Sitting of 30 June 1983

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

  LLOYD'S BOWMAKER BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 5 July.

  SHREWSBURY AND ATCHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Secong Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 7 July.

  STANDARD CHARTERED MERCHANT BANK BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 5 July.

  TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 7 July.

  SELECTION
  Ordered, That Mr. John Cartwright, Sir Walter Clegg, Mr. Ken Eastham, Mr. Marcus Fox, Mr. James Hamilton, Sir Philip Holland, Mr. Roy Hughes, Sir Kenneth Lewis and Sir Michael Shaw be members of the Committee of Selection.
  Ordered, That the members of the Committee of Selection nominated this day shall continue to be members of the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament.
  Ordered, That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Cope.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Wool
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current price of wool per kilo; and what action the Government have taken to influence it.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): The average market price during May was 104·3p per kilo. Wool prices are determined at auction and are not influenced by Government action, but returns to producers are guaranteed through the stabilisation fund operated by the British Wool Marketing Board.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that the price of wool from the Falkland Islands sold in the United Kingdom is controlled wholly by the Falkland Islands Company because of its monopoly over the storage of wool on the islands and the shipping of wool from the islands to the United Kingdom? What action will the Government, and especially the Minister, take to break that monopoly? What action will the Government take to deal with the company for its treachery in selling wool at inflated prices to Argentina during the occupation?
    Mr. MacGregor: Having only recently arrived in the Department, I am not sure whether that question is the responsibility of my Department.
    Mr. Foulkes: Take it on, then.
    Mr. MacGregor: The subject is more likely to be the responsibility of another Department, and I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's representations.

    Pigeons
    Mr. Arnoldasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what restrictions have been imposed on the movement of British racing pigeons; and for what reasons.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peggy Fenner): A paramyxovirus associated with Newcastle disease exists in racing pigeons in Belgium, Holland, France and Germany and the Government concluded that appropriate steps should be taken to minimise the risk of importing the virus. In the light of this situation, and in co-operation with the Royal Pigeon Racing Association, racing by British pigeons from the mainland of Europe was suspended at the end of March.
    Mr. Arnold: Is my hon. Friend aware that the ban appears to be of somewhat doubtful legality because of the manner in which it was made, and that a number of my constituents have lost a great deal of money because of it? Is she further aware that the veterinary evidence appears to be contradictory? What will she do to remedy the situation?
    Mrs. Fenner: Veterinary experts now know that three outbreaks of the disease have been diagnosed in racing pigeons in Cornwall. An order is to be made today that will

