. Friends wish to speak.
  Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman portrayed himself as a humble journalist. Will he declare also that he has a substantial shareholding in TV-am and other enterprises? May we have a full declaration of interest?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a point of information, not a point of order for me.
  Mr. Aitken: I am sorry if I have failed in one way or another to make my overall interests clear. I said that I was a practitioner of journalism. I have interests in newspapers and television. I am a member of the National Union of Journalists. I am related to a deceased press Lord. I could
  608
  continue ad infinitum. I think that the House understands that I am known to have interests in journalism and television.
  Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman should be honest about them.
  Mr. Lawrence: The hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) seems not to know the rules of the House.
  Mr. Aitken: Good editors understand the distinction between fact and opinion. Sir Colin Coote used to tell young journalists, "If you can't check the facts, don't print." I suspect that the motto of the editor of Private Eye, however, is, "Never check an exciting rumour."
  If facts are wrong, of course, they should be corrected, but the expression of opinion in a free society needs no restriction.
  The second impossibility is that the Bill completely fails to acknowledge that a right of reply is freely granted almost daily through the good sense of editors. The correspondence columns are full of replies to articles. Corrections of factual mistakes are published.
  Mr. Sheerman: On page 7.
  Mr. Aitken: Articles by outside contributors and journalists, whose views conflict with those of other journalists, receive plenty of space. Other publications and broadcasts correct one another with alacrity.
  Mr. Sheerman: What about the Daily Mail and The Sun?
  Mr. Aitken: Hon. Members who make that comment seem to have forgotten another motto of Fleet street—that dog loves to eat dog. Newspapers never stop reprinting one another's mistakes. The sheer pluralism of the media guarantees some right of reply. We should depend on the good sense of editors and practitioners of journalism and not on Parliament mixing in and creating a new statute.
  Mr. Whitehead: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when dog eats dog it is not always within the sight and hearing of those who followed the first dog? The only newspaper to take up the case that I cited of the black girl in Liverpool and to offer some redress was the Sunday Times—a different paper aimed at a different audience—so there was no redress for the girl in relation to the people who read the original story.
  Mr. Aitken: I shall come in a moment to the hon. Gentleman's point, with which I have some sympathy, about the weakness of the Press Council and how we might improve methods of securing greater coverage for replies, although I think it is fair to say that dog eats dog, even if not always in the kennels that the hon. Gentleman would prefer.
  The third impossibility of belief in the Bill lies in the failure to understand the practical effects of such legislation on a working newspaper or broadcasting station. The drafting is so broad that it would open the floodgates to allegations of distortion in every sphere, and it grants the concomitant statutory right of reply no every claimant, and even to an "organisation of persons', which I suspect is no more than a code term for political pressure groups.
  Under the Bill, the Soviet ambassador will be legally entitled to a right of reply to criticism of the atrocities committed by Russian troops in Afghanistan. At the other

  609
  end of the scale, a sporting personality, such as Ian Botham, would be legally entitled to demand a right of reply to a cricket report criticising him for throwing away his wicket, bowling a bad line in a test match or dropping a slip catch. Media exposure of the Arthur Scargills and Ken Livingstones, the National Front and the Greenham Common ladies would be doubled. One can imagine an attack by Mr. Scargill on Mr. Webster of the National Front. The National Front would demand a right of reply, Mr. Scargill would decide that the reply was unfair and would demand a right of reply to the reply, the National Front would then demand a re-reply, and so on ad infinitum when in the first place the newspaper merely published what it believed to be a fair account of Mr. Scargill's original speech. The newspapers would need to have 80 rather than 40 pages and to set up new legal departments. The reason why there is not such a large number of complaints in Germany and other countries is that they have not made the mistake that is made in the Bill of confusing misrepresentation and factual inaccuracy.
  Mr. Proctor: Would it not lead to newspapers producing separate supplements for the right to reply?
  Mr. Aitken: The Bill insists that some replies should be printed on the same page as the original article, so a supplement would not solve the problem.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East suggested that such excesses might somehow be curbed by making so-called vexatious litigants responsible for their own legal costs. I can only respond to my right hon. and learned Friend, with his great love of quotations, by quoting the Duke of Wellington who, in another context, said:
  "If you believe that, you will believe anything".
  Already libel actions must be paid for by the losers, but the prosperous practitioners at the libel Bar are scarcely short of work as a result of that restriction.
  The Bill is deeply flawed. Despite my criticisms, I am not totally out of sympathy with the Bill, because the debate has been a useful safety valve. It has been a warning to the media that they must do something to put their house in order.
  The remarks of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) rightly and fairly highlighted many of the abuses that are causing concern to friends as well as to enemies of the press. If no changes are made to force the press to put its house in order, the day may come when a Bill will give the Press Council more teeth.
  I disagree with the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) that, as the Press Council does not do a very good job, it should be abandoned, and that we should turn to the new and zany idea of a press ombudsman, as he wished, or to the ideas put forward by the hon. Member for Salford, East. Admittedly the Press Council is a weak sister, but it should be strengthened. It is an independent body staffed by journalists. If it could enforce the prominent publication of its adjudications in the newspapers concerned, if it had an emergency procedure to make those adjudications within two or three days, and if it could compel disclosure of facts material to those adjudications—such as the sums paid to criminals, their associates and their victims—we would go a long way towards remedying many of the abuses that the House has
  610
  spent time debating today. Such measures are the right way to curb the abuses of media freedom. The Bill is the wrong way.
  The Bill is born out of Left-wing prejudice and is given spurious respectability by well-meaning Right-wing legal waffle that has no comprehension of the practical effects on a working newspaper and working journalists. I hope that the Bill will not receive a Second Reading.
  12.30 pm
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: In rising to support the Bill, I contrast my experience as someone who has been lucky in the ballot with the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), who said that for 27 years he had been comparatively unlucky. I wish him luck. In my short time in the House, I have had a very good draw. I had the satisfaction, although I was opposed by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) on that occasion, of seeing the enactment of legislation that I introduced on the safety of children in cars, albeit by circuitous means. This week, I have been drawn first in the ballot for private Members' motions, so I seem to have the opposite experience of my hon. Friend.
  I support the Bill because hon. Members must, as the guardians of democracy, watch carefully the way in which our social and industrial structure moves. That structure is changing rapidly. What worries me especially is that we are in the midst of an age of revolutionary change in communications. The Bill will be more relevant in protecting the rights of the ordinary, humble and powerless citizen in the years to come with the advent of cable and satellite television, and the plethora of new means of communication. Communication will be more and more important in our lives. For that reason, the right to protect the citizen in a democracy becomes important. Marshall McLuhan had a great deal to say about the hot and cold media. He was right in the sense of how changing media alter people's lives. They also change the nature of democracy.
  I appreciate that there are imperfections in the Bill, but I hope that the House will allow it to have a Second Reading and to go forward to Committee. The criticisms that I have heard this morning—except those emanating from vested interests that we well understand—such as those of the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) can be easily cleared up in Committee.
  In a democracy the humble citizen about whom one often hears only by accident, can be humiliated and even have his life ruined by a press campaign, or even by a casual derogatory reference by the press. Indeed, the reason for my speaking in this debate results from one incident that is imprinted on my memory. Before I was a Member of the House and when I lived in a different part of the country I knew of a man who lived near me who was found dead on a mountainside lay-by with a shotgun by his side and a fresh copy of the News of the World in his car. That man had committed no crime, nor broken any law, but his life, marriage and family were taken away. He drove to the railway station that Sunday morning and purchased the first edition of News of the World, which was a death warrant to him. He saw the implications and he drove up that lonely road and shot himself. Even on the basis of the right of reply and the redress of the citizen, something has to be done about this kind of tyranny of one the worst sorts of press.

  611
  The hon. Member for Thanet, East said that some politicians were paranoid. He is right. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) is a little paranoid about the media, and some of his criticisms of the press are not always fair. We should have had a tremendous battle in our democracy if we did not owe so much of our liberty, balanced comment and decent reporting of political, social and economic affairs to the BBC and the independent television networks. If it were not for television and radio, Britain would be in a parlous state. The BBC and commercial radio and television are not perfect, but this Bill to provide the right of reply will help to improve them. If there was no radio and television and we had to rely on the printed word of The Sun or the Daily Mail—all the dreadful popular press—to obtain information, what sort of a democracy would we have? Thank God for the BBC and commercial television and radio.
  Some of my friends in television and radio are worried about the Bill, but I think they are wrong to worry. If we improve the Bill in Committee we can filter out the writers whom my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) described as writing slanting script in green ink with constant underlining. We all know when we pick up a letter with constant underlining just what sort of a letter it is. But we can filter out the cranks, and if we give those with a legitimate grievance the right of reply that will be very important. Opponents of the Bill will bend over backwards to ridicule it and to say that it will help to publicise Arthur Scargill and Martin Webster. However, that is not so. We must be concerned with the anonymous citizen who is destroyed by the irresponsible use of the power of the press.
  The Bill has some drawbacks, but we can improve it in Committee and, moreover, equip Britain with the democracy that it deserves, because our democracy is being nibbled away. We must have a pluralist democracy, but not one in which all the power leans one way. I do not care about political opinions. Sometimes power rests with public corporations and sometimes with big trade unions. I believe in the independent citizen's right to reply, which he does not have at present. That is a dreadful gap in our democracy, and I urge hon. Members to support the Bill.
  12.38 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Whatever criticisms we may have of some practices in the media, I am convinced that this is not the Bill to remedy them. It is badly conceived, and it opens the door to many unpleasant things that will do exactly the opposite of what the Bill's proponents wish. Those matters have been outlined by many of my hon. Friends.
  I shall concentrate on broadcasting, but, first, I must make it clear that I oppose the Bill. However, I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will show that some of our anxieties about the practices of the press are shared by the Government. The duty of the media to make correct statements, however much we may disagree with the views expressed, is a fair and proper responsibility. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) made the mistake of assuming that that responsibility must carry over into good taste. The hon. Gentleman may not like The Sun. I cannot imagine that a democracy would exist with one newspaper just like The Sun, but millions
  612
  of people like to read it. His definition of what is good taste or what he thinks is the right way to treat the news is not someone else's definition.
  The hon. Gentleman may regard The Sun as distorting the news. Unfortunately, that aspect comes into the Bill. If a paper is thought to distort the news, it can be hauled before this daft panel. It is a ludicrous way to go about things. I suspect that that is the motive of some people, not necessarily in the House, who welcome such legislation.
  We have a press that has every right, if it wishes, to be biased, from the extreme Left to the extreme Right; to be proper and puritanical and at the same time utterly and outrageously vulgar. But to give an absolute right of reply in the situation set out in the Bill goes too far.
  I first take the proposal for agreeing to a right of reply over questions of fact. Conflicts over fact in controversial matters can and do arise. How is one to agree whether a right of reply should be granted?
  As I said, I wish to concentrate on broadcasting. No one has gone into this in detail and, unfortunately, because of lack of time, I cannot go into too much detail. One or two valuable points need to be raised which are not covered by the Bill. If the Bill were to become an Act, it would make a shambles of the well-established procedures for dealing with editorial practice, accuracy, fairness and impartiality, which I know concern the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun).
  I declare an interest. I am a non-executive director of the holding company of London Weekend Television. But all the views that I am expressing are not necessarily those of London Weekend. They are views that I believe are paralleled by people in the broadcasting world, and especially some could be specifically attributed to the BBC.
  The long title of the Bill refers to members of the public being given
  "the right to reply to allegations made against them … on radio or television".
  Does that refer only to remarks made by a professional broadcaster, or to remarks mady by a person interviewed on a programme, or to the remarks in reported or recorded speech of some other person? The drafting of the Bill does not make the intention clear. If it refers to all these people, it might be assumed that every thrust in a political debate would prompt the right of reply from anyone who disagreed.
  Although it may be possible to determine simple factual inaccuracies and correct them within the three days laid down in the Bill, it may in some cases take longer. A weekend may intervene.
  The provision of 10 days for the judicial panel to rule on disputed cases is totally unrealistic. It is likely that a substantial proportion of complaints would be contested. The panel's workload might be heavy. Apart from that, 10 days is inadequate for a programme to organise its evidence and present it to the panel, let alone for the panel properly to consider all the evidence.
  How is the right of reply to be presented on television? I worked on a magazine programme that went out five nights a week. Perfectly properly, when the occasion demanded it, we would correct mistakes and we were able to do that in the format of the programme. On the whole, people were satisfied. But many programmes are not part of a regular and continuing series. How is someone to have the right of reply, which would be at the same time and in the same format, when it might be only a one-off

  613
  programme? Shall we say that the Government of South Africa complained and an offer was made to transmit a whole programme about South Africa. Some people would assume that that was giving way to propaganda by a foreign Government. So we would be back in the same ball game of someone else demanding a right of reply.
  I do not think that hon. Members who support the Bill have thought through the complications that it poses for radio and television. In any case, they completely ignore the complexity of such complaints. Some are what is described in the trade as steam complaints—expressions of anger and irritation. I myself have telephoned the duty officer at Broadcasting House and let loose about a particular BBC programme. If satisfaction is not given immediately, complaints are dealt with later by letter or in the postbag of an existing programme.
  We know that serious disagreements over facts take place. Where it is accepted that there has been misstatement or inaccuracy, it is corrected in the subsequent edition of the news programme or of the magazine programme. In other instances, it may be possible to deal with such matters in other ways. Where there is a conflict of fact or opinion over a controversial issue of public importance, there may rarely be agreement as to what characterises full and proper redress. It is often extremely difficult to know how to reach agreement on the way in which to correct misunderstanding.
  All who work in broadcasting know that there are well established guidelines which try to take into account the many different types of complaints in the forms in which they are made. They are far more complex and far more civilised than anything suggested in the Bill. If the Bill were to become law, it would drive a coach and horses through the very sophisticated guidelines that have already been created.
  Editorial responsibility relates as much to editors of magazine programmes and television programmes as to those of news programmes. Editors must take responsibility; they are responsible at law. Editors and producers of programmes must take responsibility themselves. If, instead of imposing that responsibility on them, we remove it or transfer it to an authority or to a judicial panel, editorial responsibility is diminished. It encourages the attitude of mind which causes people to say, "How far can we get away with it?" That, in turn, leads to a battle of wits between the editor and the authority.
  If we want to have the sort of responsibility and the standards that we expect from those who feel they have some moral obligation to tell the truth to the public, to check their facts and to have respect for accuracy, we are much more likely to get it if the responsibility is put fairly and squarely on those who practise their particular profession. If the responsibility is put on another body outside, a different attitude of mind may be found among those whose job it is to be responsible editors of newspapers or television programmes.
  From time to time during the debate political attitudes have been surfacing. I excuse the proponents of the Bill from that accusation, but I think that I know why the press, on the whole, does not like this sort of legislation. The press believes that it is instigated by those who do not like the way in which the press is constituted.
  When the proponents of the Bill refer to experience in other countries, it is worth bearing in mind that in other
  614
  countries there is not the same sort of feeling about the press shown by the Left wing. It is not the same as the Left wing in this country, which denounces the press day in and day out as monopolistic and capitalistic. It is important to note that in other countries there are many more newspapers and publications of national importance which reflect the views of the Left.
  Mr. Denis MacShane, a former president of the National Union of Journalists, is quoted as saying that, although the right of reply exists in most European countries,
  "there is little direct evidence that it works at a much stronger level that a letter of correction about a factual inaccuracy".
  I gather that he holds that view because papers often fight hard in the courts and deter complainants, in part because the right is hedged with restrictions. I think that Mr. MacShane is right in saying that the fundamental attitude is different on the continent because of the numbers of newspapers and journals which reflect attitudes of the Left.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Sir A. Maude) said in a most interesting speech, there is plenty of feeling on the Left among the unions in favour of their supporting some forms of publication at national level, rather than using the back-door method proposed in the Bill, which would lead inevitably to further legislation restricting the freedom of the press.
  Much of the thinking behind the Bill is based on the attitudes of those who have belonged to the trade union movement and are part of the Campaign for Press Freedom. It must be brought to the surface, because it is well known that their view is that the British press is owned and controlled by a handful of multinational corporations. The Campaign for Press Freedom document says:
  "We, the public, have very little choice in what we read … Nor do we have any right of access to their columns".
  That means the newspaper columns.
  "That is why the Campaign for Press Freedom has launched the Right of Reply Campaign."
  It believes that the right of reply should take the form of this Bill.
  There is another way of dealing with this matter, and that is to strengthen the Press Council. But, as the campaign says in its document:
  "the process of reform will be along and difficult one; it will certainly take several years and it may not, in the end, succeed."
  I do not know whether it will take years but, if it is the right route—many hon. Members think that it may be; I think that the Press Council and members of the press should take heed of the strictures which have been made—it is no excuse to say that this is the wider reform that is necessary but that, as it is likely to take some time, we should accept a measure as half-baked as the one before the House today.
  We are assured by the authors of the Campaign for Press Freedom that one of the ways of ensuring the right of reply is to look
  "to the trade unionists who are employed on the newspapers in question to help obtain the right of reply. They may often be in a position to raise issues quickly; and they are well placed to draw attention to major omissions or inaccuracies of which editors may not be fully aware."
  It is only fair to look at some of the examples given by the authors of this pamphlet of how trade unionists in these instances have helped to get the right of reply on which they have insisted. They give four examples.
  The first one concerns the threat of a strike. This involved relations during the Grunwick dispute.

  615
  NATSOPA members employed by the Observer said that they would print an advertisement only if the Grunwick strikers were given the opportunity to put their case to the readers. The threat of the strike secured their objective.
  In another example, members of the National Union of Journalists employed on the Hornsey Journal objected to a front page lead story which attacked school caretakers who were on strike in Harringey during the winter of discontent. The strike support committee picketed the office of the Hornsey Journal, and the NUJ chapel demanded that a letter from the support committee be published in the paper as well as a letter from the chapel itself declaring support for the caretakers. Picketing did that and, as a consequence, both letters were published.
  Another example refers to a doctor who made artificial insemination available to a lesbian. A group of lesbian mothers occupied the newspaper's offices and secured the right of reply. Occupation did that.
  Then there is the full-blooded strike which arose out of an article by David Astor, the former proprietor of the Observer, in which he accused print workers "of sabotaging production". His letter was due to appear in The Times. There was a strike, the letter did not appear, but subsequently it was agreed that the article should be published, provided that the NGA chapel's response was also published.
  I shall not go into the merits of whether the papers were fair. I simply draw attention to the fact that if people tell me that I should support a Bill giving the right of reply and that it will be used as an excuse by trade union members to see that it is observed by local newspapers when the examples that I have given involve strikes, picketing and occupation, we are getting into pretty dirty waters. In my view, therefore, members of the press and the House should not be asked to agree to legislation of this kind.
  12.54 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: Perhaps the strength of the arguments for the Bill are seen best in the speech of the Bill's main opponent, as he showed himself to be, the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken). The hon. Gentleman's speech can be seen only as pure pastiche. He seemed to be suggesting that Lord Rothermere and Mr Rupert Murdoch were not biased in their newspapers and that they were enlightened and gave a balanced presentation of events and a statement of all the relevant facts. In his mind, the only purpose of this debate is that it gives a warning to the press that if it does not itself take action, some further Bill will be forthcoming.
  I quote the Duke of Wellington back to the hon. Member for Thanet, East: if he really believes that, he will believe anything. Of course, the hon. Gentleman did not tell the House that he was in the class of proprietors. He is a millionaire plutocrat. He owns about 20 per cent. of TV-am. He is the great-nephew of Lord Beaverbrook, who informed the Royal Commission in 1949 that the purpose of owning a newspaper was to disseminate propaganda. In the light of that and in the light of the hon. Gentleman's comments perhaps we should say, in those memorable words, "He would, wouldn't he?" We can perhaps dismis his arguments as a case of special pleading arising from major vested interests.
  Sir Angus Maude: As the hon. Gentleman obviously assumes that this is a sinister matter, and that the first Lord Beaverbrook and the first Lord Rothermere ran
  616
  newspapers for propaganda purposes, can he think of a single propaganda campaign that they ran which had the slightest effect on the readers of those newspapers?
  Mr. Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman underestimates the power of the press over a long period. The press is undoubtedly powerful in influencing the climate of opinion and the general culture. If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the first Lord Beaverbrook got it entirely wrong, he would have been spending his millions to no effect, and I. doubt that. If the press is so ineffective, what was Lord Beaverbrook's role in the Cabinet?
  I strongly support the Bill and warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) on continuing his pressure for this reform, following the Ten-minute Bill which he introduced about 18 months ago, with this Bill, which has a good chance of being enacted. I support it because whatever else can be said about the British press, surely even its warmest admirers such as the hon. Member for Thanet, East cannot pretend that it is fair and balanced or that the victims of the campaigns that are run from time to time have a fair and equal chance to put their side of the case.
  Let me give two topical examples.
  Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman's main point seems to be that the newspapers are unfair because of great vested interests. Indeed, he referred to my own. My family must own less than one-eightieth or one-ninetieth of all the television shareholdings in Britain today. That is hardly a large vested interest. If the hon. Gentleman reflects carefully I think that he will find that the only abuses about which he is talking are in Fleet street. Why is ownership concentrated in Fleet street? One reason is that, unlike the provincial and regional newspapers which are comparatively easy to start up, Fleet street is prohibitively expensive because the unions refuse to introduce new technologies. That is why to start up a new Sunday Mail, for example, costs about £25 million. That is not the result of vested interest; it is a union conspiracy to prevent new newspapers from starting up.
  Mr. Meacher: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises the importance of a right of reply. He is granted one in the House even if those of his family who have owned newspapers in the past did not by any means offer a right of reply to those whom they attacked. The hon. Gentleman has not denied my point that he is far and away the biggest single shareholder in TV-am. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that if new technology were introduced overnight or very rapidly Fleet street would no longer be prohibitively expensive for individuals or groups wishing to set up and own a national newspaper? Given the iron laws of Fleet street, it is crucial that those who do not have £20 million to play around with—those other than the hon. Gentleman—should have a right of reply because of the media's importance. They are not simply a commodity for manipulation by immensely wealthy individuals.
  I wish to give two topical examples. The only reason that I choose them is that they are topical, and not because they are in any way unusual. First, there is the campaign of vilification against Peter Tatchell, who is standing in the current by-election. It has been hysterical and wholly unfair, as anyone who has met Mr. Tatchell will

  617
  undoubtedly testify. Yet has he been given any right of reply in the main national newspapers that constantly attack him? He most certainly has not.
  The second example is the case of the water workers. They are constantly reviled by the Prime Minister, and that is reported. That is perfectly fair. I accept that everything of importance said by the Prime Minister of the day should be reported. But when have the water workers been invited to give their side of the case in their own words? Their case is simply not being reported—which is exactly what has happened with other industrial disputes for many years. They are angry about that.
  I visited a picket line in my constituency yesterday. I learnt more in one hour of talking to my constituents who were on strike than from reading the press during the past four weeks. They are not paid £136 a week, as the Prime Minister continually pretends. A tiny minority do earn a great deal more than that, but the vast majority are paid very much less. I have a typical pay slip from a water worker in my constituency. He takes home £83 a week, which is typical of 80 to 90 per cent. of manual workers in that industry, who take home less than £100 a week. It is a low-pay dispute. But where in the national newspapers do we find any reference to the crucial facts? In their intense frustration, the water workers asked me, with great bitterness, why the truth was not being published. I say to the House, as I said to them, that that is a good question. It goes to the heart of what the Bill is all about.
  Three giant corporations control 80 per cent. of the circulation of national daily and Sunday newspapers. What is printed is the angle on events of which they approve—anything of which they disapprove finds it difficult to get a word in edgeways.
  Opponents of the Bill will say today, as they have said in other places on other occasions, that it undermines the freedom of the press. But we must ask whose freedom it is. There is untrammelled power for proprietors, through the editors who are regularly hired—or fired if they do not toe the line—to say exactly what they, the proprietors, want however unfair, unreasonable and damaging it may be for those whom they attack. They do so with absolute impunity. That is not freedom, but unbridled licence—which is a wholly different matter.
  The media are not a commodity, such as soap, for arbitrary personal manipulation. They are a crucial organ of communication upon which the health of democracy crucially depends. In that context, freedom is only freedom if it is safeguarded from abuse. It must mean freedom of expression for all, not simply for the privileged few. I do not think that anyone, not even those on the Conservative Benches, could claim that that is the current practice. That is why the Bill is needed.
  There are countless examples, although I shall give only one or two. In press reports of virtually every industrial dispute over the past 10 or 20 years trade unionists themselves have almost never been given access to explain why they were on strike. Sometimes they are so incensed at being systematically denied an opportunity to put their side of the case and to answer the often untrue allegations that are made against them that they are left with no alternative but to resort to devices such as protesting by blacking printing or distribution of newspapers. No one condones that, and no one believes that that is the right answer to the problem but, equally,
  618
  it is surely humbug to pretend that freedom of the press means that the most vitriolic calumnies against a particular group of workers must be printed without any right of reply being given. If workers had a right of reply in the media they would not black newspapers. That is the real answer to the problem.
  I shall put the issue in quantitative terms and give as an example the treatment of the TUC day of action. Analysis of the coverage in the five tabloids leading up to this event shows 245 column inches of neutral or pro comment and no less than 2,208 column inches of hostile comment. Can anyone seriously deny that there is an overwhelming case for a right of reply when one is faced with a degree of bias of about 10 in one?
  Exactly the same applies in other spheres. The peace movement, to which Conservative Members have referred, is certainly receiving a great deal of attention, at present. The Greenham Common peace group is certainly receiving a great deal of attention but it is not getting a fair and balanced treatment in the press. Above all, members of the group are rarely allowed to speak for themselves. That is the crucial point. They are never allowed to speak to camera or on radio or in the press. The same applies to many black groups. They certainly do not have a fair opportunity to have their case put in the press. Indeed, that applies to many feminist or women's groups. Notoriously—I do not want to make any more of this—political personalities, Right as well as Left, are grossly misrepresented by sustained campaigns of vituperation against them and are then denied anything like a fair opportunity to put their side of the case. I think that all hon. Members know that that is true.
  It is not true, as has been said, that either the letters columns or the Press Council offer an adequate channel for remedy. Even if there are correspondence columns in newspapers—often there are not—editors may often refuse to publish letters. There are documented cases where that has happened. Even when editors occasionally publish letters as a right of reply, they are much shorter in length than the original article, they are much less prominent than front end news stories and they lose force, above all, by being printed much later in time.
  The Press Council is notoriously long-winded in dealing with complaints. It has said that it will try to expedite its procedures, but that has been said before. We wait to see what actually happens. The Press Council has no power to enforce its decisions and it wields an authority which is repeatedly bucked by Fleet Street, as was recently shown most starkly by the cheque-book journalism revelations over the "Ripper" case report. Anyone who read the exchanges over the report will know how ineffective, regrettably, the Press Council is.
  The Bill should be strongly supported because it is absolutely necessary for fair treatment in a genuine democracy. I take the points of criticism of the hon. Members for Thanet, East and for East Grinstead (Sir G. Johnson Smith) about the Bill's precise contents. As it stands the Bill is not perfect in all respects. There are problems of how one defines "reasonable grounds" and "distortion", which will need further examination in Committee. The relationship with the libel laws will have to be clarified. Perhaps the machinery can be made more flexible and faster working. Those are valid criticisms.
  While there are matters for further examination in Committee, they are not to be taken as a handle for rejecting the Bill completely, which is the way in which

  619
  some Conservative Members and Fleet street commentators have reacted. Subject to that caveat, I join all those who warmly welcome the Bill and hope fervently that it will be given its Second Reading at 2.30 pm.
  1.11 pm
  Mr. Sydney Chapman: Like the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), I am a sponsor of the Bill. I concede that the hon. Gentleman and I approach it from different angles and viewpoints. His speech has underlined the fact that it is important to separate subjective opinions, which we all have, from actual misrepresentations, factual inaccuracies and distortions.
  I am pleased to sponsor the Bill. The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) knows my reservations about it. It is too widely drawn. I am not a lawyer, but I believe that it is too vaguely worded. However, such matters can be resolved in Committee after the House has given the Bill a Second Reading.
  Gross unfairnesses can and do take place, and distorted presentations can occur in the press and other parts of the media. I do not doubt that where injustices occur—I do not suggest that they are necessarily frequent; they may be rare—there are sometimes, perhaps usually, remedies at hand for parties who believe that they have reason to feel aggrieved. There are the laws of libel and slander and the remedy of a complaint to the Press Council. Of course, whether that is effective is a matter for debate. There is also the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, to which hon. Members have referred.
  Remedies can cost money. They certainly take time. In serious and urgent cases there is a need for a special procedure such as the one that is laid down in the Bill. I shall give an example that relates to a building product and technique connected with cavity wall insulation. The managing director of a company called Megafoam, Mr. David Cameron, brought this matter and his grievance to my attention. Other companies have been adversely affected, too.
  There was an item on the ITV programme "News at Ten" on 5 July last year about the insulation of cavity walls by urea formaldehyde foam. More than 1 million homes have been insulated successfully with that product. I have the transcript of the ITV programme. In the introduction it said:
  "A million people who insulated their homes against cold may have done themselves a bad turn."
  Perhaps it is wrong to give selective quotations from the transcript of the programme, because that is precisely the complaint that I have of the programme. It gave its viewers selective information. Suffice to say that the interviewees in the programme described graphically the fumes that were caused by that product and how they suffered from watering eyes, sore throats, coughing and the bringing up of phlegm. As I see it, UF foam, if not properly applied, can be harmful. Nevertheless, the same may be true of a dentist who makes a filling. If he uses the wrong drill or the wrong filling material, it can be harmful. The whole purpose of the programme seemed to be that any material in any cavity wall is harmful.
  I read the script of the programme carefully. It gave some balance, but it was not a fair one. The firm and the material were condemned by innuendo and hearsay. The programme did not put the issue in a reasonable context and it unashamedly played on people's emotions. It
  620
  unnecessarily engendered fears in at least 1 million households. The result is that a reputable company has been destroyed.
  A regional manager of Megafoam, who is a constituent of mine, raised the matter with me. I am not ashamed of raising it today. Perhaps the House would like some facts. In the first half of 1982. the company's turnover was £750,000. The programme appeared at the beginning of the second half of the year—in July. In that second half of the year, the company's turnover dropped dramatically to £250,000. As a result, the receivers were sent in on 1 November and the company was liquidated. I am happy to say that a skeleton new company called Megafoam 2000 has now been formed. As a result of the programme, a work force of 200 people on 5 July has now been reduced to 14. That work force was carrying out work on 150 houses a week before July. Now it is working on only 10. My constituent, Mr. Arthur Parker, who has been associated with the company for nine years, has now been forced to look for employment elsewhere, although he is still indirectly associated with the new company because he is trying to put business its way.
  Mr. Brinton: I understand the serious consequences of the story that was broadcast in the television programme to which my hon. Friend referred. What possible difference, as a result of that story being broadcast, would the right of reply have made to the terrible consequences for that firm?
  Mr. Chapman: My hon. Friend has nicely anticipated what I was about to say.
  Megafoam had an opportunity to put its views on a Thames Television news programme on 9 September—more than two months later. However, it was able to put its views only in the context of the programme being introduced in terms of wanting UF foam to be banned. Even if that programme was balanced, it reiterated many of the misrepresentations that had already been made.
  When the programme was brought to my attention, I wrote to the editor of ITN, Mr. David Nicholas, on 11 August. I had the courtesy of a reply nearly two months later after I had sent a reminder. I shall quote from part of that letter. He said:
  "It was no part of ITN's intention to cause damage to Megafoam … All we did was report certain facts."
  I am sure that he did so in good faith. My point is that he mentioned only "certain facts". He did not mention the British Industrial Biological Association's views. The House might think that its views would be worthy of consideration. Nor did he mention the United States Environmental Protection Agency report, which might have given a slightly different view of the use of the material in question. Nor did he mention the fact that the product had an Agrément Board certificate or that the British Standards Institute had assured its quality. The programme did not refer to the Select Committee report which dealt with energy conservation in buildings and which was issued a month before and might have shown a different aspect, to the speech of a Minister in the Department of the Environment in the House on 7 May—two months before the programme—or to a report of the Chemical Industries Association on 14 May. The programme was not balanced. There was no right of reply immediately. Megafoam contacted Mr. Nicholas, who

  621
  presumably had to make a subjective judgment on the programme, and he was the only person who could have given an immediate right of reply.
  I believe that the Bill could remedy the injustices that companies using OF foam have suffered during past months. I believe that the Bill is too widely and too vaguely drawn, but that is a matter for the Committee. I hope that the House will consider the serious, though perhaps exceptional, case that I have described. It is a classic example of how occasionally it is urgent, if a distortion has taken place or the balance of a programme has done considerable damage to an individual or company, that there should be a right of reply. I wish the Bill a good passage not just on Second Reading, but throughout all stages.
  1.21 pm
  Mr. Ron Brown: We have many well-known sayings and one of them is
  "The pen is mightier than the sword."
  Some may believe that and some may dispute it. However, it cannot be disputed that those who control the pen are far mightier than the majority of people in this country. It applies to Fleet street, as many hon. Members have pointed out. A class society often means that freedom of the press allows distortions and unfair reporting. That is particularly true during this period of economic crisis. Such reporting is directed at the Labour and trade union movement. I can give many examples. It is often far more serious than a simple misquoting of speeches.
  I found it interesting that Afghanistan was mentioned today. I recall going to that country about two years ago as a member of a deputation. Before the deputation even left Great Britain, there was a press campaign; hysteria was built up and generated and certain newspapers were particularly vindictive. I am sorry to say that they were aided and abetted by television and radio. We were vilified, but I suppose that it would have been all right had we gone to Pakistan, Chile or Argentina. In those days, dictators were good guys. The Government had perhaps not heard of Galtieri. When we returned from Afghanistan we were again attacked by the press and the media. There was an interesting incident in which my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) was gravely deceived by the press. He had taken the photographs of the visit, and it was arranged that they should be given to The Evening Standard. The Evening Standard reneged on the agreement, developed the photographs and distributed them up and down the country. The Evening Standard stole the photographs of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central. He cannot be here today to explain this himself because unfortunately he is ill.
  The Evening Standard did not simply make a great deal of money out of the photographs, but it sought to discredit the visit. It printed a photograph with the infamous caption
  "MPs standing in front of the first Russian tank to invade Afghanistan".
  That was utterly untrue, of course. The tank was the Afghan tank which led the 1978 uprising against the Daoud regime, which, ironically enough, the Soviet Union had supported.
  The truth does not seem to matter in these cases. The Tory party subsequently made a poster out of the same
  622
  photograph and distributed it throughout the universities, so we are dealing with lies, damned lies and Tory propaganda. It seems that any trick will do. Calling us stooges and villains was almost polite by comparison.
  The sad thing was that the hysteria obscured what we had to report from our visit—that the Afghan leadership was willing to discuss the withdrawal of Soviet troops. We wanted to see discussions and direct negotiations, but those in charge of the media were clearly not interested in that.
  The only newspaper to publish my report verbatim without attacks or distortions was my own local paper, the Leith Gazette. Some may say that that proves how good the press is, but apart from the Left-wing press, that was the only newspaper in the country to publish my report.
  Even the Press Association let us down. We agreed to give a press conference and prepared a statement, the release of which was to coincide with the press conference, but the Press Association did not keep its side of the bargain. Perhaps because it was under pressure or for various other reasons, it released the statement prematurely without giving any explanation for its action. That is utterly disgraceful.
  We know that newspapers accept letters from individuals who have been wronged, as our delegation certainly was. The Times and the Evening Standard accepted our letter about the so-called Russian tank. That was no problem, but very few people see those letters. People remember the poison on the front page but not what is on the back page, which is so often where the retractions appear.
  Interestingly enough, the press did not attack us when we returned to Afghanistan last June, because that visit had a different purpose. We went there to negotiate the release of Ralph Pinder Wilson. He was subsequently freed, but the press remained silent about that. We did not expect praise. We did not expect the press to pat us on the back and say, "Well done, lads." We were glad that Pinder Wilson was released—that was the aim of our visit—but the press said nothing about that. The press always goes for the jugular. It looks for negative aspects in any visit undertaken by Left-wing politicians.
  During that visit, Mr. Keshtmand offered to send the Soviet troops home. We reported that fact on our return, but the press would not print it—again, no doubt, for all kinds of reasons.
  There was another instance of misreporting last September. When the Prime Minister visited Glasgow, the popular press alleged that I lunged at her and threatened her. I was there, of course, and I said that she was not welcome. I stuck my finger in the air, but there was no threat. Even the Prime Minister admitted that and she issued a statement to that effect which then went to the court.
  Unfortunately, it was a no-jury court. South Africa is not the only place to have no-jury courts, because Scotland also has them. A no-jury court found that I was not guilty of those press allegations. Nevertheless, I was fined. I was not guilty of the allegations stated in the various newspapers, but the press did not print an apology. They did not say they were sorry or that they had got the facts wrong. The press regurgitated allegations made in the court that were subsequently thrown out.
  Mr. Brinton: Has not the hon. Gentleman got matters slightly confused in his recital of his case? The press was

  623
  reporting, at the time of those events and before the court case, the news as it happened and the allegations as they occurred. It was not distorting anything, but reporting.
  Mr. Brown: Since the press made up the allegations, I would hardly call it reporting. An important matter that I must add to my story is that the press on that occasion broke the sub judice rule. It reported an incident after I had been charged. That is contrary to normal procedures in Scotland, as I am sure it is in England. My lawyer complained to the procurator fiscal about it as being out of order and contrary to Scottish justice. He made the point perfectly clear. One can appreciate that the Lord Advocate, having initiated the court action against me, was not going to be involved or do anything about it. Fair play and decency had gone out of the window.
  The question of contempt of court frequently arises. We have heard about the cases of Fagan, Sutcliffe and Nilsen. The press feels that if it can get away with writing a story by fair means or foul it will write it. It is disgraceful. In the latest incident involving Nilsen, his right to a fair trial could easily be prejudiced.
  My problems are not especially important. The problems of those who cannot answer back are far more important, and they have every right to complain. Unfortunately, they cannot do so because of the class society that exists in this country. One can always say "Go to the Press Council", but that is a toothless body. It is not independent and it largely represents the newspaper industry. I have had experience of that body, and it does not work. There is no question of reform. There must be something far more radical if people in this country are to have a right of reply. There can be no real democracy if the media are in the hands of a few, be it in London, New York or Moscow. That is a fact of life. Democracy depends on a truly free press, which we do not have in this country.
  This reform is overdue. I say that not for Ron Brown, but for ordinary people outside the House who are fighting the Government because their basic rights are being eroded, their living standards are being destroyed and their jobs are rapidly disappearing. Some may say that that is political. It is political. It is interesting that the Government and the Tory party argue for more and more controls to hold down the trade union movement and the working class, but they do not wish to control their newspapers, which often get facts wrong and distort the truth for their own class interests.
  1.33 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): Before I turn to the points that I wish to make on behalf of the Government in the debate, it would be remiss of me not to pass one comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown). It is extraordinary that he should be surprised that his views on Russia and his visit to Afghanistan should be considered as a matter of public interest by the press. It is eminently in the public interest that the people of this country should be familiar with the views of the hon. Gentleman and his visit. It is astonishing that he should take exception to the fact that the press saw fit to give prominence to what he and his colleagues got up to.
  Mr. Ron Brown: I am talking not about fair reporting, but about distortion.
  Mr. Mellor: This debate has been most interesting and absorbing. I congratulate the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), after all the years of waiting, on his good fortune in securing this debate. I hope that he feels that the debate has been worth while. I have listened to the whole debate, and it has been vigorous and absorbing. Although there are different legitimate and strongly held opinions in the Chamber, I hope that many of those in the media will read the report of this debate and will see a wide area of agreement, especially about the Press Council.
  The Bill is simplicity itself, and I shall say no more about its provisions than the hon. Gentleman said in outlining the Bill. However, the consequences and effect of the Bill are more open to question and problems may arise. I well understand why several hon. Members and the idea of this Bill so attractive, and I understand the points made with his customary eloquence and wit by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). It gives me no pleasure to disagree with some of his points.
  The general idea of giving members of the public the right to reply to inaccurate and distorted reporting in the press and in broadcasts must, at first sight, seem to have much to commend it. We are all aware of the great influence and importance of the media in our society. Sometimes the media concentrate on global events, but on other occasions an individual may be singled out. When that happens, problems can arise. To some individuals, an inaccurate report is no more than simply irritating, but I recognise that in other cases it can have far more damaging consequences and will seriously affect a person's life and standing in the community or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) said, it can affect the fortunes of a company and the livelihoods of hon. Members' constituents;.
  Therein lies the Bill's attraction, because it would give a person who claims to be the subject of inaccurate or distorted reporting a statutory right of reply. That is bound to be satisfying because it meets the understandable human instinct to respond when unfairly treated, and it satisfies onlookers who are interested in fair play, a concern which has come through many speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  The instinctive reaction from some quarters in favour of the Bill, across the parry divide, is understandable. However, I must tell the House that the Govermnent believe that it would be highly undesirable if the Bill were to become law. It may assist the House if I put one or two points on the record now. It is incumbent upon me not only to point out some of the difficulties of the Bill, as we see it, but to say something about the self-regulation of the media that has evolved over many years and about the proposals for change that are already coming forward.
  The freedom of the press, which must be seen as one of the basic features of our democratic society, is fundamental to this debate. Matters are different in totalitarian states, where the press is strictly controlled by the Government. Press freedom in Britain means, rightly, that no special laws apply only to the press and that newspaper editors are free to decide what to publish, save only for the need to observe the laws to which all citizens are subject, including the laws on libel, contempt of court and official secrets. Much thought has been given over the years to how the press should exercise its freedom to publish facts and opinions in a way which does not abuse

  625
  the freedom of others. No fewer than three Royal Commissions have considered this among other matters since the war.
  The Press Council, which has been much discussed in the debate, was set up as a self-regulatory body following recommendations contained in a report of the first of those Royal Commissions, and it redrafted its articles of constitution after the report of the second. Its main objects, as then defined, remain unchanged. They include the preservation of the established freedom of the British press, the maintenance of the character of the British press in accordance with the highest professional and commercial standards and the consideration of complaints about the conduct of the press.
  The House will know that, as a result of considering particular complaints, the Press Council periodically lays down principles of conduct which it considers should be observed. These principles, it is also well understood, are not binding on the press and responsibility for what is published rightly remains firmly with newspaper editors. But, although that may appear at first sight to give them untrammelled freedom, the truth is that newspapers have to serve their readers and be responsive to public attitudes to their conduct if they are to compete and survive. In practice, we believe that the influence of the Press Council, combined with the pressure of public opinion, can be potent forces in restraining possible press excesses.
  Mr. Hattersley: May I press the Minister specifically on those potent forces? What is his reaction to Sir David English's announcement on the front page of the Daily Mail that he does not propose to take any notice of the Press Council and believes that its deliberations are misguided?
  Mr. Mellor: The Press Council has just published its report. Responses are still coming in. It would be inappropriate for me formally to respond to the situation until we know what it is in the round. [Interruption.] It is no good the right hon. Member laughing. We all know that he is a bit of a wag, but if he were on my side of the Dispatch Box he would have to say exactly the same. We need to consider the report with care before we launch into a statement.
  Mr. Hattersley: I wish to pursue my waggishness a stage further. I am not asking the Minister to comment on the Press Council report, although the idea that those are matters for deliberation which must have a considered Government ruling is a new doctrine.
  How does the Minister react to the view that the Press Council is influential when the editor of a national newspaper says the day after its report is published that he proposes to take no account of it?
  Mr. Mellor: I want to make my own speech in my own way without the right hon. Gentleman jumping up and down and suggesting points that I should be making before I am ready to make them. I intend to say something about the way in which the Government regard the Press Council and the extent to which we endorse some of the observations in the debate about the way in which the press, if it wishes to retain public confidence in self-regulation, should conduct itself in relation to the Press Council. But I want to arrive at that point in the natural
  626
  course of events in my speech rather than be pushed into it at this point by the right hon. Gentleman, however persuasive he attempts to be.
  We should consider what the Press Council thinks about those important matters and what it has to say about the right of reply. In 1978 the chairman wrote in his annual report:
  "The council has, by a long series of decisions, established the principle that in general any person or organisation identifiably attacked in the columns of a newspaper or perodical is morally entitled to and should be given the opportunity to make a reasonable reply (which may constitute a correction or explanation) whether by letter or statement published editorially. It must be confined to the subject matter of the attack and be reasonable both in content and in length."
  I do not believe that many hon. Members would dissent from the common sense of what the chairman said. Since that time the council has become concerned about the question of expedition, which has been raised with great clarity and very properly by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  The House knows that the council is working towards introducing an expedited procedure as soon as it can. It is concerned about cases where an individual or organisation has put a complaint about inaccurate reporting to a newspaper and has received no satisfaction within the next few days. Two possible alternatives have been identified for dealing with such complaints referred to the Press Council at that stage.
  The first would involve speeding up the conciliation procedure, which was itself introduced following the report of the last Royal Commission on the press. The second would be to introduce new arrangements under which a named Press Council official or panel would rule on the complaint and, where appropriate, tell the editor that a reply must be published. The council believes that the introduction of either of those schemes would go a very long way towards meeting the present call for a right of reply. It intends to give wide publicity—I know that the House will agree with this—to whatever arrangements are eventually introduced.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: The Minister says that the new method will enable the Press Council to tell an editor that a reply must be printed. Is that right? I understand that the Press Council has no such power. That is our main objection to the Press Council.
  Mr. Mellor: The Press Council cannot compel publication but it can expedite the procedure whereby it makes its judgment. Of course, there is no ministerial responsibility as such for the Press Council, but it is obviously right to discuss with the Press Council the latest stage of its thinking, so that I can inform the House of it.
  In the debate, many examples have been quoted of occasions when it was suggested, with some justification, that the Press Council's judgments have not been taken and acted upon in the way that many hon. Members would wish. I suggest that that must be very much the exception and not the general rule. The hon. Gentleman will see from the reports of the Press Council that its judgments are adhered to pretty well by the press, as they should be, given that the council is a self-regulatory body consisting in the main of professional journalists.
  Broadcasting is different because the framework is already set by public authorities with statutory powers and duties, but within that framework the broadcasting authorities have full responsibility for maintaining the

  627
  standard of their programmes. The Government, like successive previous Governments, follow a policy of not interfering in programme decisions, and the broadcasting authorities alone are answerable for them. In that respect we depart from experience in certain continental countries, but in this case, as in the other, I suspect that we are right and they are wrong. The BBC and the IBA take these matters seriously. They have drawn up their own guidelines on the right of reply.
  The IBA's guidelines recognise that, despite all efforts made by the programme companies and itself to observe fairness, accuracy and due impartiality, there may still be occasions when an individual or organisation is misrepresented in a programme. Its guidelines call for corrections of factual errors to be broadcast within the programme itself, where that can be done, or as soon as sensibly possible after the original error.
  Where the call for a right of reply is made not to correct a factual error but on the ground that a programme as a whole or in part has been misleading and unfair in a more general sense, the guidelines envisage consultation between the authority and the programme company concerned to decide whether the opportunity for reply should be given and, if so, in what form.
  The BBC's guidelines similarly provide that where a factual error is substantiated a correction should be made within the programme concerned or at some other suitable programme junction, and that complaints of distortion, such as might occur if a contribution is mis-edited, should also be redressed within the offending programmes.
  I should like to say a word about the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. A person who claims to have been unfairly or unjustly treated in a broadcast programme now has another and quite separate outlet, leaving on one side the company's own guidelines, if he does not get satisfaction from the broadcasters themselves. He can make his complaint to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, which was set up by the House in the Broadcasting Act 1980. The commission acts as an independent body to consider and adjudicate upon complaints and upon complaints of unwarranted infringement of privacy in programmes or in their preparation. This does not provide a remedy such as the Bill seeks, but the commission can require its adjudications to be published. The existence of the commission provides a remedy for members of the public, including businesses, who are treated unfairly in broadcasts. I submit that it would be incompatible with these recently introduced arrangements to consider introducing a statutory right of reply as well.
  In our view, the introduction of a statutory right of reply would cut across the arrangements under which the press and broadcasting work. It is said that the suggestion for change is backed up by European precedents. However, the proposal that there should be a legal right of reply is not new. It has been considered by a number of independent bodies over a number of years, as have the European precedents.
  I cite as an example the Royal Commission on the press which reported in 1977 and of which, much as I admire him, the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) was unnecessarily dismissive. The body was constituted by a Labour Government, and its report was widely read and much approved of at the time.
  628
  After weighing arguments for and against such a right and taking account of practices in other countries, the Royal Commission concluded:
  "the press should not be subjected to a special regime of law, and … it should neither have special privileges nor labour under special disadvantages compared with the ordinary citizen. That argues against a special measure for ensuring a right of reply. We prefer a non-legal method of securing corrections."
  That was the view of the Royal Commission, and the Government agree with that view.
  The existence of a legal right of reply in a number of European countries—a fact to which a number of hon. Members alluded—was known to the Royal Commission and taken into account by it. Such information as we have demonstrates that most continental legislation on the subject originated in the 19th century or early in this century and is contained in measures which also guarantee the freedom of the press. Our press and broadcasting systems have evolved along different lines, and we do not have the continental tradition of a written constitution.
  If we look in detail at precisely what is provided for in the European rules, which I do not have time to quote in detail, we see that they are quite different in their width and in their procedures from those in the Bill. They are so radically different that it is not enough to say that the Bill can be changed in Committee. Some of the flaws are fundamental and, from the Government's viewpoint, vitiate the whole enterprise.
  Mr. Whitehead: The Minister should have quoted the next paragraph of the Royal Commission's report. It said that it recommended
  "that … the Press Council should involve itself actively in obtaining the publication as soon as practicable of counter-statements on behalf of people who have been criticised unfairly on inaccurate information, using the criteria of equal prominence and space, and limiting an editor's right of refusal on legal grounds."
  The central theme of the debate is that it has riot been found possible to do that.
  Mr. Mellor: I have said what the Press Council is proposing to do. In an area which is so fundamentally important to our society, I believe that there can be no advantage in pressing ahead until we are quite satisfied that the Press Council is not able to deal with these matters properly. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I should need a lot more persuading of that fact before I was driven to a conclusion that had fundamental implications for the continued existence of a free society.
  The Faulks committee on defamation, which reported in 1975, also considered the possibility of a right of reply but came to the conclusion that, while that might be a vital remedy in countries which did not have a defamation law like ours and where substantial sums by way of damages were rare, in these circumstances in this country a general statutory right of reply backed by criminal sanctions was undesirable, and it did not recommend that one should be introduced.
  While it is right to say that the Bill has drawn support from both sides of the House and that some excellent speeches have been made in support of parts of it—I do not think that any of my right hon. and hon. Friends accepted the Bill as it stood—it would be wrong not to recognise that the Bill has essentially been given birth by the national executive committee of the Labour Party. The hon. Member for Salford, East recognises that and it would be wrong of me not to point out that some Labour