    685
    enable movement control to be applied to pigeons in Britain. The suspension was made in collaboration with the Royal Pigeon Racing Association, on a voluntary basis. Controls for other countries remain on that basis.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the hon. Lady aware that pigeon owners in Northern Ireland have voluntarily accepted the advisability of complying with this advice and have obtained a certain amount of compensation by racing the pigeons to the extreme north of Scotland and the extreme west of Cornwall?
    Mrs. Fenner: No, I was not aware of that. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that information.
    Mr. Farr: Will my hon. Friend confirm that this decision was taken only after receiving the most careful and considered advice from the veterinary profession that this was the best way in which to protect the industry?
    Mrs. Fenner: I confirm that, and I am sure that the Royal Pigeon Racing Association accepted also that the decision was taken in the best interests of the pigeons.
    Mr. Beith: Although I recognise that in animal health matters Ministers may have to act first and answer questions afterwards, would it not have been better to use the statutory procedures from the beginning? Would it still not be better to see that an order is laid before the House and debated so that, particularly in the light of the alarming evidence from Cornwall, the matter can be discussed and pigeon fanciers can have the opportunity to have their grievances properly aired?
    Mrs. Fenner: The original suspension was based on the existence of the disease in Europe. It was only when we had evidence, which was confirmed only on Monday of this week, of the existence of the disease in Cornwall that we were required to make such an order. We have made it under section 11 of the Animal Health Act 1981 and, as the hon. Gentleman said, we sometimes have to take such decisions in the interests of animal health.
    Mr. Charles Morrison: I accept that in the circumstances the Government had no alternative but to impose restrictions, but is there any chance that the disease will be overcome in Europe?
    Mrs. Fender: I cannot answer that question, but the resumption of racing will depend upon the incidence of the disease, which we shall monitor carefully.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: Does the Minister accept that the veterinary evidence for the ban is questionable and that the authority for the manner in which it was imposed is doubtful? Many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House would wish to have the clearest evidence from her veterinary officials at an early opportunity, such as the middle of next week, to explain why this decision had to be taken. We need to be informed so that we can inform our constituents, who are being deprived of a great pleasure. Until we have that information, however much we might wish to support the Government on animal health regulation, we are at a disadvantage.
    Mrs. Fenner: Our veterinary advice is of the most expert. I assure the hon. Gentleman that three outbreaks have been diagnosed and confirmed in Cornwall, and the movement order that will be available later today is evidence of the Ministry's concern to prevent movement, because of the incidence of disease.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Campbell-Savoursasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to seek to secure a reduction in community resources devoted to the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Ioan Evansasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for the reform of the European Community common agricultural policy.
    Sir Kenneth Lewisasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he envisages in improving the working of the common agricultural policy; and what initiatives he proposes to take.
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a White Paper or make a detailed statement outlining the views of Her Majesty's Government on how common agricultural policy expenditure should be curbed and structural surpluses reduced or eliminated.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): I shall press for effective action to tackle the problems of surplus production and limit the growth of expenditure through restraint on support prices and such other measures as are practicable and negotiable. The European Council recently agreed that concrete steps should be taken to ensure effective control of agricultural expenditure. We shall be pursuing this objective in the forthcoming negotiations, but I doubt whether it would be in the United Kingdom's best interests to publish a White Paper setting out our negotiating stance in advance.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On behalf of our fellow Cumbrian constituents, I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box to answer on behalf of the Government for the first time. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us who have supported the Community over the years now feel that the Community discredits itself by persisting in allocating escalating resources to agriculture? Last year it was 62 per cent. of Community resources, and this year it is 70 per cent. Will the Minister give us an assurance that in the current year the level of resources allocated will not exceed that of last year as a percentage of the total budget or in terms of the cash paid?
    Mr. Jopling: I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is my constituency neighbour, for his kind words. He spoke about the share of the total Community budget spent on the common agricultural policy and quoted the current figures. I remind him that only back in 1978, under his Government, that share was 80 per cent. The Government have said that they believe that the growth of spending on the CAP should be lower than the growth in own resources.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first the hon. Members whose questions are down to be answered.
    Sir Kenneth Lewis: As the first Conservative Member to table a question to my right hon. Friend in his new post, I congratulate him and hope that he will find his new Department less troublesome than his previous office. He is now in charge of a Department that probably has one of the biggest problems in the Common Market—the CAP. There is a danger that people will think that the policy is