  629
  Members who support the measure are inimical to the existing arrangements of a free press and would like to undermine them—[Interruption.] I am not referring to the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). The paranoid wing of the Labour Party is represented by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I am sorry that neither is in his place—a fault for which I am not responsible.
  It might help the House if I were to qote from the national executive committee's report on this matter. It said:
  "In short, the new kind of owners (for example, Lord Matthews of Express Newspapers, or Mr. Roland Rowland of the Observer and the Outram Group) are employers on a large scale whose overriding interest is the development of their industrial and commercial conglomerates: they represent a trend that could further inhibit independent editorial inquiry and comment in important economic, social and political areas at home and abroad and exacerbate the present subjective coverage of Labour party and trade union activities and policies, while at the same time promoting the image of big business as a wholly benevolent element in society".
  That is a wholly false and nonsensical analysis of the present situation. Take the reference to Mr. Rowland of The Observer. The idea of The Observer as a Tory sheet inimical to the Labour party is nonsense. The image of Mr. Rowland sitting behind Mr. Trelford, Mr. Alan Watkins or Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien and smacking them round the head every time they say anything detrimental to capitalism or handing them a bottle of Napolean brandy every time they coin some favourable phrase about some current magnate or other is paranoia writ large. I am glad that we have had some examples of that today, or the debate would have been sadly lacking in an important point that worries so many—the attitude of the far Left today towards the press. They do not mind, in documents such as London Labour Briefing and others, making the most disgraceful allegations against the police, coroners and a whole range of other people in society, but they do not like to take it themselves.
  It is difficult to understand the allegation that all the mass circulation papers support the Conservative party, because that is manifestly not the case. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) in one of his more amusing passages, was critical of the award of knighthoods to editors. I seem to remember that it was the Government of which he was a Member that turned the Daily Mirror into the house journal of the other place.
  Mr. Hattersley rose—
  Mr. Mellor: I shall give way when I have finished this point.
  The Morning Star has been drawn into this. It is not the fault of anyone other than the British people that the Morning Star is not a mass circulation newspaper. It is not a mass circulation newspaper because the British people are wise enough not to buy it. It has nothing to do with some great press conspiracy against the Labour party.
  Mr. Hattersley: I was wrong to intervene and thus treat this passage in the Minister's speech as if it were serious. I do so on behalf of two groups of friends whom he has already treated badly — first, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) and
  630
  my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). They are not here today and the Minister said that that was not his fault. But it is entirely his fault since he said that he would speak earlier and then postponed his speech at the request of hon. Members.
  Secondly, the Minister made an allegation about Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd. That group never took awards for practising members of the editorial staff. If the hon. Gentleman looked at more of my columns than the one he has beside him he would see that of all the awards to newspapers by various Governments this is the first time in the history of Fleet street that practising editors have received favours from a Prime Minister.
  Mr. Mellor: It requires a more subtle mind than mine to recognise the right hon. Gentleman's distinction. It is a rather self-serving distinction, which is not altogether untypical. The right hon. Gentleman had a pre-emptive strike on the subject of his article in Punch. I do not know whether other hon. Members have seen the article, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to find a publication to browse through that does not contain an article by the right hon. Gentleman. He said in Punch:
  "His Bill is generally impracticable and wholly desirable, probably unworkable and certainly essential."
  I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman's legitimate desire to be a latter-day Hazlitt, or the stout man's Oscar Wilde, and his genuine desire to further his career as an essayist, has overcome the caution and sense of responsibility that we expect of him if we are to take him seriously as someone who hopes to be Home Secretary within the next few months. It is difficult for those of us charged with the responsibility of government to take such a sanguine view, as he did in his article and his speech, of what are essentially impracticable proposals.
  I recognise that those of us who reject the way of statutory rights and obligations have a duty to ensure that other remedies are effective. Some harsh words have been said today, and rightly so, about the reluctance of some editors to admit their mistakes and put matters right, and also about the adequacy of Press Council procedures and its means of securing compliance. But against that must be set evidence of the Press Council's current efforts to improve procedures and remedies.
  I am in no sense complacent about the matter, nor do I pretend that everything in the garden is lovely. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in expressing the hope that today's debate will have delivered to both the media and the Press Council a clear message of widespread dissatisfaction and, at least, the expectation that matters will be improved.
  Some imperfections and unhappy experiences are the price that must be paid for maintaining free institutions, because freedom must include the freedom occasionally to get things wrong and to make a mess of things. But if the public lose confidence in the self-regulating mechanisms of powerful free institutions, the demand for external statutory control may become overwhelming.
  If the media reject—rightly, in my view—the demand for statutory control, they must recognise and act on the need to put their house in better order voluntarily. That is the message of today's debate. I endorse it warmly, while advising the House not to give a Second Reading to a misconceived and flawed Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I remind the House that the debate must end at 2.30 pm.

  631
  Many hon. Members wishing to speak have been in the Chamber throughout the debate. I ask hon. Members to be brief in their comments.
  2.3 pm
  Mr. Arthur Davidson: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) and to Conservative Members for not being in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate, but I had to attend to constituency matters.
  The Minister began and ended his speech well. Perhaps he remembered something that might take place within a few months, because he clearly felt that he had to do a bit of a knockabout to raise the spirits of his party. I do not complain about that. However, his was not a serious contribution to an essentially serious matter.
  I support the Bill, although I regret doing so. Hon. Members may know that I spent a great deal of my life as a Fleet street lawyer. During the years I have argued both inside and outside this House, sometimes idiosyncratically, for greater press freedom. I have argued for the liberalisation of the libel laws, as has the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken). I have warned about the dangers to press freedom of the Official Secrets Act, and I have argued about the restrictive nature of the laws of contempt. These things are in some ways still an impediment to the proper dissemination of news. It is with regret, therefore, that I have come to the conclusion that a law is needed not to restrict the freedom of the press—far from it—but to help to ensure that greater accuracy and therefore truth is disseminated to the public.
  I do not believe that newspapers are in the business of providing only biased propaganda. They have a duty to inform and to educate. If the public feel, as I think they do, that there is some need for legislation, it is because of their belief that the popular press—it is mainly the popular press—has abused its power and position.
  Sadly, as has been pointed out, the Press Council, despite its good intentions, has proved inadequate to deal with abuse and to protect the public. The recent findings of the Press Council in the Yorkshire "Ripper" case are a stark example of what the public find distasteful about some journalistic practices. The Press Council's report tells a story
  "of harassment, intrusion, preying on private grief, gross prejudice to the course of justice, tampering with witnesses, the scattering of money to the families and friends of a criminal, and then of lies by editors in an attempt to cover it up."
  Those are not my words. I wish I had the ability to use language in that way. Those are the words of The Economist.
  I can never understand the obsession of newspaper editors to refuse to admit that they are sometimes wrong. If a public inquiry castigated a Minister's conduct, behaviour or judgment and that Minister ignored the committee's findings, the press would howl and bay at him and say that the only proper course would be for him to apologise or to resign. Yet newspapers seem to believe that they have no responsibility to accept that they may be wrong and that the judgment on them by a body on which there are journalists has no validity because they, the newspapers, are attacked.
  It is terrible for an individual to be misrepresented in the press. Many misrepresentations fall short of enabling the victim to bring libel proceedings. Defamation proceedings are lengthy and expensive. Possibly the time
  632
  has come—although I have never advocated it in the past—to ensure that legal a id is provided for those wishing to bring libel actions. However, a newspaper can argue, haggle and dispute, and eventually, even if the right of reply is given to the individual, the public by and large have forgotten what the issue was and the unfortunate victim does not feel at all satisfied.
  The Defamation Act 1952 provides for a right of reply. The newspapers welcome it. It is convenient for them as a semi-defence in any subsequent proceedings. However, no one suggests that that is an intrusion into the freedom of the press and that the basis of our free institutions will collapse because of it. I do not think that a right of reply —that at the earliest opportunity, if there has been a distortion or misrepresentation of fact, the press should say so—is a violation of our basic freedoms. It is a defence of freedom, because it enables a fact to be revealed if an untruth has come out.
  The Minister stated—there is something in what he said—that there was a disposition on the part of the Press Council to have some teeth to enforce its judgments and to ensure that the press properly publicised any adverse findings—if necessary on the front page. However, I believe that the press will resist that as much as it will resist the Bill. If the press is not prepared to allow some sort of regulation to come in, it will lay itself open to legislation that will be far more severe than this Bill. I do not suggest that the only way to do it is the way set out in the Bill. There are imperfections. However, they can be sorted out in Committee.
  If my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East had not persisted in his endeavours to ensure that the issue of the right of reply was made public, nothing would have been done. The press would be content with the present position.
  For those reasons, I hope that the Bill will at least receive a Second Reading.
  2.12 pm
  Mr. Tom Benyon: I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to this important debate. I am always suspicious of what I regard as Socialist-inspired legislation, because in my experience, which is the experience of anyone who is a student of what happens on the political scene, it usually has the opposite effect to what is intended. The Bill is a pious hope, which will probably do more damage than good.
  I hope that we all agree that freedom of speech is sacred. Parliament should intervene only when the liberty of one person infringes the liberty of another. We are discussing whether a law should be enacted to limit the freedom of the press to refuse a right of reply. The press will argue with merit that the freedom of the press is an essential feature of a true democracy; not an end in itself but a means to an end—a free society. I agree with that. However inconvenient, embarrassing or intrusive that freedom is, we should preserve it, unhampered by legislative controls.
  However, as has been illustrated today, we must recognise that the freedom of the press gives great power to those who wield it. Therefore, they must resist the temptation to abuse that power. Abuse of power is not only conscious; it is more often seen as indifference to the feelings of others and carelessness about the consequences

  633
  of what is written or broadcast. Freedom to publish fearlessly should not be regarded by media leaders as a licence to ride ruthlessly over the liberties of others.
  Some aspects of the media cause anxiety to many people, as has been shown during the debate: invasion of privacy, harassment, campaigns of vilification which straddle the law of libel, cheque-book journalism and all the rest which have been manifest recently. They all illustrate fundamental problems which must be resolved soon.
  I have no argument with journalists who wish to speculate, criticise, probe, lampoon, ridicule, attack or support this policy or that, or this or that politician or breed. Those who dislike the heat in the political arena—I pick up the point made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—should get out of the kitchen, and certainly the House.
  The press will always be criticised and, possibly like politicians, will never be loved. Journalists might be comforted by the fact that if all shades of political opinion believe that they are hard done by, the press probably has it about right. My tolerance expires when individuals and institutions are subjected to campaigns of vilification brought about by the selection of facts, misinformation, stolen information and the word of those whose motives may be vicious and mendacious and whose co-operation might have been purchased. I believe that editors should strive to introduce into this type of material balancing comment and reply from those attacked, or serious injustice can and does follow.
  If editors deny the right to answer such attacks to those individuals or corporate bodies involved, they deny the very freedom that they seek to protect. If editors deny the right of reply, they are inferior to any man or institution whose rights they trample underfoot. They should, in equity and conscience, give an adequate right of reply or be compelled to do so by the Press Council. The stock answer of those in the media who make their living staring at the view on the other side of the libel boundary is, "If we cross the line, sue us." I shall deal later with the question why the courts are not a practical source of redress to protect the individual from injustice by the media.
  At present, if a biased article is based on incomplete, inaccurate, selective data, there is no right of reply, despite the theory of freedom of speech. Moreover, powerful men in the media are not usually prepared to change their view of a topic once decided or to admit that they may have it wrong.
  However, the media men need to sell newspapers or to entice viewers to watch this, not that, channel. In my view, that is entirely healthy. To balance their commercial profit motives with natural justice, they have to be trusted to present a fair picture, which can of course reduce a scorching story to that of the commonplace. I wish to give three examples of individuals and institutions who had no right of reply being strongly criticised by the media. I do not know the rights or wrongs of each case. The point that I am making is that they had no right of reply to the powerful, disruptive campaigns waged against them. I have no connection with any of these organisations or individuals, nor am I necessarily a supporter of their views.
  634
  These examples stand out when one learns of the circumstances surrounding a recent story and how it was dealt with. Human nature being what it is, the freedom of the press is generally approved when it takes liberties with the other fellow and leaves us alone. These are examples of inequity, which could have been rectified by the right of reply. There are dozens of others. In each of these cases reputations may have been sacrificed for a profitable Roman holiday for the media. In all cases the lions had their day and the Christians little opportunity to retaliate.
  The charity Stable Lads Welfare Trust was taken apart by the BBC in 40 minutes on 9 December. The charity, which was fiercely criticised, later protested that the view given on the programme of its activities was manifestly unjust. Those in charge of the organisation protested that the only right of reply that they were offered was an edited 95-second slot in a 40-minute programme.
  There was a subsequent programme about Lloyd's in the midst of its troubles. The people there were strongly criticised. I understand that many of them would have wished for an adequate opportunity to make a balancing comment.
  The third example relates to Sir Walter Marshall, a public servant of 25 years' standing, who, in his view, was unfairly criticised in the television programme "World in Action". He felt that he had an insufficient right of reply. He believed that the way in which the programme was put together gave an utterly unwarranted slant to various matters upon which he would have liked to comment.
  For the editors or producers to have given a right of reply in those cases to straighten the record, to correct the bias, to put complex issues into context, to correct major inaccuracies and to examine critically the motives and credentials of those who were involved would have spoilt the exercise of vilification which was intended, as I understand the parlance, to put bottoms on seats and pay in the pockets of the reporters.
  None of those people or bodies has access to the column inches of national newspapers or television time. They are the preserve of editors who select the reporters. That is the body with the real power of freedom of speech in Britain. Although in theory those who are attacked have freedom to reply, in practice they are denied the column inches, television time, circulation and credibility which is possessed by a television company or newspaper. The freedom of speech for those who are attacked remains a theory, not a reality.
  Only the rich have real recourse to the law to correct biased articles which, in their view, may constitute libel. That is why it is important for editors to grant a right of reply. Big newspapers, television companies and even small magazines carry expensive insurance cover for libel damages that may be awarded against them. They can also afford to employ blue chip lawyers—the costliest of QCs—so that they can usually face down someone who is tempted to sue. With fancy footwork, a case can be delayed for up to five years, during which time legal costs mount up. The preparation of a case alone can cost thousands of pounds. If a case goes live, the costs soar as barristers and their juniors take their fees. For a long case that takes years, and excluding an appeal, tens of thousands of pounds are required.
  There is another problem. If a person gets help from an employer or an outside body, all the financial assistance will be taxable on him—it will be income taxable up to 60 per cent. If a person receives assistance from friends, it is

  635
  likely that capital transfer tax will be payable. If a litigant sues a newspaper or television company, he will find that his adversary's costs are paid by an insurance company. If his adversary is not insured, the adversary's costs will be tax deductible. In other words, when David takes on Goliath, David has to pay tax on the gift of his sling.
  Let us assume that Mr. X is not daunted by all that, wins, and is awarded damages against a newspaper or television company. He will get his damages clear, but if the judge makes no order about costs, which is what happens in the worst cases, so one does not get all one's cost back, Mr. X will have to carry his own costs. If Mr. X loses, the judge may award the defendant's costs against him in addition to his own. Even if Mr. X wins the defendant could take the case to appeal. One can therefore double the costs involved and Mr. X faces financial ruin. Even if he won, the appeal without costs could ruin him.
  Then, of course, there comes the mud slinging. After two years, the public have long since forgetten the original article. The libel is repeated in open court, and there will be a few more allegations besides. Although Mr. X is the one who is suing, the defendant's counsel will have the major job of destroying Mr. X's reputation as a politician, business man or whatever in the interests of his client, if only to discourage others from suing on other occasions. There are cases where people enter litigation, win their case, and emerge with smeared reputations. In court, all allegations can be printed publicly and do not have to be substantiated.
  In those cases, only the lawyers and barristers win. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate all my right hon. and hon. and learned Friends on having the foresight to choose their profession. They will surely inherit the earth. If not, they will make a large profit on the conveyancing. The faults of bias and imbalance should be rectified if possible, like Lloyd's, from the media. I support self-regulation as opposed to statutory controls.
  I presume to suggest that the Press Council's powers should be reinforced to enable it to control its membership. At the moment, the Press Council has insufficient authority and the worst of all worlds—enough to have its authority flouted and its nose tweaked publicly, but not enough to impose proper checks. Increased powers might include forced publication of its findings with prominence equal to that of the offending article. It should also be able to establish the payments made to informers and collaborators and from whom they came, and to ascertain the techniques used by journalists to obtain stories.
  I end with an appeal to the media. When indulging in exercises against individuals or corporations, whoever they may be, in the guise of a moral crusade, they should not let their subjective stance or profit motives cloud their judgment. The responsibilities carried by a free press should be regarded as the burden they are. It is insufficient in equity to live on the line between sensationalism and libel. To do so is to abuse the very powers and freedom that they purport to cherish.
  I believe in self-regulation, and I hope that the media will look to their practices. Otherwise, the enemies of a free press, of whom I am not one, will be tempted to do it themselves. I remind the media of Mark Twain's words:
  "We write frankly and feely but then we 'modify' before we print."
  Perhaps our press will do the same.
  636
  I hope that the House will not support the Bill. I believe that self-regulation is the way forward, but the media must take urgent steps or others may have to do so for them.
  2.25 pm
  Mr. Frank Allaun: With the leave of the House. I should like to use the last five minutes to deal with the debate. There have been excellent contributions from both sides. I wish simply to stress certain points that have been confirmed across the political divide.
  First, the Bill is confined to misstatements of fact. However much hon. Members may object to the views of newspapers, that is not involved in this debate, as the Bill is confined entirely to the accuracy of facts.
  Secondly, it has been suggested that the proposed legislation is impractical. In one bizarre comment, it was referred to as a zany Heath Robinson contraption. I repeat that it is working successfully in Canada, West Germany, France, Denmark and elsewhere.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir Derek Walker-Smith) powerfully supported the Bill, although he had reservations on one point. I can see the validity of his argument and I should certainly not be averse to amending that or other details in Committee.
  As for libel actions, I repeat that most people cannot afford them and that legal aid is not available.
  The Minister referred to the Press Council and to a new step but when, with reference to the statement by the editor of Daily Mail that he would not respect the decisions of the Press Council, I asked the Minister whether the Press Council would have the power to require a newspaper to make corrections, his answer was that it would not.
  The Bill is no panacea. It is a limited measure of reform because the main bias in the press is achieved not by telling lies but by selection. Newspaper chief subs have on their desks a little spike. If they like an item, it can be the front page splash. If they do not, it can be tucked away in two lines at the bottom of column 9 where no one wi.1 read it. If they really do not like it, they will spike it and that will be the end of it.
  If hon. Members agree with the purpose and the principle of the Bill, I ask them to vote for it. Amendments of detail can be made in Committee. It is a great honour for me to commend the Bill to the House.
  2.29 pm
  Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: While I have been a Member—
  Mr. Frank Allaun rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 90, Noes 7.

  Division No. 72]

  [2.30 pm

  AYES

  Allaun, Frank

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Alton, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Anderson, Donald

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

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Cohen, Stanley

  Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cook, Robin F.

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Dalyell, Tam

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Davidson, Arthur

  Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

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

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Deakins, Eric

  637

  Dobson, Frank

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Dubs, Alfred

  Pitt, William Henry

  Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  English, Michael

  Prescott, John

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Foster, Derek

  Race, Reg

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

  Richardson, Jo

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Freud, Clement

  Sheerman, Barry

  Ginsburg, David

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  Graham, Ted

  Silverman, Julius

  Greenway, Harry

  Skinner, Dennis

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

  Soley, Clive

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Stallard, A. W.

  Huckfield, Les

  Stoddart, David

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Strang, Gavin

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Kerr, Russell

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Tilley, John

  McKelvey, William

  Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  McWilliam, John

  Warden, Gareth

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Wells, Bowen

  Meacher, Michael

  Welsh, Michael

  Mikardo, Ian

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Morton, George

  Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Woodall, Alec

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Newens, Stanley

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Mr. Bob Cryer and

  Parker, John

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Pitt, William Henry

  Brinton, Tim

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Goodhew, Sir Victor

  Mr. K. Harvey Proctor and

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Mr. Ivan Lawrence.

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Whereupon MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 31 (Majority for Closure).
  It being after half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Friday 25 February.
  Mr. Laurie Pavitt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not querying your decision about the 97 hon. Members who voted, but may I ask a question? Because there were four tellers, a total of 101 hon. Members went through the Lobbies. Can you say whether the four hon. Members who are recorded as tellers are part of the vote?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I am sorry to have to remind the hon. Gentleman of the Standing Order. The requirement is for 100 hon. Members voting in the majority.

  Right of Reply in the Media Bill

    RESALE OF GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second reading deferred till Friday 25 February.

    VIDEO CASSETTES (PROHIBITION OF SALE OR RENTAL TO CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second reading deferred till Friday 18 March.

    LEVEL CROSSINGS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second reading deferred till Friday 25 February.

    REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS (FISHERMEN'S CLAIMS) (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second reading deferred till Friday 25 February.

    DISABLEMENT (PROHIBITION OF UNJUSTIFIABLE DISCRIMINATION) BILL
    Order read for resumed debate on Question—[11 February]—That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Debate to be resumed what day? No day named.

    TRAVEL CONCESSIONS FOR THE UNEMPLOYED (NO. 2) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second reading deferred till Friday 25 February.

    BRITISH NATIONALITY (FALKLAND ISLANDS) BILL [LORDS]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second reading deferred till Friday 25 February.

    SALMON FISHERIES (PROTECTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second reading deferred till Friday 25 February.

    LICENSING (OCCASIONAL PERMISSIONS) BILL
    Ordered,
    That Standing Committee C be discharged from considering the Licensing (Occasional Permissions) Bill and that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. David Atkinson.]
    Committee upon Friday 25 February.

    SOLVENT ABUSE (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]]
    Queen's recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to amend the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 to add solvent abuse to the conditions indicating the need for a compulsory care order, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Berry.]

    EMPLOYMENT
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Ken Eastham be added to the Employment Committee—[Mr. Ronald W. Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Agricultural Employment Practices (Lincolnshire)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Berry.]
  2.43 pm
  Miss Joan Maynard: The case that I shall put today for our members in south Lincolnshire, Norfolk and the Cambridgeshire Fens is the case against gangmasters. I am not suggesting that all gangmasters are bad—obviously, some are better than others—but there is a growing problem for trade unionists in those areas.
  The problem has to be considered in the context of the changes that have taken place in rural life and rural communities over the years. Rural areas have changed out of all recognition. In addition, there has been the shameful rise in unemployment. The traditional labour market of farm workers' wives has disappeared as the agricultural population has declined. There has been a decline in rural transport and in rural facilities in general. All those things have encouraged more workers to leave rural areas.
  Therefore, when farmer; need temporary labour at peak periods, whether for brassica, potatoes or bulbs, they turn to gangmasters to supply that labour—in other words, they deal with the gangmaster and he engages the workers.
  Increasingly, work on farms has been casualised, and I need hardly say that the casual rate—or the seasonal rate—is the lowest rate. For full-time workers the rate is £1·89 per hour, for part-time workers it is £1·74 per hour, and for seasonal workers it is £1·60 per hour. The, part-time rate has gradually been phased out.
  The seasonal workers who work under the gangmasters are covered by the agricultural wages board orders, but because of the unemployment in the areas concerned., the gangmasters are able to exploit the workers, who have no right to holidays or sick pay, and no insurance is paid by the farmer.
  In the Holland area of Lincolnshire recently, 100 full-time workers in vegetable producing have been made redundant. They have now been replaced by seasonal or casual workers on a lower rate of pay doing exactly the same job.
  Geest, a very large firm in the Holland area of Lincolnshire, has always had 12-week contract workers. It is now calling those workers seasonal workers and is paying them £1·60 per hour instead of £1·74 an hour. That represents a saving, in old money, of nearly three shillings per hour—a significant sum. It is difficult to unionise those workers, as I shall try to explain.
  The system under which the women are engaged is more like the old casual dock labour scheme, under which dockers would go along to a particular place and hope that they would be chosen for a job. The women wait outside their doors in the hope that they will be given a job and some pay by one of the gangmasters. Anyone who is known to be a member of the union is never again given a job by certain gangmasters.
  The example that I have given shows how silly is the statement that people would rather be poor and free. The truth is that when people are really poor they have no freedom, and they certainly do not have the freedom to become a member of a trade union in such circumstances. I would describe those conditions as 19th-century

  641
  conditions. Perhaps the Prime Minister would describe them as Victorian conditions. But that is what is happening in those parts of England today. As there is no system of licensing, any unscrupulous person can set up as a gang-master. With the high unemployment, he is able to intimidate the members of the work force, who desperately need to bring some form of income into the home.
  The result is that there is widespread abuse of agricultural wages board orders, trade union rates are ignored, and there is no security of employment. The system is encouraging farmers in these areas to get rid of their regular labour and to bring in gangs instead, so the farmers are paying less per hour in wages, no sick pay, no insurance and no holiday pay. In other words, the farmers are doing very nicely out of the arrangement.
  There are other implications. These people are not the employees of the farmer. He does not have to insure them. Nor is there any legal obligation on the gangmasters to do so. This can lead to serious consequences if a gang worker is involved in an accident on a farm because, presumably, he is not covered for industrial injury benefit and so on.
  Farm workers in south Lincolnshire, Norfolk and the Cambridge Fens would like to see the reintroduction of licensing of gangmasters. Let me spell out what we think the conditions for a licence should be. We think that the licence should be obtained from magistrates and be valid for six months. Notification of an application for a licence should be made public to the relevant bodies—the Inland Revenue, the Department of Health and Social Security and the relevant trade unions, the National Farmers Union and the agricultural trades group. There must be a substantial licensing fee to deter fly-by-night boys from becoming gangmasters.
  We think that there should be certain sanctions on these conditions. If within a three-year period any gangmaster was caught three times infringing the agricultural wages board orders or the employment legislation, he should be debarred from holding a licence for three years.
  A contract laying out the terms, conditions and rates of remuneration would have to be presented to the employee on the date that he or she started employment. The contract would also have to be available at the time of an application for a licence.
  I hope that I have set out the problem clearly and the kind of solution that our members would like.
  2.53 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Selwyn Gummer): I find myself in some difficulty in replying to this debate as the hon. Lady seems to be unaware of the very considerable work that has been done on this matter by the Member of Parliament concerned. I am sad that the hon. Lady found it unnecessary, under the usual conventions of the House, to inform him that she was raising this matter, which has much to do with his constituency of Holland with Boston. I am also surprised that the hon. Lady should consider the matter so urgent that she was last in touch with my Department about it about a year ago.
  The hon. Lady must accept that it is extremely damaging to the way in which the House operates that the Member of Parliament concerned, my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body), is not here. He is at the moment engaged in working on this matter in
  642
  his constituency with the people concerned. The hon. Lady did not have the courtesy to raise the matter with him or, as far as I am able to ascertain, with those hon. Members peripherally concerned who are themselves determined to see whether dangers arise from the practice of farmers using gangmasters.
  The fact that the hon. Lady did not show hon. Members that courtesy leads me to believe that this is not a matter about which she is seeking the action of which she talks. In the first part of the hon. Lady's speech, she spoke of "our members". We in the House have only one representational role and that is to represent our constituents. It occurs to me that this Adjournment debate is really aimed more at the agricultural trades group of the Transport and General Workers Union than at resolving what I believe to be a real issue.
  The hon. Lady has not been in touch with my Department for over a year. Therefore, in her mind it cannot be an urgent issue. Nor has the hon. Lady been in touch with my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston. Therefore, it cannot be a matter that she thinks should be dealt with in parliamentary terms. After the extreme language that has been used it is very difficult—
  Miss Maynard: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is just not true. I have spoken to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body). He knows that I am interested in the matter and I know that he is interested in it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I think that honour is satisfied.
  Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston has been in touch with me regularly on this important matter. I only say that to the hon. Lady because I take the matter seriously. It is most important that the raising of a matter of such seriousness should be done in the way that is most likely to achieve the end that we all want.
  It is clear that the problem of gangmasters is of long standing. I am sure that the hon. Lady would not like to reintroduce the legislation that we once had on this subject because it was more concerned with the regulation of the morality of those working in gangs than with any other purpose. Tha legislation was passed in August 1867 and I think that the hon. Lady will agree with me that its terms are no longer applicable and that therefore any reintroduction of such legislation would be unsuitable.
  I am sorry that the hon. Lady should have referred to Victorian conditions and so on, because this is a matter which should be discussed on a non-party basis. We are anxious to ensure that people are properly looked after in their employment and that their conditions are such that they are not exploited. That is clearly an objective which all hon. Members share.
  Unlike the hon. Lady I represent an exclusively agricultural constituency. I spend a great deal of my constituency time dealing with the problems of agriculture. Any hon. Member who is concerned with the future of farming, farmers and farm workers is particularly interested in the dangers that might arise were the fall in the number of people working in farms and therefore the natural increase in the peaks of need for employment to lead to the recurrence of undesirable employment practices that have been known in the past.

  643
  I was particularly interested in the hon. Lady's comparison with the dock schemes which used to operate before the last war. I agree that in the past there have been some deplorable and unacceptable labour practices in all parts of British industry that none of us wish to see return. But when I consider more carefully the proposals and cases that the hon. Lady has put forward, I do not believe that it is true that there are large numbers of unscrupulous people who go in for intimidation of their work forces and that that is a widespread abuse—to use her words.
  I am sure that there are cases when gangmasters behave in a way that the hon. Lady or I would not find acceptable, but I do not think that we solve these problems by blowing them up out of proportion and suggesting that they are much more widespread than we know them to be. It is an issue which, in terms of pressure from localities, is largely centred in Lincolnshire, particularly in the Holland with Boston area.
  We have looked carefully at the position in our jobcentres and unemployment benefit offices. The Department of Health and Social Security has also looked carefully at its areas. There is no evidence of the kind of widespread abuse that the hon. Lady has put forward, although, were she to provide such evidence, I would undertake to consider it carefully, because I am at one with her in the belief that it would be unsuitable for a method of employment to be extensively used if it was open to a wide range of abuses. I do not believe that to be true now, but, if the hon. Lady were to show me evidence, I would take it up with great alacrity.
  I recognise the problems and understand the difficulties that arise. It must be difficult to unionise people in such conditions and to achieve an exact factual background of what is happening. After all, we are discussing people who, in large part, are part-time or seasonal workers. Many of them are women, and many would, in any case, be working for only part of the year, even if full-time work were available. Such people are notoriously difficult to judge. It is difficult also to create a reasonable profile in deciding whether they have sufficient protection.
  Gangmasters have clear responsibilities under the law. When acting as contractors, they are responsible for meeting the requirements of both the Agricultural Wages Act 1948 and the relevant DHSS and Inland Revenue regulations. That they do not do so is an arrogation by the hon. Lady. I have heard it mentioned before by right hon. and hon. Members on both the Government and Opposition Benches, and we shall investigate individual cases carefully. However, there is no sign that it is a widespread problem. If the hon. Lady can put forward evidence that it is, I shall be happy to investigate it.
  The hon. Lady suggested that we should introduce a new Act of Parliament to place a licensing duty upon
  644
  magistrates and to impose arrangements for various Departments to be notified. That would not be sensible on current evidence, which does not suggest that it is a widespread problem. I accept that there is evidence to show that in one part of the country there is a limited worry. If it is as the hon. Lady suggests, I shat. consider the matter carefully and may have to revise my judgment. However, it is not proper for this Department, or any other, to introduce the legislation that she has suggested. I have discussed the matter with a number of neighbouring Members of Parlianent, especially my hon Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), and the general view is that there is no current widespread problem that requires legislation.
  There may be individual cases of gangmasters whose activities are contrary to the law. It is our duty to ensure that they are prosecuted, where that is appropriate, and that their future affairs are carefully monitored to ensure that there is no extension of abuses.
  There is a consensus on both sides of the House that it is part of the duty of the House to ensure that people in employment are not exploited. But there is not a consensus to suggest that we should control or restrict arrangements made between employers and employees. Trade unionists would consider interference in collective bargaining to be unsuitable. Many others would say that it is part of the proper behaviour between employers and employees. We must draw a line between controlling that part of the market while ensuring that abuses do not mean that workers are so weak that they can be exploited.
  The evidence before us and the evidence of the hon. Lady does not lead us to believe that the exploitation is such that it requires Government or parliamentary interference.
  What has been brought before us might lead in some cases to undesirable practices which are covered by the present laws and with which we can deal. I beg the hon. Lady to realise that if we are to have a sensible attitude on both sides of the House to the problems of employment, particularly in agriculture where there is widespread good practice and good relations between farm workers and farmers, we should approach these matters in a spirit of concern and in a spirit of trying to find a mutually acceptable answer. Raising party political diffences does not help our mutual desire to improve the conditions under which people work and to advance an industry in which I have a constituency interest and the hon. Lady has a union interest.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Three o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Select committees (Foreign Visits)
  Select committees (Foreign Visits)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Contempt of Court
  Contempt of Court
SCOTLAND
  Boundary Commission (Report)
  Boundary Commission (Report)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid Programme
  Aid Programme
  Overseas Development Administration
  Overseas Development Administration
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Winchester School of Art
  Winchester School of Art
  Higher Education (Student Costs)
  Higher Education (Student Costs)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Egg Production
  Egg Production
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Young Offenders
  Young Offenders
  Detained Persons
  Detained Persons
  Morse Code
  Morse Code
  Experiments on Animals
  Experiments on Animals
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Parliamentary Boundaries
  Parliamentary Boundaries
  Boundary Commission for England (Reports)
  Boundary Commission for England (Reports)
  Health Visitors
  Health Visitors
PRIME MINISTER
  Falkland Islands (Maps)
  Falkland Islands (Maps)
TRADE
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Marine Casualties (Flags of Convenience)
  Marine Casualties (Flags of Convenience)
  MV Johanna
  MV Johanna
  Aircraft Flights (Regulation)
  Aircraft Flights (Regulation)
ENVIRONMENT
  London Voice Ltd.
  London Voice Ltd.
  Home Owners
  Home Owners
  Operation Groundwork
  Operation Groundwork
TRANSPORT
  Railways (Industrial Investment)
  Railways (Industrial Investment)
  Travel Costs
  Travel Costs
  Motor Cycles (Accident Statistics)
  Motor Cycles (Accident Statistics)
  Speed Humps
  Speed Humps
  A406 (Inquiry)
  A406 (Inquiry)
  Road Schemes (Public Inquiries)
  Road Schemes (Public Inquiries)
  A406 Scheme (Priority)
  A406 Scheme (Priority)
  Hayes Bypass
  Hayes Bypass
  Diesel Multiple Units
  Diesel Multiple Units
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Brunei
  Brunei
  Guatemala
  Guatemala
  Treaty of Sevres
  Treaty of Sevres
  Iraq and Iran (Arms Supplies)
  Iraq and Iran (Arms Supplies)
  Lebanon
  Lebanon
  British Nationality Bill
  British Nationality Bill
WALES
  Young Persons (Training)
  Young Persons (Training)
  Employment Statistics
  Employment Statistics
  Swansea (Boundaries)
  Swansea (Boundaries)
  NHS (Commercial Contracts)
  NHS (Commercial Contracts)
DEFENCE
  Armed Forces (Premature Voluntary Release)
  Armed Forces (Premature Voluntary Release)
  Armed Forces (Earnings)
  Armed Forces (Earnings)
  Anti-radar Missile
  Anti-radar Missile
  "Nuclear Defence: Key Points"
  "Nuclear Defence: Key Points"
  Nuclear Weapons (Films and Video Cassettes)
  Nuclear Weapons (Films and Video Cassettes)
  Inland Revenue (Staff Redundancies)
  Inland Revenue (Staff Redundancies)
  Spirits, Beer and Wine (Revenue)
  Spirits, Beer and Wine (Revenue)
  Tobacco Duty
  Tobacco Duty
  Gaming Licence Duty
  Gaming Licence Duty
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  Prices
  Prices
  European Community Budget
  European Community Budget
EMPLOYMENT
  Unit Labour Costs
  Unit Labour Costs
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Retail Trades (Non-food) Wages Council
  Retail Trades (Non-food) Wages Council
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Mines Inspectors
  Mines Inspectors
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Health Centres
  Health Centres
  Polypharmacy
  Polypharmacy
  Nursery Places
  Nursery Places
  Elderly People (Voluntary Homes)
  Elderly People (Voluntary Homes)
  "Fraud Investigators' Guide"
  "Fraud Investigators' Guide"
  Health Education (Alcoholism)
  Health Education (Alcoholism)
  NHS (Property Repairs)
  NHS (Property Repairs)
  Water (Lead Pollution)
  Water (Lead Pollution)
  Drug Profits (Report)
  Drug Profits (Report)
  Drugs (Sales Promotion)
  Drugs (Sales Promotion)
  Drug Companies (Research)
  Drug Companies (Research)
  Health Education Council
  Health Education Council
INDUSTRY
  British Telecom
  British Telecom
  Steel Production Quotas
  Steel Production Quotas
  European Regional Development Fund
  European Regional Development Fund
  Honda-BL Merger
  Honda-BL Merger
  British Leyland (Corporate Plan)
  British Leyland (Corporate Plan)

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield.

Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot Students
Baroness Jeger: 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 how many Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot students were studying in the United Kingdom in 1974–75 compared with 1981–82; how many in each year were post graduate students; and what were the fees in each year.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I regret that separate figures for Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot students are not available. In 1981–82 there were 1,135 students from Cyprus in universities and public sector establishments of further education in the United Kingdom, compared with 1,892 students in 1974–75. These figures include 134 postgraduates in 1981–82 (122 in universities and 12 in public sector establishments) and 130 university postgraduates in 1974–75.
Information is not available for 1974–75 of the number of postgraduates from Cyprus included in the total for public sector establishments.
In 1974–75 the overseas tuition fee for undergraduate and postgraduate courses was £250 per annum and for non-advanced courses £150. In 1981–82 the fees for students who had enrolled before 1st September 1980 in universities and the public sector were £1,803 for postgraduates, £1,389 for other higher education courses and £744 for non-advanced courses. Students who had enrolled on or after 1st September 1980 paid in universities full cost fees subject to a minimum of £2,500 for arts, £3,600 for science and £6,000 for the clinical years of courses in medicine, dentistry and veterinary science. In the public sector full cost fees, for laboratory based courses, were £3,672 for higher education and £2,091 for non-advanced courses; and for classroom based courses, £2,649 for higher education and £1,479 for non-advanced courses.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that information. But is he aware of the catastrophic effect that these enormous increases in fees have had? While welcoming some improvements, which we understand are to be made—not least so that more Greek and Turkish Cypriot students can study together in this country, which they cannot do in their own country—I should like to ask why the Government did not take up the suggestion of the Select Committee on Education in
446
another place, that students from countries with an association with the Community should be entitled to come here at the same low fees as Community students may come here. For instance, why can students from the overseas French territories in the Caribbean and Africa come here as home students while our own overseas students cannot?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the noble Baroness has asked a number of supplementary questions. Perhaps the situation is not quite so catastrophic as she suggests, because provisional information available for 1982–83 shows a 13 per cent. increase in new entrants from Cyprus to the universities compared with 1981–82. No information is yet available for the public sector. As I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, is aware, the recent statement by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and the paper which was put in the Library yesterday informed us that the Government plan to make available £1 million each year in the financial years 1983–84, 1984–85 and 1985–86 to assist the Cyprus Government to continue to send students to the United Kingdom. Why they did not do what the noble Baroness suggested is because it could have been jolly expensive. We are to have a debate on this very matter on Wednesday next week, when perhaps these questions can be raised by the noble Baroness if she feels very strongly about them.
Lord Spens: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware of the importance of increasing the number of students from both parts of the island, because very soon English will be the only language of communication between each part? In the statement made by his right honourable friend 10 days ago, in which, as he has told us today, £1 million will be available each year, he said that that will be available to the Government of Cyprus. Will any part of that be made available to the Turkish Cypriots?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that it is up to the Cypriots to work out how they are to spend that money. As the noble Lord has said, Cyprus is a special case because not only is it a member of the Commonwealth without a university of its own, traditionally dependent on the United Kingdom for its higher education, but it is also of strategic importance to the United Kingdom, which is one of the three guarantors of the Cyprus constitution.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, does the Minister not think that it is a very good thing to encourage those people to come here to study in that it is likely to cultivate a pro-British attitude of mind on their part?
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, I think logically that must follow.
Lord Caradon: My Lords, can we be given an assurance today that urgent action will now be taken to undo the very great damage which has been done to the reputation of this country by the recklessly reactionary decision taken by the Government some years ago?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I can only repeat that there is a debate on this matter on Wednesday. If noble Lords feel strongly I should have thought that that was an ideal opportunity to make their opinions known.
Lord Spens: My Lords, may I go back to the supplementary I asked. The noble Lord answered that the £1 million would be under the control of the Government of Cyprus. The Government of Cyprus does not control the whole island; it controls only one part of the island. What is going to happen to students from the other, Turkish Cypriot, part?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, there is an excellent paper in the Library called A Policy for Overseas Students which deals specifically with Cyprus. I suggest that the noble Lord has a look at that.

Disputed Territories: United Nations Trusteeship
11.14 a.m.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will seek agreement within the United Nations Organisation on a form of trusteeship appropriate to communities which are subject to conflicting claims of sovereignty.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, such arrangements could only be considered on a case-by-case basis in the light of all the circumstances, including the views of the people of the territory in question.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, I wonder whether he would not agree that there is some merit in the following two propositions? First, if these matters are to be considered, as undoubtedly at some time they will, would it not be better to discuss them calmly and constructively and not in a crisis atmosphere? Secondly, again if the possibilities are to be raised, would it not be better to raise them on the initiative of Britain rather than waiting until some majority vote calls upon us to do something?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, talks about these matters being raised. The system of trusteeship does not apply of course to independent states, members of the United Nations, but to dependencies. The Charter provides in Article 77c that the latter may be voluntarily placed in trusteeship, and that I have no doubt is what is in the noble Lord's mind. So far as I know, this has never been put into effect ever since 1945. I have no reason particularly to believe that it should be put into effect now.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, it is highly unlikely that Spain would agree to the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, with regard, for instance, to
448
the border town of Olivenza claimed by Portugal, and the enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla claimed by Morocco.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the first matter applies to the Governments of Spain and Portugal, and the second matter applies to the Governments of Spain and Morocco. Neither, I think, is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that something of this nature of United Nations administration might well have saved a great deal of agony in the Falkland Islands? Would he further agree that there was an element of this type of United Nations' responsibility in the Peruvian plan that was put forward during the Falklands crisis? Would he further agree that that element was totally destroyed once the "Belgrano" was sunk? If he does not agree with that, what, in his opinion, was the effect of the sinking of the "Belgrano" on the negotiations which were taking place by the United States, by Peru, and by this Government at that time?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my answer to the noble Lord's first question is that Argentina would undoubtedly have to play a significant role in the various aspects of any United Nations trusteeship arrangement for the Falkland Islands. It is therefore highly unlikely that such a solution would commend itself to the islanders. The answer to the second question is that, after President Belaunde's attempt, the Argentinians refused to withdraw, and when Britain repossessed the islands that created an entirely different situation. My answer to the third question is that, in asking that, the noble Lord makes an unwarrantable assertion, with which I have dealt previously.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that there are considerable areas of the Russian empire which would be only too glad to be placed under trusteeship, and no doubt would vote strongly for this proposition? But would the noble Lord also agree that there might be some difficulty in counting the votes?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, although I have much sympathy with the noble Viscount's question, it would not be a matter for Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, does the noble Lord take the view that log-rolling at the United Nations is rather a poor substitute for self-determination?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I agree most certainly with the question of the noble Lord.
Lord Caradon: My Lords, would the Minister agree that it would be worthwhile considering with, for instance, the Secretary-General of the United Nations the possibility that, where scattered and small territories in the world, the survival of empire, are at risk and difficulty in these times, it would be well to attempt to work out some international arrangement whereby the international community could bring assistance and security to such communities?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if the noble Lord is referring to the dependencies of the United Kingdom, I must say that we have no plans for seeking to place any of our dependent territories under United Nations' trusteeship.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I do not want to go into the past; I am looking to the future, May I say also that I view with contempt the reference to "log-rolling" at the United Nations. Does the noble Lord not agree that, with regard to the territories I have in mind—and he knows I have in mind—these possibilities will have to be discussed in the future? Would it not be better to institute some calm, constructive discussion now?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, whose advice I often take and to whom I always listen carefully, that is a most extraordinary assertion. He puts to Her Majesty's Government that they know what territories the noble Lord has in his mind. I have no idea which territories he has in his mind. But I have made it absolutely clear to the House today that, so far as the dependencies of Her Majesty's Government are concerned, we have no intention of seeking United Nations trusteeship.

International Immunities and Privileges
11.20 a.m.
Lord Aylestone: 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 how many International Immunities and Privileges Orders under the International Organisations Act 1968 are currently in force.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there are 54 such orders.
Lord Aylestone: I thank the Minister for that reply, my Lords. While accepting the importance of these organisations, may I ask if there is agreement and consultation between the heads of such organisations and Her Majesty's Government about how many foreign nationals are entitled to these privileges and immunities, such as immunity from income tax, capital gains tax, car tax, VAT, Customs and Excise duties and even, in some cases, from legal suit?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, each organisation, when it is decided to have members here or to grant immunities in this country to that organisation, is discussed with Her Majesty's Government on its merits. The noble Lord gave a whole list of things to which immunities and privileges could apply. There are two things to which they certainly do not apply: one is car tax and the other is parking fines.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, in view of the number of organisations referred to in the original Answer and the list of organisations given in a Written Answer in another place on 2nd December, may I ask the Minister whether he would agree that there has been a proliferation of bodies applying for this special status? As it is usual for applications to pass through
450
Parliament without debate, may I ask what safeguards there are to keep account of this proliferation, and what steps can be taken to prevent any abuse, with consequent friction among the public, due to the type of things referred to by my noble friend in his supplementary question?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I must take issue with the noble Lord about such matters passing into law, by way of statutory instruments, without debate. I myself conducted three such orders through your Lordships' House on 3rd February, when the noble Lord, Lord Oram, spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, so they were certainly discussed. Generally speaking, it has been the policy of successive Governments to welcome the establishment of international organisations in the United Kingdom. In recent years, especially since the establishment of the United Nations in 1945, an increasing volume of very important work is done by these organisations, and we should be proud, grateful and willing to have them here.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, while the prevention of abuse is no doubt important, is it not also important, as was implied by the last words of the noble Lord, that London should be encouraged to be the centre of so many of these great international organisations? It brings nothing but advantage to this country as a counter to the odd £1,000 or so which we may lose because they do not pay duty on their whisky.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I completely agree with the noble and learned Lord, who I am sure will remember, as I do, that there was some discussion recently about having the European Parliament in Victoria Station.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to say, because it was not clear from its answer to my supplementary question, whether the numbers involved are agreed between an individual organisation and Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords; the numbers of representatives and the number of organisations are both agreed.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, are the Government fully satisfied that these exemptions are absolutely and critically necessary for these international organisations to perform their function?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords; absolutely. That is why each organisation has its particular immunities and privilages examined on their merits, and they vary considerably between the various organisations.