    687
    a disaster, but many of us think that it needs a certain amount of trimming and control around the edges. The policy as a whole has proved to be good for agriculture, both here and in Europe—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask for shorter supplementaries, and ask hon. Members to put them in the form of questions.
    Sir Kenneth Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the CAP is not damaging to the consumer and that we hope that the policy will, with certain improvements, continue?
    Mr. Jopling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I agree with him, and it should be repeated often, that the principles of the CAP are excellent and difficult to criticise. However, it is legitimate to criticise the way in which the principles have been put into effect over the years in the Community. One cannot go on and on producing more and more food which it is impossible either to eat within the Community or to sell abroad.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment and appeal to him, in reforming the CAP, to use some of the firmness and determination that he used in getting us into the Lobby. At the moment, two thirds of all CAP costs are devoted not to protecting farmers but to dumping surpluses in Russia and elsewhere at knock-down prices, when food mountains are at an all-time high. Do the Government mean business on CAP reform, and is it not about time that they gave us some idea of how they want the job to be done? How can we expect the Common market to take us seriously if we cannot give even the slightest general outline of how we think the CAP should be reformed?
    Mr. Jopling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I hope that over the period ahead he will be as co-operative with me as he has been in the past.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Exactly the same.
    Mr. Jopling: Between now and 1 August the Commission will be considering a number of aspects of the CAP and examining the need for strict financial guidelines. That examination is intended to result in concrete steps being taken to ensure the effective control of expenditure. As always, the Government remain opposed to subsidised sales of butter to the Soviet Union.
    Mr. Corbett: May I join in the welcome to the right hon. Gentleman in his new post? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We are old friends. Will the right hon. Gentleman say in plain Cumbrian, or plain English, that he will regard it as his duty to seek to reduce wasteful expenditure on the expensive CAP, so that more resources can be put into the social fund and into regional development?
    Mr. Jopling: I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman back in the House after so many years and no doubt I shall be seeing much more of him. I repeat what I said earlier. It is the Government's intention to assist the Commission in making proposals before 1 August whereby agricultural spending increases at a lower rate than the growth in own resources.
    Mr. Spence: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is much in the CAP that has been of considerable benefit to my constituents in Ryedale and in the upland parts of the constituency? When my right hon. Friend carries out the review in conjunction with other Common
    688
    Market Ministers, will he ensure that many of the typical British aids are preserved? I particularly draw attention to the benefit derived by our dairy farmers from the very good beef premium scheme. I hope that my right hon. Friend will use his best endeavours to ensure that that scheme is preserved.
    Mr. Jopling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I remind him that the price fixing earlier this year benefited farmers and consumers in this country. Producers will receive a further £250 million in a full year and the special subsidies on butter, together with the beef and sheep premiums, will be worth more than £300 million to United Kingdom consumers.
    Mr. Buchan: In joining the slightly mixed welcome to the new Minister, I remind him, especially in view of his interest in livestock, that of all the endangered species under this Government, ex-Chief Whips are most at risk.
    The right hon. Gentleman gives promises of change, but has he read the record of promises of change? Has he read the mandate of June 1980 and its firm commitment to changes? Have they happened? Is not the cost of the EC increasing, will it not increase further and ought it not to be diminished? Is it not the case that the cutback on our proper rebate from Stuttgart last week was made precisely because the CAP budget has increased by another 4 billion ecu—more than £2 billion—and the reduced rebate is part payment by us towards that? What steps does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take to cut the growth of surpluses and the destruction of food?
    Mr. Jopling: We shall be negotiating on those matters and it would not be wise for us to expose our negotiating hand. I know that the hon. Gentleman would not do that. He talks about the record, but I remind him that under the previous Conservative Government the United Kingdom's share of receipts from Community agricultural expenditure more than doubled — from 5·1 per cent. under the Labour Government in 1978 to 10·4 per cent. in 1982. The hon. Gentleman is looking for promises that have been fulfilled and I believe that our record in making sure that this country gets a better deal out of the CAP is very clear.
    Mr. Buchan rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we should move on.

    Food Supplies (Estimates)
    Mr. Shersbyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of inconvenience caused to the food industry by the delay in publishing the estimates of food supplies moving into consumption, if he will arrange early publication of the estimates.
    Mrs. Fenner: Estimates for 1981 and 1982 are expected to be published together by late summer. Earlier publication of the 1981 estimates has been prevented by the delay to the Overseas Trade Statistics for that year.
    Mr. Shersby: Is my hon. Friend aware that the food industry will be glad to learn that the figures will be published by the late summer, because their absence has caused problems in analysing how foods are moving into consumption? Her reply will be warmly welcomed, but I hope that if it is possible to publish the figures earlier that will be done.
    Mrs. Fenner: I have to stand by the estimate that I have given. My hon. Friend probably knows that the

    689
    Overseas Trade Statistics were delayed because of the backlog caused by the Civil Service strike. We regret the delay, but the figures for the two years will be ready by the end of the summer.