North Sea: Intelligence Unit Study
11.25 a.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: 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 their attention has been drawn to the Economist

451
Intelligence Unit Study in the United Kingdom North Sea Supply Industry and, if so, what conclusions they have drawn from it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, several members of Her Majesty's Government have been sent copies of the Economist Intelligence Unit Study. Its contents arc being considered.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that assurance that at least it is being considered, may I ask whether he would agree that there will inevitably be a decline in North Sea oil production in about three years' time, which it is too late to prevent? Would he further agree that for the same reason it is now urgent to encourage more exploration and development through tax incentives?
The Earl of Avon: I do not think I would follow my noble friend fully down that path, my Lords. We are having a number of talks with a number of companies on field development plans. I would agree with him that there will be a change in the pattern of what goes on in the North Sea, and that is brought out to an extent in the report, particularly, as it were, moving from the construction world to the maintenance world. As for tax incentives, we are now entering the season when there are calls for tax deductions, and as my noble friend is well aware, that question is being considered by my right honourable and learned friend.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble friend take on board the fact that there is a very big knock-on effect in employment terms and that, given the right incentives, there could be another £60 billion sterling worth of investment in the North Sea, which would create many jobs, if the right encouragement were given during this close season, when these matters are not to be discussed?
The Earl of Avon: Yes, my Lords; and we should pay tribute to what the Offshore Supply Office is doing in connection with that aspect.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, will the Government try to attain a better balance between maximising revenues in the short term, which they probably need, and stimulating investment in the long term? Are they aware that that view was expressed by the chairman of Shell in a speech the other day?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's point, and it has been extensively discussed. I shall indeed bear his remarks in mind.

Marriage Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Marriage Bill [H.L.]
452
has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—
Clause 1,
Schedule 1,
Clauses 2 to 12,
Schedule 2.—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government (Choice of Electoral Systems) Bill [H.L.]
11.28 a.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Many of your Lordships who favour the Bill start on the basis that they would support the introduction of proportional representation for elections in another place, but that is certainly not the position of everybody who backs the Bill. That is not surprising because, although the case for the introduction of PR in another place may be regarded by many as strong, the case for introducing it into local government elections is, I believe, overwhelming.
Before coming to the arguments for the Bill, I will deal with its provisions. Clause 1 provides that the form of PR will be the single transferable vote—the arrangement that the House has approved for elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly and for Northern Ireland members of the European Parliament. Clause 2 provides that the new electoral system can be introduced by any district council by the adoption of the appropriate resolution, and it lays down the manner in which the new electoral divisions will be determined. Clause 3 gives the Secretary of State the necessary regulation-making powers. Clause 4 is the interpretation clause.
As I have indicated, the Bill relates only to district councils, which include the London boroughs. That is largely because we feel that it would be better for the system, at least at first, to apply to authorities where the size of the single transferable vote electoral divisions would be relatively small and where, in any event, there is some tradition of voting for more than one candidate.
I now turn to the case for the Bill. Like many of your Lordships, I began my own involvement in local government at the outset of my political life, first, in working for council candidates, then in taking part in the organisation of local government elections, then as a member of a local authority, and finally as the leader of a majority group on a local authority. I recognised fairly early the unsatisfactory features of our system of local government elections. A few years after the war, I began working for the Labour Party in Bournemouth—then, as now, not the most agreeable territory for Labour candidates. However, there was then a substantial Labour vote, and, even in the worst periods, which tended to follow one of Sir Stafford Cripps's Budgets, the Labour vote very rarely fell below 30 per cent. But, despite that substantial electoral support, in many years the Labour Party did not secure the election of a single candidate, and one was faced with a one-party authority. What was true of Bournemouth could, and did, apply with equal force through a whole swathe of local authorities in the

453
South and the West of England, and many other parts of the country.
Similarly, the Conservative Party received, and still receive, exactly the same treatment. I remember in 1957 defeating the last Conservative member of my own local authority in Harlow, in Essex, so securing a 100 per cent. Labour council. I do not want to be self-righteous, and I do not want to suggest that in the heady moments after the victory my first thought was about the need to secure adequate representation for the minority. But in the months that followed I saw the problem—and it was a very substantial problem—as it arose when the minority was not represented at all. The council in Harlow was then a group of political moderates. But of course the full council was exactly the same as the Labour group. As is often the case with both the Labour Party and the Conservatives, the Labour group dealt with its business at a private meeting before the full council meeting. We decided on all the major policy issues behind closed doors, and our principal task was inevitably to decide on the script for the actors—because of course that was exactly what it was. We decided who was to be enabled to ask a question, what was to be the character of the chairman's answer, and sometimes, notwithstanding the fact that we were a council 100 per cent. comprised of one party, if the chairman indicated to his colleagues that he would prefer the question not to be asked at all, that was very often the end of the matter. The third of the electorate who voted against us, both Conservative and Liberal, had no rights at all, and inevitably that was not the first of our preoccupations.
But how can such an outcome be justified? Can it really be right, as has often been the position in the past, not to have any representation at all of minority interests, or to have only a derisory level of representation? How can it be right to allow a majority party, however benevolent and farseeing it might be, to have total, virtually unchallenged, power over the affairs of any local community? There is no point in anyone who opposes the Bill, such as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, suggesting that if the power of the majority is misused, the electorate has an easy answer, since we all know that in the past, even where there has been deeply objectionable behaviour by a long-dominant majority party, it has often proved quite impossible to remove it from office, or even to secure adequate minority representation because of the character of the boundaries of the authority and the social composition of its electorate. That is the price that we pay for the first-past-the-post system.
I believe that the system's effects are far harsher than in the case in elections to another place. With the exception, I think, of the Parliament of 1931, now widely recognised to have been one of the least impressive this century, no principal Opposition party has been so reduced in numbers at Westminster that it has found itself almost unable to fulfil its constitutional responsibility of providing a credible Opposition to the Government of the day. However harsh and capricious has been the effect of the first-past-the-post system in elections at Westminster, and however unfair it may have been to major sections of the electorate, it has, as I say, at least provided Oppositions of sizeable numbers.
454
But that is certainly not the case in local government. I have already given two examples of where a large minority of the electorate has not been represented at all. There are plenty of other examples, as well as many instances where the minority is grossly under-represented. Let me give your Lordships some examples. In 1982, in the London Borough of Islington, the Labour Party secured 51.5 per cent. of the vote; it secured 51 seats. The Conservatives got just about a quarter of the vote; they did not get a single seat. The SDP/Liberal Alliance got just under a quarter of the vote; it secured one seat. So in Islington a party which has got just about half of the total vote has obtained all but one of the seats on the local authority. Of course in reality it is a one-party council.
In the district of Broadland, the roles were reversed. The Conservatives got just over half of the votes; they won all the seats. There are plenty of other examples of this kind, where there has been a serious distortion of the will of the electorate. I should like to give another example, relating to the London Borough of Lambeth. Last year the Labour Party secured only 33.5 per cent. of the voters in an election which, as we all remember, was basically a vote on whether one approved or disapproved of the policies of Mr. Ted Knight, who was the retiring leader of the council. The Labour Party got one-third of the votes. Those opposed to Mr. Knight got two-thirds of the vote, but as we all know, Mr. Knight is there in power at the moment in Lambeth, albeit with a very small majority.
I wonder how those who are opposed to the Bill would attempt to justify that kind of outcome? I must make it clear that it is not just a question of rival electoral systems. I will say at once, as I think would all of us in this House, that there are very many men and women in the Labour Party, and in the Conservative Party, who do the most outstanding work on local authorities in all parts of the country. Year by year they give selfless service to their local communities, and I believe that often they receive far too little recognition from the public for the work that they do.
I speak also as a person who is a firm believer in providing adequate financial support for local government. Speaking for myself, I believe in quality public services, and of course these have to be paid for. But in recent years we have seen a growing number of authorities where there has been little or no interest in maintaining sensible control of public expenditure, and where councillors have been primarily preoccupied with a desire to indulge in endless confrontation with central Government, and with a wish to reward their friends and to punish their enemies.
Only last month in this House I raised the question of the conduct of the majority group on the council of the London Borough of Southwark where, it may be remembered, the Labour Party has an overwhelming majority, though at the last election only 43 per cent. of those who voted in Southwark did so for Labour candidates. As the House may recall, there the council decided by resolution that any contractor who succeeded in getting a Ministry of Defence contract at Greenham Common, will in future be blacklisted by that council. Even if the company concerned submits the lowest tender, the Borough of Southwark has determined by resolution that it will be debarred from receiving it.

455
I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, who spoke in that debate, that the argument for that is that there was a pledge in the last Labour manifesto in the London Borough of Southwark that Southwark was going to be turned into a nuclear-free zone. Therefore this policy is entirely consistent with that. Even assuming for a moment that that is a sensible position, 57 per cent. of the people of Southwark voted against that manifesto. Yet, as I have indicated, they now have a local authority with an absolutely overwhelming majority against them.
The present problem of this kind of conduct by local authorities was described in fairly trenchant terms in that debate by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, who, I suspect, we may not have with us in the Lobbies this afternoon. Replying to the debate he said:
"What the Southwark Borough Council are proposing is thoroughly reprehensible and can only serve to bring local government into disrepute. Unhappily, it is but one more example of a trend in local government which is causing great concern. Scarcely a day passes without news of some new departure from standards which in my experience were once generally accepted without question in local government and taken for granted by the whole community.".
He added:
"We hear of disproportionate majority group representation on committees, of manipulation of agendas, of the denial of access to papers, and, incredibly, curtailment of the opportunity to debate in full council, and so on—all designed to prevent minority groups or individual members from playing their proper role in council affairs. We hear, too, of selection of officers by reference to their political leanings; and even of the administration of services on a selective basis—for the wrong reasons—within the area of a single local authority." [Official Report; 26/1/83; col. 359.]
There we have the situation described by the Minister, the person responsible for local government. Rigged agendas, denial of the right of democratic debate, and, in some respects most deplorable of all, the appointment of council officers on the basis of their political views. This is happening in authorities where the majority parties are grossly over-represented and where there is in many cases no credible opposition. Three of the worst examples are in London: Islington, Southwark and Lambeth. All come into this category. All have demonstrated an indifference to the need to exercise proper control over their own expenditure, thus adding to the danger that a growing number of businesses will be forced out of London.
But the problem is, in some respects, even more disturbing than that. The danger of serious underrepresentation of the minority is that effective opposition can effectively be eliminated and that officials know that their entire future is dependent on their relations with members of a single political party. In these circumstances, the majority party may come to believe that it can get away with virtually anything. The House, in this situation, may like to be reminded of the verdict of the Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct in Public Life, presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon. In its report it said this:
"The local authorities most vulnerable to corruption have tended to be those in which one political party has unchallenged dominance. Not only are such authorities at particular risk because of absence of an effective opposition which can scrutinise their decisions, but investigations and the making of complaints in such
456
areas may also be inhibited by the feeling that there is no way round the party machine."
I know from my own experience that this is entirely true. In one area where the Home Office had the gravest anxieties about a police authority, it fell precisely into the category of authorities described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon. In another, the police force was, within three years, involved in criminal investigations into over 40 cases of serious impropriety by members and officers of local authorities in that area. Again it was an area with a long record of dominance by a single political party with the minority being seriously under-represented on all the local authorities in that area.
I concede at once that, even if this Bill is passed on to the statute book, not all these abuses would end, and for two fairly obvious reasons, First, the Bill provides that a district council has to opt for the system of the single transferable vote system of proportional representation and, of course, at the outset only a minority would choose to do so; secondly, because inevitably some of the worst of the authorities would bitterly resist any such change. But, I believe that once such an option was available the force of public opinion, including that in some of the areas I have mentioned today, would be such that even some of the most dedicated opponents of change would find themselves facing formidable pressures from their local communities to move over to the system provided in this Bill. But it would be for the authority itself to decide and, in some cases the authority, it is only right to say, would not have to be pressured into moving into the new system. Of course, it is quite absurd to pretend that only members of one political grouping are in favour of a change to this system. The list of speakers in today's debate indicates the substantial number of members of the Conservative and Labour parties, who, in fact, are in favour of the principle of a move in this direction.
I believe that the passage of this Bill is desirable and that it deserves consideration by a Select Committee. Several noble Lords on both sides of the House have urged me to table the appropriate resolution because of the significant implications of the Bill and the need to have these argued through in a Select Committee. Accordingly, if the Bill does obtain a Second Reading, I will move the appropriate resolution.
I believe that the Bill is necessary in itself. It is wrong, wholly and entirely wrong, that we insist on perpetuating an electoral system in local government that turns majorities into minorities and that can lead to the virtual elimination of representation of sizeable sections of the electorate and can also, as the Royal Commission indicated, in the worst cases run the risk of creating conditions in which corruption can develop. Whatever may be the arguments used against STV for elections to another place they cannot, in most cases at least, be used against this Bill. The electorate in the area of a district council is not, of course, being asked to elect a Government. They are being invited to choose men and women to deal with the problems of their communities. The need for a rigid party system of the kind that has been developed at Westminster is not, I should have thought, the principal and most obvious need in these local communities. What they do deserve, I believe is at

457
least the prospect of an electoral system which gives them the opportunity of having their views reflected in the council chamber and not, as is so often the case, not represented at all.
This is, I believe, a Bill which would have the effect of strengthening and not weakening local democracy. It would do something to prevent the danger that, because of the misuse of power by growing numbers of unrepresentative authorities, there would be a further erosion of power to central Government. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be read a second time.—Lord Harris of Greenwich
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper—namely, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out "now" and at end to insert "this day six months". Noble Lords may have wondered why they were being asked to assemble on a Friday morning in order to hear rehearsed, in perhaps a somewhat new context, one of the most familiar arguments in government or in politics, the advantages of a proportional representational system. Indeed, in so far as the speech of the noble Lord who moved the Bill is concerned, they may still be wondering.
What they have benefited from is a further and useful investigation into the abuse of local government powers by some local authorities elected, as it happens, under the present system. I find it difficult to believe that the House will accept the fact that there has been any very clear demonstration of why this particular Bill, if passed into law, would make a difference since, as the noble Lord the mover himself has said, precisely those authorities where the abuses are most flagrant are those most unlikely to adopt its permissive provisions. I should have thought that if this was the serious intention behind this Bill then it would have made for a national system of a different kind rather than leaving it optional.
I am, therefore, driven hack to the belief that the purpose of the noble Lord's Bill is not so much legislation (which, even if it were to find favour in this House, would, I think, have a difficult passage elsewhere) but to have a Select Committee in which the arguments in favour of proportional representation could receive a general airing—and this, no doubt, reflects to some extent upon the political position occupied by the noble Lord representing, as he does, a party whose electoral prospects, both national and local, are less favourable than may have seemed to him and his friends a mere 12 months ago. I remember that, when I was a young man, able to go to the theatre and not a victim of the Whips, there was a ticket agency in London which used to advertise its wares with the rather telling slogan, "You want the best seats, we have them". That slogan has been reversed by the Alliance, which now says, "You have the best seats, we want them". Therefore, it seems to me that it is the Select Committee and not local government which is the object of the noble Lord and his friends in moving this Bill.
I must confess to an occasional degree of sympathy in my more pessimistic moments for the idea of proportional representation in some form at the
458
national level. When one's heart sinks, one says that, possibly, under our present system we could get, with some 30-odd per cent. voting Labour and a particular distribution of the votes, what we might call in shorthand a "Foot-Tatchell Government". In this House, so long as it lasted, the leader of the House might be the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, and the Woolsack be occupied not by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, but by the noble and rather less learned Lord, Lord Gifford. But these feelings of mine rapidly disappear. I go back to relying not on an alteration of our electoral system but upon the good sense of the British electorate.
When I come to look at the arguments for local government they seem to be even more remote; they do not even appeal to me in my more pessimistic moments. And for this reason. It is the assumption, and, I think, the correct assumption, of the mover of the Bill that it would produce a multi-party rather than a two-party system, not merely a better balance between two parties (such as should perhaps exist and does not exist in some councils to which the noble Lord referred) but a multi-party system. For some reason which I find very peculiar, because it is not based on any evidence, the third party, the balancing party, the party whose support would be necessary for business to be carried on, is always thought to be a party of the centre, a party consisting of people like the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and his political friends. But there is an equal expectation, I should have thought that, the additional Members who find their way in under a system of this kind in large constituencies with a low quota, would, on the contrary, be extremist members of one or other wing of politics.
Taking, for instance, the country closest to us with the longest experience of single transferable vote, the Republic of Ireland, we have had in the last three years the problems of Irish politics much bedevilled by the dependence of successive governments on the votes of a handful of extremists on the Left; and I see no reason why we should give those, or equal, opportunities to extremists on the Right.
That is one reason for being sceptical. Furthermore, where in this country we have had more than two parties involved in a major local authority—and one looks at the experience of Liverpool—I think that it is difficult to say that it has led to consistent and successful policies. A great deal more time appears to be given up, as one might expect, to manoeuvres between the three parties than to the running of the affairs of that much troubled city.
There is, also, it seems to me, and the noble Lord referred to it, the obvious fact that local government, as we have it in this country and as it has grown in elected local authorities over a century or more, is government by committee. It is not, as he rightly said, government by an executive depending on a majority. It looks extremely unlikely that, in a system in which there was a multiplicity of parties, there would not be in the various committees, in the choice of committee chairmen, in the jostling for jurisdiction between one committee and another, many problems in addition to those which face local government in any case today, and it is very hard to see how its problems would actually come any nearer solution.

459
I also understood—and this was not referred to by the noble Lord, which is rather surprising—that the policy of the noble Lord and his political friends and their views on the world in general and the Government of this country in particular were highly oriented towards the grass roots. The idea was that one should try to make the individual representative as close as possible to those who vote for him so that he can both more adequately represent their views and act, as a local councillor must, as some channel for their grievances and complaints.
Therefore if the noble Lord had come before us and said that wards returning three members were too large and that it would be desirable to abolish three-member wards and have smaller wards with single members, then one might have said that this at least was an example of a consistent political philosophy. But, on the contrary, the demands of STV, as the noble Lord says, imply having wards which elect a minimum of four—in his Bill a maximum of six—members. That is to say, they would still be larger than the present ones, thus—and particularly perhaps in rural areas, but even in cities—further removing the individual councillor from a sense of direct responsibility to those who sent him there.
So, while I think it would be wrong and undesirable for this House to express any doubt about the facts to which the noble Lord drew our attention, and there is obviously scope for some reform of local government to prevent the abuses which he described, it is a very high price to pay in order to deal with these abuses to introduce a system which seems to carry the possibility of other abuses, particularly an inability to frame and carry through a consistent body of local policies. It may well be, and it ought to be, the object of those noble Lords who share the views—views in this respect with which I agree—of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to induce the electorates in the boroughs in question to exercise their franchise in full knowledge of what it is that they have let themselves in for in the past and may, if they repeat their vote, let themselves in for in the future.
I do not believe that the case has been made for this experiment. If tried, as I say, it would not be tried where the danger to be guarded against is the most formidable. I believe that the idea of a Select Committee is a diversion from our consideration of the very serious problems of contemporary local government, and I suggest that your Lordships would be well advised to accept the amendment which I now beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be note read a second time, to leave out "now" and at end to insert "this day six months".—(Lord Beloff)
12.3 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in discussing the position of Westminster elections and the question of proportional representation for those elections, because that is not the issue before the House this afternoon. I am certain that all noble Lords are united in their view that everything possible must be done to develop local
460
government and to ensure the proper conduct of everyone in local government. I am also certain that all noble Lords have considerable respect for the way in which our election law is carried out, and the general attention given to the details of election law in this country.
This particular Bill involves three important issues. First, is it desirable that there should be a different voting system as between one local authority and another? Secondly, even if that was considered desirable, is the single transferable vote system a desirable one to adopt? Thirdly, is this the way to deal with an important and constitutional change affecting our election law? I am certain that we all believe that there should be the maximum flexibility in local government. Therefore, it may be argued that as the non-metropolitan and Welsh districts have the option, albeit under certain conditions, to decide whether to have elections when the whole council retires or whether they should have a third of the councillors retiring annually, there is no reason why these councils should not have the option proposed in this Bill.
There is a considerable difference. The first option, which exists at the moment, is for a system of retirals. The other option, as proposed in this Bill, is a serious constitutional change in the actual system of voting, which is entirely different. Although in the United Kingdom there are, as noble Lords will know only too well, different types of local authorities, with varying powers and responsibilities, it has always been the view that the system of casting one's vote should be the same wherever one lives. If one lives in Portsmouth and then moves to Southampton, the system of recording your vote is the same. One should not find it a different system when one moves into a different district.
The provisions of the Representation of the People Act apply to all local elections, albeit with minor changes to meet the different types of local authorities. Should a non-metropolitan or Welsh district, which has at the moment annual retirals of one-third, want the option under this bill, the Bill points out that it will have to drop that system and they will all have to retire together. It may be three years—it says triennial elections—but at the moment it is really a four-yearly cycle,
This is not a party point, but I am one of those who believes in annual elections, and a move to a system under which all councillors retire at once is liable to bring in the very dangers that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, talks about, whereas an annual election deals with situations each year. At the moment metropolitan district councils—and they will be covered by this Bill, according to my reading of its provisions—do not have the option of all coming up for election together. They have annual elections with retirals by one-third. Therefore, if any metropolitan district—and I take it that they have the provision under this Bill to do so—wished to adopt this option, that would be a serious change in our present structure of local government as it affects metropolitan districts.
The decision to adopt STV could only be rescinded—and this will be noted in Clause 2—after it has been used four times. That is four times triennial elections—that is, 12 years. Our present practice is that you do not have triennial elections. You have

461
retirals where they want this system annually but it is a four-yearly cycle, so we miss the years of county council elections—so the period could be 16 years. But let us settle for 12 years, which it may be under this Bill. That is a long time before one could possibly revert if one, did not like the system once one had adopted it under this Bill.
There is no need for me to explain the system of STV; the Bill explains simply and reasonably what the system of STV is. With all its defects, under our present voting system the person or persons who are elected are those for whom the most electors have voted. That will not be the case with the single transferable vote. I would say that we must not accept that STV is necessarily a system of proportional representation. It may be regarded as a fairer system, but it may not result in proportional representation. Other systems of PR would achieve that result much better if one wanted to take that particular line.
STV operates for elections in the Republic of Ireland and for the Assembly elections in Northern Ireland. I hope that no noble Lord will refer to Northern Ireland, because when the system was adopted for Northern Ireland, it was generally agreed that the special circumstances of Northern Ireland would never be used for justifying its extension into any other part of the United Kingdom. It can lead to a situation where a candidate has sufficient first preference votes to be elected but at the end of the day finishes up not elected.
I believe in talking facts, and not just theories. I have analysed from reports' in the press the whole of the elections for the Republic of Ireland in February 1982; I have not had the time to do the later ones. I could give your Lordships numerous examples of what has transpired and what could transpire if the system proposed in this Bill were adopted. There were eight electoral areas—and I am not being critical of the Republic of Ireland; if they want this system they can have it; I am just dealing with what I have seen in analysing their results—where a candidate with sufficient first preferences to be elected under our system was knocked out in a subsequent count. Time will not permit me to give all the details, and perhaps your Lordships would not welcome them in any case. May I mention just two examples. In one electoral area there were four people elected. The candidate placed fourth on the first preferences list was not elected, but the one who was fifth in the first count was elected on the eleventh count—that is, elected on the eleventh preferences—along with a third-placed candidate, who was also elected on the eleventh preferences.
In another electoral area the fourth-placed candidate on first preferences was not elected but the sixth-placed candidate was elected with sixth-preference votes, and the original fifth-placed candidate was not actually elected until the twelfth preferences. I could give your Lordships many other examples of this kind of anomaly. There was one area where the first-placed candidate was not actually elected until the fifth count; that is until the fifth preferences. The second-placed and third-placed candidates were not elected until the eighth preferences, the fourth was not elected until the ninth and the fifth was not elected until the eleventh. These
462
facts can be checked, by whoever wishes to do so, by looking at these figures of the Irish elections.
So STV could lead to a position where the candidate most people want to have as their elected representative would not be elected because of the influence of second, third, fourth or even twelfth preference votes. How can one justify any system where, say, twelfth preference votes have the same value as the first-preference votes? How does one justify having what in effect is eleventh, twelfth or even more preference votes with the same power at the end of the day as the original first preference votes?
Whatever arguments are advanced for STV, surely in the light of the facts I have just given it cannot be said to be a democratic system. There may be arguments over other systems, but it cannot be argued that it is bringing forward true democratic results. Moreover, later preferences given to fringe candidates could influence who is elected on the later counts. I understand that in 1931 Mr. Winston Churchill is reported to have commented:
"The decision is determined by the most worthless votes given to the most worthless candidates.".
In other words, a really fringe candidate may get a number of minor votes but at the end of the day his vote on the eleventh, twelfth or fourteenth count could influence the vote as to whether one candidate is in and another is out. The system of STV must tend to encourage policies being pursued aimed at securing other preference votes; that is to say, blurring the issues that are put before the electorate.
Finally—and this is perhaps as important a reason as any other—is it desirable that a substantial change in our electoral law, a constitutional change, should be determined by a Private Member's Bill on a Friday afternoon? This would seem to be an irresponsible way of dealing with a vitally important constitutional change of this character. Usually, our position is that important amendments to the Representation of the People Acts are determined by a discussion at a Speaker's Conference over a period, assisted by expert advice from the Home Office electoral advisory committee. I have stressed time and time again that we should make sure that that committee does not drop out of use.
I hope that this Bill will not be given a Second Reading, and therefore I shall be supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. If by any chance it is given a Second Reading, I do not believe it should be sent to a Select Committee of this House. If it is to go anywhere, it should be considered by a proper Speaker's Conference appointed by the elected Chamber. The case for this must not be determined on emotional grounds but on the facts as to whether it will improve the situation. I do not believe that it will.
12.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, having listened to the three speeches with which your Lordships have been favoured so far by noble Lords, all of whom are held in high respect by your Lordships, I am bound to say that I myself shall vote against the amendment. This Bill is concerned with a small aspect of liberty: in other words, the power of individual citizens to make for themselves, or to influence, the choices that affect