    Grain (Intervention Stocks)
    Mr. Colvinasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tons of intervention stocks of grain were disposed of abroad during the last 12 months; and what is the current price per ton being achieved.
    Mr. MacGregor: The answer is that 748,000 tonnes of grain, all barley, have been exported from United Kingdom intervention stocks during the past 12 months. The price of the most recent sales, on 19 May, was around £64 per tonne net of the export refund and monetary compensatory amount then applicable.
    Mr. Colvin: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he also tell the House how many tonnes of feed grain have been released from intervention for use by United Kingdom livestock producers? What will he do in his new post to help hard-pressed pig farmers in my constituency who are having to pay about £130 per tonne for feed grain and see intervention grain shipped out of Southampton for use by Spanish farmers at a fraction of the price that my constituents have to pay, due to EC refunds?
    Mr. MacGregor: About 89,000 tonnes of barley and 10,400 tonnes of feed wheat have been sold out of intervention on to the home market and most, if not all, of that will have been used by the livestock sector. In addition, 164,000 tonnes of bread-making wheat have been released, some of which will have been used by the livestock sector.
    In response to my hon. Friend's second question, I can tell him that I am aware of the difficulties facing pig producers. The previous Conservative Government took a number of steps which have eased the situation, and it is helpful that current pig prices are above the April figure.
    Without the sales from intervention stocks, shortages in the home market would have been worse and feed grain prices to livestock producers would be higher. My hon. Friend will know of the Commission's discussions, in which the United Kingdom has been actively involved, about a cereals incorporation scheme, which might also be helpful to the livestock sector.
    Mr. Strang: How does the Minister reconcile the state's open-ended commitment to buy everything that the farmer produces, regardless of the cost of disposal, with the Government's overall philosophy that the market knows best?
    Mr. MacGregor: We operate within a European system, which has a significant effect on the matter. Various factors affecting agriculture are different from those affecting the area for which I previously had responsibility.

    Milk
    Mr. David Atkinsonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of daily doorstep deliveries of milk.
    Mr. Jopling: I believe that the doorstep delivery of milk is valued by the consumer and all sides of the milk industry. I am sure that it will have an enduring role in milk distribution.
    Mr. Atkinson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate him on his new appointment. Is he aware that a glossy leaflet is being distributed by milkmen to customers throughout the country suggesting that unless action is taken now daily doorstep deliveries of milk could be a thing of the past? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the only action that will guarantee daily doorstep deliveries is for existing customers to maintain their orders for those deliveries?
    Mr. Jopling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The system of doorstep deliveries encourages a high level of liquid milk consumption, which is good for Britain and good for the EC, especially at a time of surplus. If those in other member states drank as much milk as we do in the United Kingdom, the Community's dairy surplus would be much less of a problem.
    Mr. Deakins: Is the Minister aware that that was a very bland and uncommunicative reply? Will he tell us something about the consultations with the industry, both here and overseas, on the Importation of Milk Act, which was passed in a great hurry just before the general election? Will he also tell us what action he proposes to take to deal with the increasing milk surplus on the continent, which is an increasing threat to milk producers in this country and to doorstep deliveries as more and more continental firms seeks ways of getting round our regulations in order to get into our stable liquid milk market?
    Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman will know that at the price fixing this year, as a step towards dealing with surpluses, we introduced threshold guarantees, which no doubt will bite before long. The answer to what the hon. Gentleman said about the Importation of Milk Act, which completed its passage through Parliament just before the election, is that the regulations that we shall make under that legislation are still being prepared. We shall have discussions with interested parties before the new arrangements are introduced. At this stage it is impossible to say when, or if, UHT imports of milk may arrive, and it remains to be seen whether consumers, having tasted and drunk this stuff, will be prepared to buy it in any quantities.