463
their lives. It is concerned with a small aspect of our system of representative democracy, which is our peculiar method of ensuring the liberty to which we attach importance. But since small aspects of liberty and small aspects of representative democracy are important values in our society, this is an important Bill.
Of course, the great bulk of the decisions that every citizen makes concerning himself which are made in a free society are made by himself and, particularly, made by himself in a free market. However, certain decisions cannot be made that way—decisions about defence, for example, and regulation of the free market. In those sorts of respects and in so many others, the gentleman in Whitehall does know best. He does not know best universally, but he does know best in certain respects.
The decision, on the other hand, may not need to go as high as that. Far preferably, it may go to local representatives, first, because they know the needs of the locality and, secondly, because they are more directly and immediately influenced by the citizens who are affected by the decision. It is that with which this Bill is concerned. So the question is: how does one provide an influence on those outside bodies to which is vouchsafed the duty to make the decisions which affect the individual citizen? Not by majority rule. I remember hearing Lord Attlee, when he was in the other place, say once:
"Democracy is not majority rule. It is rule by the majority with regard to the interests of the minority."
That was the theme with which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, started, and indeed it is an important theme. It is not to be safeguarded purely by machinery. Traditionally, in our society, it is vouchsafed by tolerance. Nevertheless, machinery is not to be despised, and the machinery devised by this Bill is one piece of machinery which does lend an influence whereby the majority has to have regard to the interests of the minority, because the minority is more effectively represented. Even if, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said, it is an extreme minority, nevertheless it is a minority to whose views society should have at least some deference, although it may reject them.
So far as proportional representation at central Government is concerned, there are powerful arguments on each side and also potent examples. We have had them quoted already this morning. But most of those examples do not apply to district councils, which operate mostly by committees, and desirably by committees. My experience was that local authorities operated satisfactorily when they operated by mixed committees; unsatisfactorily when everything was predetermined by a caucus meeting.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, was inclined to quarrel with the optional provisions of this Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, found it unsatisfactory that the system should not be universal. But surely those are advantages. What we need is experience of the way the system works, and that we shall get under the Bill. As to the criticism of drafting and machinery, that would surely be taken care of by reference to a Select Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, was, of course, quite right in saying that, when we are
464
concerned with revision of our national electoral system, the Speaker's Conference is the suitable forum for discussion. With all respect, that is not so when one is concerned with local government. I do not believe that there has ever been a Speaker's Conference revising the system of local elections. For example, when the county councils were set up in the last century, there was no Speaker's Conference, and so with all the other local authorities.
I ask, finally, why should a local authority not be able to choose for itself how it proposes to adjust its electoral system; how it sees best to devise a system whereby citizens can influence those local choices that affect their own lives? Why should not the local authority itself decide, prompted by the local citizens? Why, in other words, should the noblemen in Westminster claim to know best?
12.24 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to welcome this Bill and to support the arguments which were so ably put forward by my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich when he moved the Second Reading of it. As the House is aware, we on these Benches have for long felt that the arguments against the first-past-the-post system are very strong. That system distorts the votes, it gives power to the winning party out all proportion to the votes cast for it, it magnifies small swings, it under-represents substantial minorities, it does not allow a choice within parties between candidates of the same party and it leaves large numbers of people in the position where they cannot point to anyone and say: "I helped to elect that man or that woman".
There are, clearly, strong grounds for electoral reform. We also believe that the best replacement for the first-past-the-post system is the system of proportional representation by the single transferable vote—the system which is proposed in this Bill. That system results in the parties being represented in broadly proportional terms in the body to which they are being elected. It ensures that substantial minorities are represented. I use the word "substantial" advisedly, because the quota for election in, for example, a four-member constituency would be one-fifth of the electorate plus one, which is quite a sizeable amount.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, was a little misleading in his description of the operation of the single transferable vote. For example, he spoke about eleventh preferences counting on the eleventh count. He said that we were dealing with eleventh preferences. But, of course, that is not necessarily the case. If at a tenth count a candidate has been eliminated, then his surplus votes are transferred to other candidates; and it is his second preferences, not his eleventh—although it may be the eleventh count—which are effective at that point. It would go beyond that stage only if the second preferences of those who voted for him had already been elected or eliminated.
In our view, these arguments in favour of this reform apply to elections to Westminster and to the European Parliament. But, as has already been pointed out, we are not concerned with those today. We are concerned only with local government and,

465
within local government, only with district councils. In local government, as my noble friend Lord Harris and others have made clear, the anomalies are even greater than they are in national elections. In 1978, no fewer than 10 of the winners in the 36 metropolitan districts won with fewer votes than their rivals. So the first defect that we see in local government is the frequency of the loser winning.
Then there is the problem, to which my noble friend Lord Harris referred, of one-party domination. He told us that in Islington 51.5 per cent. of the vote, which the Labour Party secured, took 51 out of 52 seats. One wonders whether there is any point in holding elections at all if the result is to bear so little relation to the way in which the electorate have cast their votes.
My noble friend Lord Harris gave other examples, and one could go on giving examples of a clean sweep of that kind by one party or another in various councils throughout the country. My noble friend referred to the report of the Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct in Public Life and he quoted from it. There was one sentence in his quotation which is particularly worth repeating. That sentence was:
"The local authorities most vulnerable to corruption have tended to be those in which one political party has unchallenged dominance".
Then we find widespread under-representation of third parties. In 1982 in Doncaster, the Liberal/SDP Alliance did not get any of the 21 seats, although they got nearly one-quarter of the votes. In Camden in 1982, with one quarter of the votes, again there were no seats for the Alliance. In Worcester, with 26.4 per cent. of the votes, there were no seats for the Alliance.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said that the Alliance was saying to the other parties, "You have the best seats. We want them". I do not suppose there is any harm in that, but in the examples I have just quoted the Alliance would be entitled to say to the other two parties, "You have our seats. We want them". So we have one-party domination, the loser winning and minority parties grossly under-represented. This cannot be good for local government, and it would be removed by proportional representation with a single transferable vote.
Strong local issues may well cut across party lines. People in the same party may differ on these particular issues, although on national politics and on general political philosophy they may be at one. In Dublin, for example, in 1979 one big issue which arose was over the development of the Wood Quay site. This was an argument between developers and conservationists; it cut right across party lines. But the issue had a marked effect on the result of the election held under the proportional representation system by the single transferable vote. People could choose between candidates in their own party. One result was that the Lord Mayor was ousted by a preservationist candidate of his own party. In local government there must be a particularly large number of issues of that kind, issues which are not to be put into the normal party category yet on which there is very strong feeling. Indeed, one would hope that issues of that kind would be able to be expressed in the election and that we would not have too rigid a party system in local government—also that in local government there would be some opportunity for the purely independent voice.
466
So we see that proportional representation is even more necessary in local government and that it is easier to introduce because, as has already been pointed out, many of the arguments which people put against proportional representation at national level do not apply when we are considering the working of local government. People talk about the need to have strong government. They say that this can be achieved only by having a large majority for one party. And because that might not be the case under proportional representation, they say that they cannot have it for national elections. I do not accept that point of view. I do not believe that if a large majority for a particular party does not exist in the country it is desirable at Westminster. Many people take that view, but they do not take a similar view when it comes to local government, which is run on rather different lines.
The arguments in favour of proportional representation in local government are as strong as the arguments which persuaded your Lordships' House to support proportional representation for the assemblies which were proposed for Scotland and Wales but which eventually did not come into existence. This is an enabling Bill and applies to district councils only. It would enable them to use this better system of election if they wanted to do so. In the long run, I personally hope that this system will be mandatory. But as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has just pointed out, if we had a system on this basis to begin with, at least we should get some experience and evidence of its working from those councils which decided to try it out under this enabling provision.
I very much hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading, so that, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has indicated he intends to move, the Bill may be carefully examined by a Select Committee. We need to support this Bill. We need to make it clear that we favour proportional representation for local government and believe it to be necessary to introduce it for the sake of the future of democracy in local government.
12.35 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, as I rise to speak today, I must confess to a feeling of slight trepidation. This comes from two incongruities which are affecting me. First, having listened to the speech of my noble friend Lord Underhill, I find myself for the first time ever in some slight disagreement with some of his arguments. However, I should like to tell him straight away that I view those arguments with very great respect. I assure him that this will be the last time, I am quite sure, that I shall ever find myself on a different side of an argument from him.
The other incongruity about the debate, which I also find has a slightly inhibiting effect, is the forum in which this debate is taking place, for it certainly could be argued that your Lordships' House is hardly the place to talk about the democratic rights of voters and changes in electoral systems. Most people would be in agreement about that. On the other hand, however, it certainly is accepted that Members of your Lordships' House are entitled to independent views on important issues concerning British life, and surely the systems used for electing our local representatives must be counted among those.

467
Therefore I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for giving us the opportunity to reflect again on this matter, which is both so important and so controversial, for I feel very strongly that it is of vital importance to appraise and to keep up to date the laws which govern people's lives. In the same way, it must be equally important to review the machinery within which those laws are made. So I wish to make my contribution today only from the point of view of a personal interest I have always taken in different systems of voting. This has come from living in many different countries and taking an interest in the way in which they vote for their representatives, both locally and centrally. When one is in that situation, one can but compare attitudes in other countries with those in one's own country. I should like, therefore, to do no more than establish an element of doubt about the strongly held conviction that our present electoral system, as used in local elections, is indeed the fairest and most appropriate.
I thought that the best way of reflecting as briefly as I possibly can this doubt would be to put forward, as I see them, a few of the criteria necessary for a fair and appropriate electoral system for local government. Then, having established what those criteria are, we could judge whether our present system contains the right ingredients to measure up to those various criteria. First and foremost, I am sure that there must be general agreement that the plank on which all electoral systems within democratic countries are based is that of justice, by which I mean that the results of elections should, as far as possible, reflect the wishes of the electors, as expressed by their votes. Secondly, the system should not be of such a complicated nature as, on the one hand, to render it difficult for electors to understand and, on the other, to render it difficult to work generally. Systems should not act as a disincentive for electors to go out and vote at election time, or to bring about some kind of confusion in the handling of such elections.
An electoral system should also surely be such as to secure and retain the trust of electors, by which I mean that electors should believe that voting really means something and that their votes will be translated into the representation for which they have asked. This would in turn serve as another incentive for them to go out and vote, thus maintaining a big turnout for local elections. In some countries voting is, as we all know, a legal obligation, but to my mind it would be far better if it were a system which provided an incentive for voting rather than, as I say, one which made it a matter of law.
On another point, in order to be effective an electoral system must provide for a political balance. Unless an area is composed of an almost unanimous populace, which seems very unlikely, then a system which produces councils with no or very small opposition groups must surely be avoided. Another important objective is to ensure that a true representation is achieved. For example, at present in the rural areas of Britain there is the tradition of each village sending its own representative to the district council rather than being lumped together with neighbouring villages to choose a group of councillors. This is a tradition of great importance and one that any electoral system should respect.
468
The last criterion I wish to establish is that regarding the importance of the presence of representatives in local government from the ethnic minorities. Through the reality of there being multi-cultural communities in so many areas of Britain, it would seem to be of vital importance that an electoral system should be open to independent candidates really able to represent the special interests of minority groups. Those are some of the most important elements, in my view, required to make up a fair and appropriate electoral system for local elections to which we would all aspire. Although our present system may contain some of those criteria, it does fall short on other counts.
For example, on my first point—that of justice, which has been mentioned previously by noble Lords—it must surely be agreed that there is unequivocal evidence that our present method of voting in local elections has produced some extraordinary and distorting results. I will not go into any of the statistics that prove this, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has already done so; but one does not have to look very far to realise that in both town and rural elections the results do not reflect the wishes of the people as expressed in their votes. As noble Lords have previously said, there are some instances in local elections where some very lopsided results are returned, which in no way bear out what people thought and hoped that they were voting for.
As to the point I made regarding the need for an electoral system to be fully comprehensive, here there is no doubt at all that our present system is very easy to understand. But its comparative simplicity can hardly be thought of as a factor that assists in bringing a high turnout at election time. Indeed, the polling for local elections in the United Kingdom is among the lowest in Europe. This must mean that the more complicated systems of proportional representation as used elsewhere cannot he construed as a deterrent to voting.
Indeed, I believe that in some cases the very opposite conclusion can be drawn, in that a system of PR, once it has been understood—and all other countries have managed to do this—will prove a veritable incentive to vote, in that electors will feel, first, that through such a system all votes would be actually used; secondly, that this system affords a chance of voting in a candidate with like-minded views as those of the voter himself, and a candidate with whom the elector can more closely identify himself or herself. It must be remembered that the proportional representation system was devised in Northern Ireland, not only to help the minority groups to secure representation, but also to help the moderates.
The need to reflect the middle ground is of equal importance in Britain. Not only does a truer picture of society evolve with the involvement of candidates from the centre, representing as they do very many people, but the destructive quality of confrontation is very much lessened. That brings me to my last point, which is on the need for political balance. As I have said, there can be no doubt that our present system for local elections presents a political imbalance containing two dangers. The first danger is that a local authority made up of representatives coming almost entirely from one party, besides being unrepresentative, also provides a dangerous situation

469
in that local authorities without effective opposition are open to grave temptation. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that stories relating to corruption in local authorities cannot be shrugged off.
The other destructive effect of our present system is that it stands in the way of effective co-operation between central Government and local authorities by exaggerating the swing against the Government of the day. We therefore encounter very definite confrontation between central and local government. But with the interests of the individual in mind—man, woman or child—how can there be genuine progress in areas such as education, housing and the social services without there being some co-operation and compromise between the centre and localities? Such confrontation is usually very much to their detriment.
Those are just a few of the considerations and anomalies which, in my view, point to there being some doubt as to the invulnerable qualities of our present local government electoral system. I know that anomalies exist in any system, and my noble friend Lord Underhill pointed them out very clearly; but I feel very sincerely that the imperfections in our own system are sufficient to warrant an examination being made—and, as I understand it, that is what this Bill is all about.
12.46 p.m.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, I welcome the introduction of this Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, since, whatever prejudices Members of either House may have about proportional representation, all must surely agree that Parliament has a duty carefully to consider constitutional questions—not least, possible improvements to our long-established and well-tried electoral system. At any rate, the subject should not be taboo and met with growls of, "This is the thin end of the wedge", or, "It is far too complicated for anybody to understand." I have a suspicion that if the Maltese and the Irish can understand STV, then we can as well.
I never have been in favour of change for change's sake, but constancy is one thing and inflexibility is quite another. I welcome, therefore, the advice given by the chairman of the Conservative Party, who is in no way an advocate of PR, in his introduction to the excellent pamphlet written by my friend Miles Hudson, Electoral Reform: A Conservative View, in which the chairman states:
"We are an open-minded party which welcomes informed debate.".
We are having informed debate today, and I am sure that the chairman will welcome it.
We are indeed open-minded in your Lordships' House—and I am speaking now of this side of the House! Four of us on these Benches—my noble friends Lord Blake, Lord Carr, Lord Drumalbyn (who I see in his place) and I—carried out a poll on behalf of CAER, which is the Conservative wing of the National Committee for Electoral Reform, whose president is the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, who I am glad to see is in his place. I should like to tell your Lordships the result of our poll, which was asking Conservative Peers what they felt about the suitability of proportional
470
representation, not for local government but for another place—a far bigger question, of course.
More than 250 of my noble friends who take the Conservative Whip replied. Five out of eight of them either favoured proportional representation for the Commons or were favourably inclined. Two out of eight tended to be opposed but were willing to listen to argument. Only one out of eight was flatly opposed. This came as no surpirse to me, as it roughly reflected the last half dozen or so public opinion polls, one of which was specifically directed at the question of whether those asked were in favour of some form of proportional representation for local government, when rather more than three-quarters of those who were consulted favoured it.
I should like now to summarise the main reasons why I hope that this Bill will get a Second Reading, rather than having its throat cut at birth, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Beloff, who I feared might be thinking at one time of cutting his own throat because he is a member of the National Committee for Electoral Reform, as he has told us. I am very glad that he did not cut his own throat; that would indeed have been overkill.
I enjoyed listening to my noble friend's speech. I always enjoy his speeches, and I believe we all do. It may be that my noble friend has no time at all, and certainly no love, for the Social Democrats. He seemed to think that the Bill did not go far enough, which rather surprised me. He was sceptical about STV, as I am; and, as I am, he was not in favour of the reference to a Select Committee. It seemed to me that most of his argument was directed against that proposition. But none of the points that he made, I suggest, is a good enough reason for his wrecking amendment.
I am not an enthusiast for STV; I am certainly absolutely opposed to it where another place is concerned; but I do accept that the case for it gets stronger the smaller the constituencies. I am sure that its introduction on the modest district council level, proposed in this measure, would be a great improvement on the present system. Local government elections suffer from great apathy. This has been touched on in previous speeches. A poll of 50 per cent. is very unusual, and it is sometimes as low as 15 per cent., one in six or seven of those on the roll not bothering to vote. In an average, typical poll three people out of four do not vote in local government elections. That must be bad. I am sure that one reason for this apathy is disillusion with the unrepresentative character of local authorities, where a party that gets just over half the votes—which, in a 25 per cent. poll, may I remind your Lordships, is less than one out of seven of those entitled to vote—can make a clean sweep of the seats. That is, with just one out of seven of those entitled to vote voting for a party, it can make a clean sweep of the seats! That, again, cannot be right.
Another freak result of the present system is that the party that wins the majority of the seats has often attracted far fewer votes overall than the party that finds itself in opposition. That, again, surely cannot be right. I think, therefore, that using PR would create far more interest in local government, with many more people voting.

471
The first-past-the-post system often leads, as well as to those freak results to which I have referred, to violent swings. That, again, has been mentioned today. That has the result, which is a very unfortunate one, of completely wrecking continuity in local government policy. Clean sweeps automatically mean no effective opposition, and generally too little real debate. Clean sweeps obviously mean that minority interests are unrepresented and have no say at all.
I think, too, that the present system can lead to unnecessary confrontation with central Government. It is bound to occur more frequently than it would with more representative councils elected by PR. If the price to be paid for PR in local government was more coalitions, it would not worry me. Even a sprinkling of "raving loonies" can do no very serious harm. I think that perhaps another possible result of using PR would be rather less party dogma in local government. I have never been fond of party dogma, particularly at Westminster; but, even more than at Westminster, I think that in local government it really has no place at all.
Another point which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, touched upon—I do not think anybody else did—is the point about the possibility of corruption in local government. There is an ever present risk of it, though I would not want to exaggerate it. It is a fact, as the noble Lord pointed out, that the Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct in Public Life in 1974 made it quite clear that their view was that the authorities most vulnerable to corruption tended to be those in which one political party has unchallenged domination.
My Lords, I submit that these are all solid and good reasons for doing our best to improve the first-past-the-post system for the election of councillors on district councils. I can think of a good many other reasons for supporting this Bill on Second Reading, but I am reminded of the advice—I think it was of Voltaire—that it is a bore who tells all, so I will avoid boring your Lordships.
I come to my conclusion. It is as true as it is trite to emphasise, as de Tocqueville did so eloquently, that the strength of free nations is rooted in local government. It is because I want to see local authorities more representative, more responsible and more responsive to local opinion—the three Rs, if you like—that I am convinced that the time has come to improve the electoral system. There is a number of ways in which this could be done, and this Bill is just one of them. Of course, it is not a panacea for all the problems and ills of local government; it will not cure housemaid's knee or tennis elbow. But it would be a modest experimental step in the right direction, and I very much hope that it gets a Second Reading and that my noble friend Lord Beloff will not feel it right to press his wrecking amendment, This Bill deserves a Second Reading so that a subject in which there is great public interest can have a real airing.
12.57 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, particularly with his reminder from de Tocqueville
472
that the basis of a free country is an effective local government, which of course, in the case of the United States, was the first element of authority before the evolution of the national government took shape.
I, like my noble friend Lord Beloff and my noble friend Lord Chelwood, am a member of the National Committee for Electoral Reform. I think there are many constitutional questions which need to be examined. I am interested, for example, in ways whereby we might consider the suggestions of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham, that we should discuss a Bill of Rights. I am not opposed to the idea of a written constitution. I am quite interested in a federal system if this were to involve Northern Ireland. I should like to see ways of revising the House of Commons, perhaps, if I may dare to suggest it to your Lordships' House, so that there were fewer Members of the lower House. I am also interested in ways whereby your Lordships' House might be strengthened at some time in the future. I must also say that, unlike my noble friend Lord Chelwood and my noble friend Lord Beloff, I am impressed by the idea of elections on the basis of a single transferable vote, if only because the only election which I have ever won—in the Cambridge Union—was based on that system, and therefore I have an affection for it.
I must say also that I was much impressed by the persuasive speech by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who drew vivid attention to the iniquities and irregular conduct of many local councils. Whatever way we vote in the course of this debate, I am sure we shall be grateful to him for drawing our attention to those iniquities so candidly and interestingly. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, pointed out that in the plans for the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies the idea of some kind of proportional representation was endorsed, and of course we have had experience of that in Northern Ireland as well.
The real reason, however, why I am sceptical as to the benefits of this Bill is that I think that, so far as political developments are concerned, the agreement to have proportional representation at a local level would inevitably swell the support for proportional representation at a national level, and about that I am quite critical. Although it may seem irrelevant, I should like to make clear what I think about that matter. I accept as a matter of fact that in many ways proportional representation at national level is a fairer system than the one we have at the moment. But I do not necessarily think that being fair is the only thing in politics. In France, the Third Republic and the Fourth Republic enjoyed probably much fairer systems than the Fifth Republic does, but there is no doubt at all that those systems led to weak Governments, and what I think we do need is a strong Government.
I do not even think that we have had, through our system at the moment, an adequately strong Government in Britain since the war. Even the present Government, which must be one of the strongest, has not really been able to carry out all its plans for turning the tide back against interventionism by the state in the economy and in society in general. All that we have managed in the Conservative Party since 1979 is to begin the task, and to draw attention to the need to do this, in a variety of ways, which was not recognised