    Cod
    Mr. John Townendasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the present state of negotiations on the quota of North sea cod to be allocated to British fishermen.
    Mr. MacGregor: The Commission has proposed that, of the total of North sea cod available to the European Community, 47 per cent. or 105,280 tonnes should be available to the United Kingdom in 1983. This will be considered further by the Council shortly.
    Mr. Townend: In thanking my hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him to confirm that, if these proposals are implemented, there will actually be a reduction of about 5 per cent. in the amount of North sea cod available for British fishermen? Does he appreciate that the proposals

    691
    have caused consternation among the Bridlington fishermen, who depend on this species? Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to use his formidable powers of persuasion, which we on the Tory Benches experienced in the last Parliament, to ensure that there is no reduction in the quota of North sea cod for British fishermen in the coming year?
    Mr. MacGregor: I can confirm that this is a small reduction on the 1982 catch, but of course the North sea cod TAC is lower this year than last year. It has to be agreed with Norway. While I fully appreciate and recognise the importance of North sea cod for the industry, we must have regard to conservation, which is in the longterm interests of the industry. In my opinion the United Kingdom quota, at 47 per cent. of EC availability, is a satisfactory percentage for the United Kingdom, in view of our historic record of catches over recent years.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Bearing in mind the overwhelming dependence of the Grimsby fleet on this stock, and the effect that any reductions of catches would have on the earnings of this deserving section of small business, that is, the Grimsby fishing fleet, will the Minister not only oppose any reduction but accelerate the customary midyear transfer of cod from the Norwegian share to the EC share, so that there is no threat to the fishing opportunities of the Grimsby fleet?
    Mr. MacGregor: I recognise the importance of the Grimsby fleet. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we cannot achieve a change in the TAC without the agreement of the Norwegians. I understand that the Norwegian quota is small compared with our own. I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I repeat that the total percentage share that we have is satisfactory, and we have to look at conservation reasons rather than other reasons in relation to the TAC each year.
    Sir Walter Clegg: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable concern about the policing of these quotas, in view of what the Danes did last year? If we are to have quotas, the only way in which they will work is to have proper policing. Can my hon. Friend reassure me on the matter?
    Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We have already stressed, and fully accept, the point in relation to the common fisheries policy. My right hon. Friend has already written to the Commissioner about the importance of the matter and the desirability of getting the European inspectorate into place quickly.
    Sir Peter Mills: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it is not a question of quotas but of policing, monitoring and bringing to court those who offend in this way? We in the south-west of England are deeply concerned that we are not getting on with this task. I urge my hon. Friend, when he goes back to Brussels, to get on as quickly as possible with the task of monitoring and policing.
    Mr. MacGregor: I assure my hon. Friend that we have already taken the matter fully on board. It is a matter that the industry has pressed with us already at our meetings. As I said, my right hon. Friend has already taken up the matter with the Commissioner. We are urging that the appointment of inspectors be carried out quickly, and we shall continue to watch the situation urgently.