473
to be essential before 1979. I have no doubt whatever that proportional representation at a national level would lead to more coalitions, more deals and, therefore, weaker government.
The second point about proportional representation nationally is that I feel that one of the essential things in Parliament is to increase the number of independent, or independent-minded, Members of Parliament. No doubt that cause could be served in one way or another. I have often thought that one approach to solving the problem of the grossly inflated Civil Service, which weak Governments since the war have enabled to augment itself, would be to make it possible for civil servants to serve politicians rather than Governments. But at all events, I cannot see that proportional representation would do other than place greater authority and influence in the power of parties, as opposed to constituencies and the electorates in those constituencies. As a matter of fact, I have come to have a certain affection for the Conservative Central Office, but I cannot believe that it would be desirable to give that institution more weight in the selection of candidates than it has at the moment.
I think that this combination of strong Governments and strong independent Members must be as much a key to effective democracy as the principle of equity and fairness about which I spoke a moment ago.
Unlike my noble friend Lord Beloff, therefore, I am rather more critical of the idea of proportional representation at a national level than I am at local level. As I have said, I was much impressed by the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, brought to our attention, But where I am sceptical of the benefits of the proposals he makes—these doubts relate to the Bill itself, and, again, I share the views of my noble friend Lord Beloff—are, first, that I am doubtful whether a proposal of this nature should be optional. Secondly, I am also doubtful, and I repeat the words of my noble friend Lord Beloff in this respect, whether a Select Committee is the right way to approach this matter. As he pointed out, Select Committees are set up to find out facts, and I think that we are all aware that these are questions of judgment and not of finding out new facts.
The actual timing of this proposal also seems to be open to question. I cannot believe that a Select Committee would reach a consensus before the next general election. I am also doubtful, although I am open to persuasion on that matter, as to whether national elections should be held in a different way from local ones. Therefore, although I am absolutely aware that this is a very nice question and I am certainly willing to accept that some kind of local government reform is desirable—it may he that this Bill contains some element which we should consider very carefully at another stage—I think that on balance it is more likely to stimulate the idea of proportional representation at a national level than I would like, for the reasons I have given. Therefore, I shall vote for the amendment of my noble friend Lord Beloff.
1.5 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I have a very simple theme and a very simple message that I
474
should like to put over today. Perhaps I may start with what could be regarded as a story against myself. I remember when I was a Member of another place, and that goes back some 30 years, saying to one of my colleagues, "Well, one has to be fair." He said, 'Why?" I concluded that quite obviously we were not on the same wavelength, because it seemed to me that if one had to ask "Why?" there was not a lot of point in going further.
Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill—I was going to say my noble friend Lord Underhill, because I have known him a great many years—we are certain1), not on the same wavelength today. Neither am I on the same wavelength as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. But one must persevere and I believe that, in spite of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, the great thing is to be fair. One has to persevere and take every opportunity that one can. I see it as part of the job of those of us who believe in these matters to try to get the British people to believe that the system that we at present enjoy, if that is the right word, is not a fair one.
I believe that the British are a fair people, and that if one can convince them that something is not fair we shall have at least started the process. Unless one can convince people that something is not fair, it is not a great deal of use trying to put something else in its place. As your Lordships know, I believe that it is advisable, if one has an idea that one thinks is perhaps the right one, that one should persevere with it, due to the kindness and tolerance of our Lordships' House, until other people also believe in it. On this particular matter, the Liberals have been saying this for a long time, and I am not surprised because, after all, they have been the worst affected. The general election of February 1974 first brought this home to me when I realised that the Liberals had polled more than 6 million votes but were rewarded with only 14 parliamentary seats. It seemed obvious that they had cause for complaint. If one goes on from there the insult, or the complaint, becomes even worse. On that occasion each of the two main parties polled only twice as many votes as the Liberals and they each got 20 times as many seats. It is no use the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, telling me that that is fair. He can produce all the Irish details that he has today, but I shall still say to him that that is not fair. No one anywhere, in any party, can say that it is.
But it seemed to me that possibly until the mid-1970s the British people were not greatly seized of this point. They thought that it was the Liberals being troublesome and the point did not really take hold. I think that up to then people had become accustomed to the two-party system whereby the two major parties—the Labour and the Conservative parties—collected about 90 per cent. of the votes at general elections and most of the seats in the House of Commons. I think that the general election of October 1974—I appreciate that I am referring to national elections at the moment—jolted this cosy atmosphere. The Labour Party collected 39.2 per cent. of the vote, which was less than half, and formed the Government. That, again, seems to me to be unfair. The Liberal Party collected 18 per cent. of the vote and got only 2 per cent. of the seats. As a matter of fact, they collected 13 seats.

475
I am sorry to reiterate this, but I think that that cannot be called fair by anyone, of whatever party, and I believe that from then on the electorate began to take note. Incidentally, I think we have had only two general elections this century—in 1951 and February 1974—where the party winning the election actually gained fewer votes than the Opposition. I well remember that.
These anomalies are bad enough, but I think they are even worse at local level. Here, time and again, we find a narrow victory for one party is translated into a huge majority on the local council. We have had graphic examples of that. If I may say so, the most excellent speech of my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich illustrated what went on behind the scenes, whatever the party in power, when there is this majority which really should not be there. Somebody—I do not know whether it was the noble Lord, Lord Banks, or my noble friend—mentioned Islington, which I had got down, where in 1982 the Labour Party collected just over half the votes, 51.6 per cent., and got 51 out of 52 seats. If we take another and more general example, going back to the local government elections in 1978, also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, the winners of no fewer than 10 of the 36 metropolitan boroughs won control with fewer votes than their rivals. These included, for example, Birmingham, Coventry, Liverpool and Sunderland.
It seems to me that the voter loses either way in this game; it does not matter to which party he belongs. That is why I hope that voters throughout the country, if we persevere in this matter, will also think that, no matter to which party you belong, you get a raw deal under the present voting system. If we leave aside the metropolitan boroughs and we take Lambeth, which has also been mentioned, also in 1978, we find that Labour got 48.5 per cent. of the votes and collected 42 seats, whereas the Conservatives, with 46.8 per cent. of the votes, collected only 22 seats. That seems rather a large difference in the number of seats for a 4 per cent. difference in the votes.
I suggest that this really is not good enough. We have to find a way, if we can, by which local votes really count. The present system is not fair, but I think it makes a mockery of what is supposed to be the democratic procedure of finding out what people think. I should like to challenge the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, to say whether they think the examples that those of us who believe in this matter today are putting forward are fair or are not fair. That is all that I want to ask. I am quite convinced that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, cannot say to me that the examples of these figures produce a fair result.
I cannot draw him, so I shall have to move on. In the past, with the two-party system, we have had—
Lord Underhill: My Lords, if the noble Baroness wants to draw me, I will speak. I have deliberately not gone on to parliamentary elections and the PR system there. While the noble Baroness might be able to draw some criticisms in certain areas, I believe that the points that we have put forward are major ones which
476
counter the arguments that she can put forward. I do not believe that, in order to clear up certain difficulties, we should introduce a system which generally will be undersirable.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, that is splendid. I have dealt quite a lot with local elections, but if we do what the noble Lord is suggesting we shall never get a change anywhere, because in the first place we should not discuss it in this House, and, secondly, there is no point in doing anything about it at all. I should have thought that that was a most retrograde step. I am glad that the noble Lord intervened because it has given me a chance of saying that.
We have to find a way somehow in which local government becomes more representative of the voters. I do not care which party it is, but votes should count. I hope that my noble friend Lord Harris will be successful today. If we are not successful, I hope we shall all go on and try to get the British people not to be sidetracked by others, but to realise one thing—that the present system is not fair; and if we can once establish that we shall have made a little progress.
1.14 p.m.
Lord O'Neill of the Maine: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships' House long because my noble friend Lord Chelwood has really made my speech for me. What I hope will happen is that some publicity will be given to the astonishing figures that my noble friend Lord Chelwood produced about the feelings on proportional representation held by noble Lords sitting on this side of the House. It is an astonishing figure, and I hope that some publicity will be given to it.
Someone said that confession was good for the soul, and bad for the reputation. I therefore will now, if I may, explain my connection with proportional representation. I was invited by the noble Lord, Lord Blake, who normally sits just behind me, to serve on the Hansard Committee which went into this question of whether proportional representation was suitable for our Parliament here in London. Our result, after lengthy deliberations in the winter of 1975–76, was that we came down in favour of the German system modified; sometimes known as the topping-up system.
After that, and probably because of that, I was invited, like other noble Lords, to join the National Council for Electoral Reform, whose president is sitting just in front of me now. I want to assure him that if ever I change my mind on the desirability of electoral reform, I shall resign from the council. I am also a member of the Conservative Association for Electoral Reform, one of whose stars is the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, and another the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who is to speak later.
If I might be allowed by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to say a few words about Northern Ireland, when proportional representation was introduced into Northern Ireland it was violently opposed by the extremists, and fears were expressed that it would not work. These fears have proved groundless. Later it was asserted that nobody would understand it because it was so complicated. This again has proved quite groundless. It has worked extremely well, and people

477
who otherwise would not have been able to have been represented on any local authority have managed to be returned. That is a good thing and something which is a plus for Northern Ireland.
We enjoy many freedoms in this country, but one thing appears to be sacrosanct, and that is that elections must be operated on the basis of first-past-the-post. It seems to me quite wrong that a party can win an election, say, on a vote of 29 per cent. It is quite wrong. I have no doubt whatever that proportional representation in some form will come to this country before the end of the century.
I should like to end on a piece of information which may not be generally known and which I learned when I served on the Hansard Committee some years back. After the first war it was agreed that proportional representation should be introduced into British elections, but it fell down on the fact that one Chamber was in favour of one system, and your Lordships' House was in favour of another system. I think that the two systems were STV and the alternative vote. That shows that had the two Chambers agreed on the system that should have been introduced after the First World War, we should have been having proportional representation for the last 50 years. The idea that this is something totally revolutionary and unheard of is quite untrue. Like many other noble Lords, I hope that Lord Harris's Bill will be accorded a Second Reading today.
1.18 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I thought that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in introducing the amendment did not do justice to the importance of this subject. He treated it with a little levity at one stage in his speech. I had expected from him a speech of great historical interest and a powerful argument, but I submit, with great respect, that we got neither from the noble Lord.
I want to deal shortly with one or two points that he raised and one or two points that my noble friend Lord Underhill raised. One can quite understand that, in the atmosphere of this country—our traditions and our attitudes towards affairs—any Bill that proposes an innovation will be regarded with suspicion. If that innovation is permissive, it might even excite prejudice, because they are the two words that excite people in Britain today. I sometimes wonder whether our opposition to innovation is our fear that it might succeed, and I think there has been that undercurrent in the debate even this morning.
I served on the Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct in Public Life, and I can say from my close experience on that body that what has been said about the abuses of power in local authorities of overwhelming majorities is fully justified. We were very disturbed about what we found in a number of instances. But I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that the proposals in the Bill would be likely to result in the third party being composed of extremists. I would rather extremists be in minorities than in control of majorities, where a lot of them are now.
I do not think that is the mischief that would arise under these proposals. On the contrary, I think the great advantages of the Bill are twofold. It would
478
certainly increase interest in the electoral process in local areas. The proportion of the electors who go to the polls in local government elections is deplorably low. Were a scheme of this kind in operation, there would be much greater interest. When the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said that those local authorities where probably the corrective of this process was most needed would be the areas most unlikely to adopt it, I would say that this could become an electoral issue in a number of local areas and that, although the Bill does not propose it, it might well lead to a demand for a referendum on a possible change of the electoral system in particular localities.
My noble friend Lord Underhill, I thought, was a stalwart defender of the status quo. I am sure he will not take amiss my tribute to him as one of the most experienced and skilful polsters in Britain today. After all, it was his profession for a long time to make the most of the existing system, and he has studied probably more than anyone how people vote and how you get them to vote the way you want them to. In those circumstances, what he has to say is of profound interest and importance. And what did he say? He said there were three grounds on which he felt unable to support the Bill. First, he said, it was different; it was different from the central Government method of elections. It was, he said, going to introduce something different in some localities from the voting system in other localities. It was, therefore, different.
Secondly, he asked if it was desirable to have something different, and then he went into the question whether this was a desirable thing to be doing in this way at this time. His third point was to ask whether it was the best way to do something different. "Is this the way to do something different—on a Friday morning on a Private Member's Bill?", he asked. In other words, he was again wondering whether it was the way to do something different. The key word in the mind of my noble friend is -different"; if it is different, it is wrong. To him, it is different on every count. It is different because it is different; it is undesirable because it is different; and this is not the best way to introduce such a change because, according to him, it is different. We cannot go on like this. It is the trouble with the country. I believe that innovation here is to be welcomed.
I think the reference to a Select Committee is even more important than the Bill. When the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, conceded—lamely, I thought; and my noble friend Lord Underhill also conceded—the probable need for changes in local government (the need for something to be changed in the method of elections; I was not quite clear how that was meant) I thought: Where is this to be considered? Is it at the Speaker's Conference? I do not think so. Can you get this kind of electoral reform on the agenda of the Speaker's Conference? The answer is: no, because the major power blocs do not want it. Will you get a Select Committee in the House of Commons to discuss this subject? The answer is: no, because the power blocs do not want it.
Your Lordships' House is the one place in our parliamentary affairs where this subject would be examined dispassionately from the experience and wisdom of a committee composed of Members of the House. After all, where was the difficult question of sex

479
equality first examined in depth? It was by a Select Committe of your Lordships' House. No Private Members' Bills in another place ever got to the Committee stage—they did not get passed at all in another place—until your Lordships' House had reported on the matter from a Select Committee. There are other matters which have gone to Select Committees in this House which have baffled people elsewhere in our parliamentary system. So I believe that a Select Committee of this House is eminently suitable to examine this matter.
I see no other way of breaking through on this subject until the consequences of our present system are so disastrous that the country will not put up with it any longer—and I believe that could come, and dangerous it will be if it does. Books have been written, unofficial committees have been set up, reports of skilled and experienced people on this subject have been produced, different systems have been examined, and there is an abundance of evidence available on the working of the system in other countries. But because of this conspiracy between the two Front Benches not to have a change in our electoral law, you cannot get it examined at the level of parliamentary affairs.
Bills in another place are at the mercy of obstruction and delay because they will be Private Members' Bills. No Government have yet proposed to introduce a Bill on electoral reform. It is left to the Private Bills procedure, and when you adopt that procedure to get the matter ventilated you are told, "That is not the way to do it". Of course it is not, but there is no other way. Perhaps when he replies the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, will tell the House where, how and when he thinks the reforms he has in mind on local government will be ventillated, studied and brought forward for public debate, and from where they ought to come. That is what I want to know.
In the meantime, those of us who are strongly convinced about it will have to press on at every opportunity to bring the matter to public attention. I sincerely hope that your Lordships' House will for once in a way—not only for once but twice in a way—be adventurous, bold and courageous and support the innovation of examination by a Select Committee. Who knows?—it might be the beginning of the salvation of Britain.
1.28 p.m.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak following the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, who, I have felt in the 20 or 30 years I have known him, defies the laws of nature; as he grows older his energy gets greater.
A number of the positive proposals of the Bill have attracted some criticism—criticism in which I wish to play a part when we move from principle to detail—but not even my noble friend Lord Beloff or the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who are leading the opposition today, have shown themselves, to put it in very moderate terms, wholly satisfied with the existing situation in local government. I believe it to be true that, whatever our individual view of the merits of proportional representation, most of us would probably agree that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has
480
chosen a field for its application where the case is weakest for the maintenance of the present system.
I hope that I am wrong, but I shall be a little surprised if my noble friend, who has listened patiently to the whole debate, at the end of it throws his cap in the air and accepts with undiluted enthusiasm the case which the noble Lord has presented. Like my noble friend Lord Chelwood, I suspect that Her Majesty's Government remain haunted, as I think they have been haunted for some time, by arguments about thin ends of wedges. In the past they have been so opposed to elections—any elections, or nearly any elections—under proportional representation as to give the impression that all, or nearly all, suggestions for proportional representation were summarily dismissed, whatever the weight of argument in their favour.
In the light of examples which have been given—and a number of your Lordships have given very powerful examples—there is no doubt in my mind that the present system, as it relates to local government, is not only a strange form of democracy but is positively dangerous in its crushing of minorities, on many occasions voting minorities of considerable size.
Like my noble friend Lord O'Neill of the Maine, I was also a member of the Hansard Commission under the chairmanship of our noble friend Lord Blake—a commission obviously only peripherally concerned with local government elections. Its main study was elections to another place, and it recommended a system of proportional representation in those elections. But I thought at the time, and I still believe, that the case for changing the system was, for instance, far stronger in relation to Europe, and of a wholly different order in the field of local government; indeed, far stronger in both cases than in the case of Westminster, because, since the war, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, the main opposition party in another place has been respectably represented. That was so even when the Labour Party won a very large majority of votes cast in 1945, and in 1966. It was also the case when the Conservative majority in 1959 over the country as a whole was over one and a half million. Admittedly, there were other election results, which the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, mentioned, in 1951 and the first election of 1974, which are rather harder to defend, when the apparently losing party ended by forming the the Government.
Nonetheless, in relation to the Westminster elections I am prepared to admit that there may be something in the argument that the first-past-the-post system, with all its imperfections, has exaggerated, but not wholly distorted, the intention which the electorate was trying to express. Moreover, the choice of an alternative system for parliamentary elections is likely to be much harder than in the more confined area of local government that we are discussing today.
When it considered these matters, the Hansard Commission was forced into the choice, which has been and is open to much criticism, of the topping-up system by means of additional members, because of the effect of the single transferable vote, among other possible disadvantages, on the traditional arrangement and relationship between a Member of Parliament and

481
his constituents. But I suggest—and I should like to put this in particular to my noble friend Lord Thomas of Swynnerton—that the considerations that affect local government and parliamentary government are such poles apart that electorally they are wholly different animals. In the first case—that of local government—the injustices and the dangers of the present system seem to me to be far more pronounced, and on the other side—in parliamentary elections—the problems of a change in the system are much more formidable.
I really believe that, if the first-past-the-post system were abandoned for local government elections, the so-called wedge that would have been driven in would be so thin as to give no reasonable cause for concern to those who oppose proportional representation for elections at Westminster.
I know—and I know it to my shame—that Governments are traditionally afraid of repercussions, and I am ashamed to have used that argument myself, but I know also that Governments equally take pride in what they call judging each question on its own merits, and I consider that, if this particular matter is judged on its own merits, then it is very hard to believe that Her Majesty's Government can find convincing arguments against the overwhelming case that has been made today for change. Therefore I very much hope that the noble Lord's Bill will receive a Second Reading.
1.36 p.m.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, we have had a most amazingly interesting debate, and it is a great pity that more Members of your Lordships' House have not been present. It is not, I am sure, the fault of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that we are having the debate on a Friday rather than on another day, when we could have attracted a larger attendance, but it points to the fact that if there is a case at all for the Bill, then it ought to be further examined, and I trust that if the Bill receives a Second Reading today, as I hope it will, it will be fully examined. If the Government find it quite impossible to support the idea of the Bill being referred to a Select Committee, with all the advantages that that would provide of really looking into the question of the representation at district council level, then I hope that a day will be appointed for consideration in this House when there would be a large attendance and when we could really go into the questions about which doubt has been expressed.
I was very interested to hear that the opinions expressed in some of the speeches that have been made have not been wholly positive, and I am not in the least surprised at that, since we have not had much experience of the system in this country. But surely we need to examine what is likely to be the effect of the adoption of STV for district council elections. We want to have that carefully examined, so that a rational judgment can be arrived at. The question is asked: Why should we do this in this House? Well, my Lords, in a way it is better to do it in this House than elsewhere, because Members of your Lordships' House can vote in the district council elections—they have not always been able to do so—and they can even be members of district councils. I should have thought
482
that that combination placed them in a very advantageous position to examine the whole question. I believe that this House is again pre-eminent in its performance in Select Committees, and that itself would be a good reason for remitting the Bill to a Select Committee.
I see this as a very simple question from the legislative point of view. Nobody could deny that this debate has thrown up many examples of where the present system in district councils is not adequate, is not satisfactory, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, has said, is not fair. It seems to me obvious that if that is the conclusion of your Lordships, steps should be taken to have it improved. I have indicated that I think that we are in a good position to initiate that, and therefore I hope that it follows logically that we should carry the Bill today.
As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, so eloquently said, and as is acknowledged all round, there is really in this country far too little interest in local affairs. We are bound to ask why that is so. I would give as one reason that local affairs, and certainly the elections to district councils, are far too much dominated by national politics. It seems to me that if you have multiple candidatures in wards, what is happening just now is that the average voter votes the ticket. If he is a Conservative he votes for the Conservative candidate. If he is Labour he votes for the Labour candidate. If he is Liberal he votes for the Liberal candidate. I do not know whether the Alliance candidates would be substituted now. If so, no doubt if the SDP decided to encourage its supporters to vote, then they would vote the ticket.
Surely this cannot be right at district council level. It has been said, and rightly so, that district councils work on a committee basis. The right answer surely is to get the right people on to the committees, people who will make the greatest contribution to local affairs. It will not necessarily be that they are all Conservatives or all Labour, or whatever. We should have a system which should encourage the voter to vote for the person he thinks will contribute most to the welfare of the district in which he is voting.
I think that one of the rather sad things about local government just now is the great decline of the independent member, almost to extinction. It is virtually impossible voting the ticket to have independent members elected; yet they are often the specialists who can contribute the most to local issues and local problems.
I do not want to speak any longer because I do not think now is the appropriate time to go into the details of the effects of the present regime for district councils or to analyse what the Bill would do, if carried, to stimulate local government and to improve it. This is something that would have to be done very carefully by the Select Committee and for the members to make their recommendations to the House.
All I would say at this stage is that I believe that the initiative that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has taken is a very important one. At the very least it will stimulate public discussion on this matter, discussion on the BBC, the ITV and also in the press. That is a very great advantage, but it would be of much greater advantage if we carried the Bill today.
of 1.45 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Kilmorack: My Lords, it is a great pleasure for me to follow my noble friends Lord Holderness and Lord Drumalbyn, with whom I normally agree almost totally, but on this occasion I am afraid that the amount of agreement must be strictly limited.
The debate to me has been most interesting and enjoyable, until I had to get up myself. I think we have all enjoyed it, but it has shown me the degree of lack of consensus on the positive side of what anybody really wants to do in place of the present system.
The other thing that surprises me is that I feel that someone never having sat in this Chamber or listened to it before would think that in some way the British system, both at Westminster and in local government, was one of the great failures of the democratic world. Whereas, in fact, I would suggest that certainly in the Westminster Parliament and, to some degree, in certain parts of local government, that is not so; though I fully agree with and support what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has said about the failings in some areas of local government which are blatant and deplorable. But as I then look around and see the countries of Europe and elsewhere, which have used preferential or proportional voting systems for years, staggering about under the effect of these systems and not all of their local government stands even comparison with ours, I wonder what we are heading for if we start off with a wild variety of views, which it is sad to say we all have on this subject in this Chamber, crossing parties and crossing in every direction, if we make some premature, ill-thought-out and rather blinkered decision at this moment, when I think we are in a very mobile situation. Although one can always say that the time is not ripe, it seems to me particularly unripe at the moment.
My own attitude to electoral matters, perhaps because of a long experience at what one might call the hard front end of politics, is practical and not ideological. I have no fundamental objection to some form of preferential or proportional voting being applied, as some other noble Lords have mentioned today, to non-sovereign assemblies such as, for example, the European Parliament. I think that we are likely to come to something in that form, quite naturally in due course, both because of the size of European constituencies, if they remain that size, and because the bulk of our EEC partners would seem likely, if they agree on a uniform system, to go for some system of that kind. In those circumstances, I for one would see no harm in it.
Like my noble friends Lord Holderness and Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, I personally am at present wholly opposed to the introduction of a proportional or preferential voting system in the Westminster Parliament. For that reason I am a little chary, perhaps because of the general lack of certainty in people's minds at the moment about what they want, of supporting experiments in local government. After all, the first-past-the-post system has, in fact, served us extremely well and I see no reason to change it for the moment. It is up to change, after all, to make its case, not the status quo. The status quo is there, and I do not think the case for change in regard to the Westminster
484
Parliament has ever been made in any way convincingly. After all, what we are about in Britain in general elections is primarily the election of the Government, and only secondarily the election of representatives. For the election of a Government, the direct first-past-the-post system is much the most satisfactory. It is a system which gives relatively large swings in seats for relatively small swings in votes. That means usually a clear-cut result, a clear-cut overall majority for one system of policies or another.
There was a period in the mid-1970s when the situation appeared less self-evident, but that seems to have been a transient phase and the last general election, in May 1979, showed, although it is not yet conclusive, a return to what seemed to be a more normal pattern.
A Noble Lord: You wait!
Lord Fraser of Kilmorack: We will all wait, my Lords. Meanwhile, all over Western Europe almost without exception even some of the more stable systems have been showing cracks recently. Other systems based on proportional and preferential plans have been displaying their weaknesses all too evidently, to the growing embarrassment of our neighbours and friends in the EEC and elsewhere, both large and small.
The introduction of this Bill to enable the single transferable vote to be used in local government on an optional basis seems to me at this time really rather irrelevant. I do not think that the position in local government could be less propitious than now for having further experiments imposed on it. If ever there was a moment when local government in England and Wales should be left to sort out its real and pressing problems of finance and administration, it seems to me to be now. It would be pointless in my view and counter-productive to inflict further tangential and unnecessary electoral experiments upon it at the present time.
This may sound a dull answer to the situation, because it is always nice to throw ideas around: but less easy when people cannot agree in any positive sense on what they should be; and, particularly in relation to changing systems and institutions where it is very easy to throw out the baby with the bathwater and end up with a worse system than you had before (and you cannot keep changing them every year or so). I believe in the old American maxim: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." For that reason, regrettably, I am opposed to Lord Harris's Bill. I have a high regard for him personally and we have been allies on many European occasions. But I must oppose his Bill and vote for the amendment.
1.54 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I ought to apologise first of all for coming into the Chamber only a few minutes ago. I have been on a Private Bill Committee which, without much warning, decided to sit this morning as its last day. I do not think it very profitable to take up what the previous speaker has said in this debate; but I will make one point now, that I think the important thing always is to make gradual changes in

485
time. Merely to say that the system is working—which it is not, of course—at the moment and, therefore, that no change is required, I think is the wrong way in a society where there are and have been tremendous changes over the last few years.
In supporting this Bill, I should like to consider our local government and parliamentary system from a rather basic point of view. Everyone talks about democracy and brings this word into aid whenever it might be useful. To parliamentarians, it often simply means our existing form of government. However, to the layman it still signifies government which takes into account people's views and wishes. Whatever the apologists may say, our present system falls very short of taking into account people's wishes, even at election time. The justification, that the system is democratic in the popular sense, because the policy is decided by the duly elected representatives of the people, is, to a great extent, I am afraid, just eyewash.
The electors have an effective choice of only candidates from the major parties, and it has happened that over 40 per cent. of the electorate in a borough failed to secure the election of even one councillor. These sort of results occur quite frequently both on the national and local government level. Even worse is the comparatively recent doctrine that a nationally-elected party has a mandate—meaning a demand to make any changes in political matters, however extreme such changes may be and however much opposed by the electorate. I say, "opposed by the electorate" because a great deal of all parties' mandates are not popular with the majority. I emphasise political changes because any Government worth its salt sometimes has to adopt measures which are unpopular and would not be agreed by the majority without adequate information given over a period of time. Inevitably this pernicious doctrine of mandate has spilt over to local government.
Personally, I believe in proportional representation being adopted on a national basis. However, adopting it for local government elections avoids nearly all the objections raised by its opponents as a means of election to Parliament. It need therefore not be regarded as a thin end of the wedge. One important difference is that there is no need to reorganise constituencies into regions to make the single transferable vote effective. A borough elects several councillors and votes can therefore be transferred between the candidates. One might, I think, question whether it was really ever a good thing to introduce politics into local government. A lot of people may say that it was; but that question is, at least, debatable and we should not be doing anything very strange in going back a little way towards electing the people whom the people really want instead of purely by parties. My Lords, there can be no real argument about strong government or constant changes of government when the balance of power is held by a minority party. I say this because, on the national scene, nothing could be much worse than our present adversarial politics. Nationalised, de-nationalised, re-nationalised, steel is only one example, and it has had an enormous effect on the steel industry because no useful long planning has been possible. I sometimes wonder whether the protagonists in our existing national election system realise what would happen if Labour won the next
486
election and the SDP-Liberal Alliance do not hold the balance of power. Almost everything that the Government have done, some of which by any reasonable standard is beneficial, will be swept aside and the country plunged into chaos at a crucial time.
Surely, we should at least adopt without prejudice proportional representation in local government, where the arguments for it, I would have thought, are irrefutable, if we believe in any way—and I hesitate to say it—in some measure of democracy used in its popular sense. There is a failure to realise that our own society and its outlook have changed and the corresponding changes in our time-honoured traditional approach are necessary. This disturbs me. No longer should we talk about being the Mother of Parliaments and our judicial system being the best in the world—while failing to make long-overdue changes to try to retain this position or, as many or us might think, to return to this position.
2 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is just over a year since this House last had an opportunity to discuss the system of local government elections; and it is local government elections that we were discussing, and I shall not be tempted down the path which many noble Lords have gone down to discuss national elections, whether in this country or elsewhere. On that occasion, just over a year ago, the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, rose to call attention to
"The urgent need to reform local government, in particular, by the introduction of a fairer and more representative method of election".
There followed, as some noble Lords will recall, an extremely thought-provoking debate, with contributions from those on all sides, of your Lordships' House with long experience of local government and electoral matters.
We return to the subject in a slightly different context. The occasion is a Bill which would give district council's and London borough councils power to hold their elections under the single transferable vote system of proportional representation. I think I ought to congratulate the noble Lord and his friends. They are resolute in their belief that a whole range of the problems of local government will be resolved by altering the way in which councillors are elected. I should make it clear that it is not on their belief that I am congratulating them, but on their perseverence.
One familiar argument against the present electoral system is that it leads to confrontation between local and central government. Certainly local elections held in the middle of a Government's term of office very often produce big majorities for the party which is in opposition at Westminster. They do not always do so, but it is certainly true that they often do. This is a fact of political life, and it is bound to lead to dialogue and debate. But that is very different from saying that confrontation is inevitable. There is of course bound to be some tension between central and local government. But the reason for it is not because local authorities have been elected by the wrong sort of electoral system. We do not share the view that if local authorities were elected through the single transferable vote there would be either more or less confrontation between local and central government than there is

487
today. It is not the composition of the authorities which leads to confrontation but the determination of councillors to take on a Government which must be in full control of public spending.
We have also been told that the introduction of proportional representation would lead to "better" local government, because the parties would have to compromise and adapt their policies to make them more widely acceptable. I do not believe this for a moment. The voter at a local government election usually has a clear choice between two alternatives: a choice between one set of policies which he knows will have one effect on the rates and services, and another set of policies which will affect them rather differently.
Personalities, sadly, play a smaller part in it than one might wish. The vote is for the party. You pick a team, and you support it. The noble Lord's team, as it happens, has a rather smaller supporters' club than he might like, but I am sure it would be uncharitable of your Lordships to link their desire for a change of system in any way to their desire to increase its membership, even after listening to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry. If they did have their way I really could not say what the effects would be upon it. But what I can say is that the game itself would have changed, and so would the basis upon which the votes were solicited and rewarded. At present, as I have said, voters tend to pick a team for something which in general terms rather resembles a team game. The strongest team is in a position to deliver the goods the electors voted for. But in the fragmented results of the process the noble Lord has described—results in which he sees virtue and advantage—they would find only confusion.
This gets the noble Lord into a difficulty because central to his attack on the existing system were the deplorable examples he quoted of those local authorities which have flagrantly abused the democratic system. He quoted examples not only of authorities where one party had every seat or a vast majority of seats but also those which had used the narrowest of majorities to give themselves not just a preponderance of power but to seize the whole of power by the use of a single casting vote.
In other words, the central ill to which he addressed himself was the situation which can arise in irresponsible hands whenever there is a majority, whether it is a majority of 90 per cent., 100 per cent. or one. What the Bill sets out to do, therefore, is to reduce to the barest minimum the probability of getting a majority at all. If it does not do that, it does not do what the noble Lord wants it to do. The success of the noble Lord's policy will therefore be to remove from the voter the simple and straightforward choice between parties and policies, because the voters would find that none of the parties they had voted for was in a position to implement the policies that they had hawked around the hustings. Instead, they would hedge, weave, coalesce, fragment and end up adopting policies which had never been offered to the voter and for which he would never have voted if he had been given the chance.
So in passing judgment on this Bill—and I shall not of course advise your Lordships how to vote—I think
488
your Lordships will need to bear in mind that all that the noble Lord and his friends could in fact achieve by its passage would merely be an alteration in the relative balance of the different parties represented in the council chamber. Arithmetically, that might be in the interest of one party or another—it is for your Lordships to consider which—but it could scarcely, I think, be in the interest of the voter. The exaltation of minority groups is not, I think, a sufficiently good and reasonable thing to demand our allegiance above all else. I am all in favour of preserving them; but artificially to elevate them, with what might be called a fancy franchise, is a different kettle of fish altogether.
The truth is, my Lords, that this Bill rests on a misconception of what local elections are for. A council is a body of local people who have been given a particular job to do. That job is not to mirror every shade of political opinion in the area; and the job of the individual councillor is far more intimately connected with his ward than with any national organisation. We do not think primarily of party politics when we think about our local councillor, I hope. We think of him because we want something done about the dustbins or the street lighting or our children's education. Our concerns are not general and national: they are intimate and local. We have a tradition in this country that once a councillor is elected he acts for the whole ward or electoral division, whether or not we agree with his political opinions. It is a fine tradition, and one we should be reluctant to tamper with. But it depends on the intimacy and directness of his representations. It is for your Lordships to decide, but I very much question whether it could begin to survive the introduction of the large four-member and six-member STV wards of the kind this Bill would introduce. In the search for a spurious proportionality we should lose the very thing that actually makes local government work.
We would do so more completely were it not for another curious feature of this Bill. The most compelling argument advanced in favour of it is that it will cure the extreme abuses of power found in a few local authorities from which the noble Lord quoted—a cure available to all who wish to take it from the Bill. The only ones likely to take it are precisely those least affected by the disease. The power to take the medicine is permissive: it cannot be administered by force. Therefore, the element of choice built into the Bill which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, so warmly supported is precisely the feature which, in my view, would render the Bill entirely incapable of affecting the disease it was designed to cure. Neither a council in the iron and undemocratic—
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I entirely agree with his criticisms of the optional nature of the Bill, but is not the Long Title of the Bill sufficiently elastic to permit amendments to be brought in at a later stage which would ensure that the new electoral system, if adopted, would become universal, and not merely optional?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am addressing myself to the Bill put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. Whether the elastic built into it is

489
sufficient to encompass what might be designed by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is another matter to be decided at a later stage. Of course, we have yet to decide what that later stage, if any, should be.
The element of choice means that only those councils who are truly democratic are likely in any way to avail themselves of what is in the Bill, and they are not those councils against whom the noble Lord, Lord Harris, so rightly directed his wrath. Are the latter—in the grip of a caucus, consulting and contracting behind closed doors and denying to all but themselves, the majority, every word and inference of policy—going to surrender all that? Are they going to say: "Here is this wonderful thing that has come down from the skies to release us from the necessity to rule our parishes and our wards in this way"? No, my Lords, they are not. It is contrary to their nature.
So that is not going to cure the ill that it sets out to cure. In other words, so far as those councils are concerned the medicine bottle will be clearly labelled, not "Medicine" but "Poison". And there is a danger (is there not?) that this Bill would render good and effective councils ineffective and leave bad ones untouched. It would not just be a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water: it seems to me we should be throwing the baby out of the window and leaving the water in the bath. Even my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, in these hard-pressed days, would think that was a foolish way of using our resources.
I find that I have left myself little time to discuss the details of the Bill. A resolution; two months to draw up new boundaries; four months more, and then the election—is the noble Lord not being a little overhasty? Some district councils already have power to choose whether or not to hold their elections by thirds, and Parliament took the view that a council should only be able to make its choice with a two-thirds majority at a meeting specially convened for that purpose. Would the council, or even the chief executive, really be able to draw up new boundaries for STV electoral divisions in a couple of months? Recent experience suggests that the drawing of boundaries is both difficult and contentious. Is this not something in which the local government boundary commission should be involved?
But these questions may be rather academic. It certainly is not clear to me that any district or London borough council would ever rush to exercise the powers which the noble Lord's Bill would give them. We look in vain for an abundance of evidence for a demand for change in the system of local government elections. The national Government have received no representation from councils in support of such a change.
I have rather less good reason than the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for not picking up every point made by earlier speakers; but it does seem that the present system is simple. The present system of election is the product of a long and venerable tradition. It is easy to understand and simple to operate. The system of local government may have a few warts and wrinkles, but juggling with the way we elect councillors will not cure them. Indeed, it is a very curious way of attempting to do so which is put before your Lordships in this Bill.
490
We should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for allowing us to have a fascinating and greatly entertaining debate. I, for one, would not for the world have missed the energetic contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I would just cross swords with him on one point on the question of difference being such a dangerous thing for your Lordships. It is not so long since all your Lordships interested in a debate could be contained within the narrow compass of the Robing Room at the other end of the Royal Gallery. It is not so long ago since my father would start his speech at 5 o'clock on a Wednesday afternoon by saying "My Lords, at this late hour …" It is not so long since there were virtually no women in this Chamber—that is, apart from hereditary countesses—and it is not so long ago either since an even happier change took place and the Life Peerages Act opened the brass gates for the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, himself to come and join us. All these are recent changes but they have been approached gradually, and that is the function of this House. We are the sea-anchor of the constitution—
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Elton: But if your Lordships want—and I must not direct your votes—if your Lordships want a "fancy" franchise with a magnification of the power of minority opinion, a shifting kaleidoscope of alliances across the council floor, no certainty except the certainty that no policy can be pursued except by bargaining and compromise and the destruction of the direct relationship between individual councillors and their electorates in wards of unmanageable size—and if, at the same time, your Lordships wish to leave all the worst examples of malpractice untouched, the noble Lord has produced here the outlines of a means of achieving it which your Lordships should support. The choice is for your Lordships. For me, it is simple. I shall not be throwing up the cap with which my noble friend Lord Holderness has invested me. I shall not be supporting this Bill. I shall be supporting my noble friend's eminently sensible amendment to it.
After that, may I say that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, asks the House to arrange for the Bill to be considered by a Select Committee. As your Lordships know, that would be an unusual step and one which should be considered with care. I make two comments only. First, I think we should consider appointing a Select Committee only if there is a clear chance of all-party agreement on it. Your Lordships can make your own judgment as to whether or not that is likely. Secondly, the proceedings before a Select Committee would be more protracted and time-consuming than on the Floor of your Lordships, House.
Even if a Select Committee managed to report back to your Lordships this Session, I have to remind the noble Lord that there is not the slightest chance that his Bill would reach the Commons. I regret, therefore, that I cannot agree with my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and I really cannot ask your Lordships to take the exceptional step of appointing a Select Committee in the clear knowledge—he will forgive me for saying this bluntly—that the Bill will not reach the statute book.
2.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I should like to express considerable gratitude to all who have spoken in the debate on both sides of the argument, and I think that we all immensely enjoyed the speech to which we have just listened. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, made one very accurate point. He said that I had torn up part of my speech. I had, indeed. I had intended to say—and, fortunately, the character of his speech enabled me not to make this point—that the Home Office officials should not be blamed for the sort of speech he made. Of course, Home Office officials have this unhappy task, whatever the Government may be. They produce exactly the same speech, because both Front Benches agree entirely on this matter, as has been made clear during this debate. The noble Lord's speech was clearly his own work, and it was none the worse for that. However, I would express one word of gratitude to him. He did not think it right to advise the House which way to vote on this Bill.
I hope that my speech will be brief. I shall deal primarily with the speeches made by the opponents of the Bill and, first, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. He said that the Social Democrats and the Liberals are deeply self-interested in this question and that is, to a substantial extent, entirely true. But so, of course, in local government terms are the Conservative Party, as I made clear during my speech, and so are the Labour Party. What, in fact, we are talking about here is gross under-representation of minorities which affects all political parties in this country. It affects the Conservative Party in Islington, as I pointed out, and it certainly affects them in Lambeth, where they did substantially better than the Labour Party and, of course, found themselves in a minority. Also, in the great industrial heartlands of this country, the Conservatives are, and always have been, seriously under-represented.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, then went on to say that there was another grave danger about this Bill. That was that some extremists might get elected. I do not know. There seem to be a fair number of extremists around in local government at the moment. But even to take the argument that he put forward with a degree of seriousness, which it certainly deserves, if a few in one or two local communities are elected, so what? If they are, in fact, the choice of the local community, they should be elected. What is objectionable about the present system is that the majority of the electorate sees extremists running local authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Kilmorack, accurately said that we worked together very closely on the European elections. I very much enjoyed the campaign working with the noble Lord, and I had the highest regard for him at the end of the campaign. But I must say that I have rarely heard a more complacent speech than the one which he delivered this afternoon. He looked at Europe and he said that the situation there was extremely serious: Thank heavens! he said, that we live in a country which has a first past the post electoral system.
I wonder whether he would like to look at the economic record of West Germany since 1945, and compare it with that of this country. I should have thought that a number of objective observers, looking
492
at the evidence which could be adduced on both sides, would take the view that Germany was not in quite the same appalling position in which, he implied, were most countries that had proportional representation electoral systems.
The point which the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, made was one of some importance, He discussed what had happened in Ulster. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, told us that it has been agreed—he did not say by whom—that the Ulster example would never be used in order to justify the extension of proportional representation to other parts of the United Kingdom.
Why was proportional representation introduced in Ulster? There is of course a gravely serious security situation in Ulster, but the reason it was introduced there was to ensure that the minority should be properly represented. That has happened. It has happened in terms of the elections to the European Parliament and it has happened so far as the Northern Ireland Assembly is concerned. What we are asking for in this Bill, which seems to be a very modest request, is that the advantages which have been conferred on the people of Ulster should be extended to the inhabitants of Islington, Lambeth, Southwark and any other local authority which could in certain circumstances be persuaded to adopt the scheme which is outlined in the Bill.
This Bill was summarised to some extent in the speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Referring to the statement made, I think, by Lord Attlee, he said that democracy is about minority rights. I agree with him. I agreed, too, with him when he said that the implementation of the Bill would require the majority to have a decent regard for the views of the minority. The fact of the matter, as we now know in local authority after local authority in this country, is that there is no such decent regard for minority rights. If we listen to the speeches which have been made by the opponents of the Bill, the appalling situations which now exist in an increasing number of local authorities in this country will be perpetuated. Therefore, again with a great expression of gratitude to all those who have spoken, I very much hope that the House will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading and remit it to a Select Committee.
2.23 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, with his customary solemnity of delivery, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, accused me of levity in addressing your Lordships on this Bill. My reason for doing so was quite simple. If you go to see a dangerously sick friend and find that his doctor is prescribing two aspirin, you have only one other way of meeting the situation. Either you can cry or you can laugh. The seriousness of the position in local government which has been emphasised by the speakers on behalf of the Bill is in no way met or matched by the remedy which they propose. That is why I found it so difficult to take it seriously. On the other hand, some serious arguments have been put forward in the course of this debate, and without detaining your Lordships for much longer I should like to refer to them.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said he had expected from me some allusion to history. All

493
that history would teach one is that people often make changes in constitutional or governmental arrangements which do not produce the result they had in mind. Therefore, one has to look very closely at the logic by which one links a proposed change to the desirable consequences that one assumes or proclaims will flow from it.
It has been said by a number of speakers in favour of the Bill that it will increase interest in local government, as demonstrated by the proportion of those voting. I do not know how they come to this conclusion. If the rates which at the moment people are having to pay in many parts of this country do not drive them to the polling booths, will the substitution of a more complicated ballot paper have an attraction for them? It may be true, but I see no reason to believe that it is true.
We were further told (I believe by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn) that this would increase the number of independent persons—persons with few or no party trammels—entering local councils. But the only way in which an individual can make an impression on his neighbours is to have very few neighbours. The larger the size of the constituency, the harder it is for anyone without a party machine and the financial resources which go with it to hope for election. The whole essence of this Bill, from one point of view, is to enlarge and not reduce the constituencies of local government.
Here I come to one of two points made in a most interesting speech by the noble Baroness, Lady EwartBiggs. She said that one of her criteria for a good system of elections was that, for instance, a village should be able to elect someone known to its inhabitants. But that should lead her into the Lobby opposed to this Bill, because the one thing this Bill will do, if passed, is to make certain that a number of villages will be thrown together to make a constituency. If they were scattered over a wide area, the chances of the person being known right across the area would surely be very slim.
The second point is one of grave consequence, and I believe that noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, was the only speaker to refer to it. The noble Baroness said—although I am not able to quote her exactly, and she will correct me if I am wrong—that any electoral system should take account of the fact that our electorate now includes a large number of persons from among what we generically call "the ethnic minorities". That is a serious point. My feeling is that this Bill will very considerably worsen the situation in that respect. This is a non-party point, because I believe that all parties have been poor at this; but I would hope that members of the ethnic minorities will play a larger and larger part in the affairs of our own parties, will figure naturally on their lists of candidates and on their short lists, and in their final selections.
But what happens if one has a system of this kind? Anyone in a particular group will know that if he needs only an electoral quota of one-sixth plus one, there may be enough people in his group for it to be unnecessary for him to seek franchises from outside that group. Therefore, the temptation for someone
494
seeking to rise rapidly in politics will be emphasised in this situation, and it could lead—and one could argue this out in detail—to a fragmentation of our politics along ethnic or other separate cultural lines; whereas if people have to work within a party to be that party's nominee, it is essential that they appeal to all parts of it. That is a most serious and important point, which we should always bear in mind.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, challenged the opponents of the Bill to say what they believed about fairness. Her criterion was fairness. I do not know how this criterion can ever be applied to the exclusion of everything else, partly because there are as many definitions of what is fair as there are persons who consider this subject. Some would think it fair to have the representation of the parties exactly proportional to the votes cast; some would say that it is fair that you should get the candidate you dislike the least rather than the candidate you like the most if that makes for less division. There are innumerable ways of considering whether fairness is applicable. It is surely—and this is my final point—the most important thing to say "Is what we are proposing to do likely to improve the weaknesses in the situation which we have diagnosed?" It is because I do not believe that that point is successfully made that I now beg to move the amendment standing in my name.
2.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 60.

DIVISION NO. 21

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Marley, L.

Ardwick, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Avon, E.

Merrivale, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Molloy, L.

Bellwin, L.

Mottistone, L.

Beloff, L. [Teller.]

Mountevans, L.

Belstead, L.

Norfolk, D.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Oram, L.

Brockway, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Peart, L.

Denham, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elton, L.

Powis, E.

Faithfull, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Ferrers, E.

St. Davids, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L. [Teller.]

St. John of Bletso, L.

St. Just, L.

Gainford, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Glenarthur, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gowrie, E.

Soames, L.

Gray, L.

Spens, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Swinfen, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Swinton, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Teviot, L.

Lawrence, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Long, V.

Underhill, L.

Lyell, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Young, B.

495

NOT-CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hunt, L.

Avebury, L.

Killearn, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Banks, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Bath and Wells, Bp.

Kitchener, E.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Byers, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Caccia, L.

McNair, L.

Carver, L.

Mayhew, L.

Chelwood, L.

Monson, L.

Clanearty, E.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Collison, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Craigavon, V.

Richardson, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Roberthall, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Romney, E.

Croham, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Diamond, L.

Seear, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Shawcross, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Flowers, L.

Stamp, L.

Foot, L.

Stedman, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Hampton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hanworth, V.

Vernon, L.

Harlech, L.

Whaddon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L. [Teller.]

Wigoder, L. [Teller.]

Wilson of Langside, L.

Holderness, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before three o'clock.

  NORTHERN IRELAND: HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY REPORT
  NORTHERN IRELAND: HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY REPORT
  NORTHERN IRELAND: RESEARCH INTO ALCOHOLISM AND ALCOHOL-RELATED DISEASES
  NORTHERN IRELAND: RESEARCH INTO ALCOHOLISM AND ALCOHOL-RELATED DISEASES
  NORTHERN IRELAND: EMPLOYMENT SERVICE PLACEMENTS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: EMPLOYMENT SERVICE PLACEMENTS
  PRESS COUNCIL POWERS
  PRESS COUNCIL POWERS
  SGT. IAN McKAY: NEWSPAPER REPORT
  SGT. IAN McKAY: NEWSPAPER REPORT
  PERSONS IN POLICE CUSTODY: DRAFT CODE OF PRACTICE
  PERSONS IN POLICE CUSTODY: DRAFT CODE OF PRACTICE
  YEOWARTS COACHES: APPEAL COURT DECISION
  YEOWARTS COACHES: APPEAL COURT DECISION