    Tenant Farmers
    Mr. Strangasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to alter the security of tenure for tenant farmers.
    Mr. Jopling: As indicated in our manifesto and in the Queen's Speech, we shall introduce legislation to make more farming tenancies available in England and Wales. I hope to introduce this legislation soon after the summer recess.
    Mr. Strang: Is it the Government's intention to introduce legislation whereby, when a farmer drops down dead, his son will have no right whatsoever to take over the holding, even although he might have worked the bulk of his working life on the holding and invested virtually all the profits of his labour in the tenant's capital of that holding?
    Mr. Jopling: Unlike the legislation that was introduced in 1976, which caused the drying up of farm tenancies, we intend to introduce a Bill to implement the balanced package of proposals agreed between the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association. One important part of the package relates to the succession provisions of the earlier Labour legislation, and while all existing succession rights will be unaffected, new tenancies would be subject to lifetime security of tenure only. These proposals have the full support of both the NFU and the CLA.
    Mr. Benyon: Is my right hon. Friend aware how much many of us welcome these provisions in the Gracious Speech? Is he also aware that without the co-operation of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer these measures will not be sufficient?
    Mr. Jopling: If there are matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, no doubt my hon. Friend will raise them with him. I am concerned to take steps within my responsibility to make more tenancies available and to give new opportunities to the many young men who are clamouring for them.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that what he has just said does not add to the number of tenancies; it just takes away the prospects of some sons or daughters of tenant farmers at present, and adds the possibility that existing tenancies could be amalgamated into one unit instead of two, thus reducing the numbers?
    Mr. Jopling: I strongly disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that this legislation will allow tenancies to be created when land becomes vacant which, in present circumstances, is sold, amalgamated, or in some cases farmed by the landlord. I hope that this will encourage landowners to make new tenancies available to people who want to start farming. Certainly that is the view of the NFU and the CLA.
    Mr. Body: Before introducing any legislation, will my right hon. Friend agree to discuss the matter with the Tenant Farmers Association and the Small Farmers Association?
    Mr. Jopling: Yes, of course. I am perfectly happy to discuss these matters with interested parties. I have seen the proposals of the Tenant Farmers Association, and I am glad that it broadly supports the NFU/CLA agreement, although I realise that it wants to go rather further in certain aspects.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister confirm that, in accordance with the principles of Tory ideas of a property-owning democracy, he will allow a tenant farmer to get the farm at half price if he has lived in it for 20 years?
    Mr. Jopling: That is no part of our policy.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: May we take it then that the overriding consideration in my right hon. Friend's mind is that the legislation should have the support of the representatives of agriculture and the rural community as a whole?
    Mr. Jopling: I welcome the fact that the CLA and the NFU have come to an agreement. We have always felt that we could create more tenancy opportunities only in the context of agreement between those two bodies, so that we can change the law in those respects in an atmosphere of general consent in the rural communities.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: Does the Minister accept that his branch of the NFU—North Yorkshire and Durham—has many members who do not agree with that concordat? Does he also accept that the NFU of Wales does not agree with it? Are there not many people in the rural community who believe that to give hereditary powers to a landlord that are denied to a county council and then to take them away from the tenant is not the way forward?
    Mr. Jopling: I have spent enough of my life in rural communities and in my present post to know that lucky and rare is the man who is always able to do only that which has unanimous support. Of course I am aware that there are dissenting voices, and we shall be prepared to listen to them.

    Herring
    Dr. Godmanasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement concerning the determination of herring quotas.
    Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend and I shall be discussing this matter at an emergency meeting of the Council of Ministers in Brussels this evening.
    Dr. Godman: Is not the Dutch fishing fleet, aided and abetted by the Dutch Government, taking far more than its temporary quota of North sea herring? Will not that greedy, irresponsible behaviour harm other fishermen, particularly Scottish fishermen?
    Mr. MacGregor: The fact that the Dutch fishermen are about or above the interim quota emphasises the importance of reaching agreement on the proposals that we shall be discussing tonight.
    Mr. Michael Brown: Is it not essential to state categorically to the EC at the Council of Ministers precisely what we think Britain's quota should be?
    Mr. MacGregor: I assure my hon. Friend that that is what my right hon. Friend and I did at the one Council of Ministers fishery meeting that we have attended. We shall certainly continue trying to ensure that we get satisfactory quotas for the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Buchan: Does the Minister remember that when the common fisheries policy was agreed six months ago it was hailed as settling affairs for the next 20 years? Is it not already coming apart at the seams? Cod, mackerel, herring—all the main species around our waters—are
    694
    now in question. The only solution that has been put forward is to increase the total allowable catches; in other words, to create bigger catches to satisfy our partners. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take a tougher line at the meeting tonight than his predecessors have taken over the past few years, because there has been a continual sell-out of British fishing interests over the period.
    Mr. MacGregor: I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is important to have a common fisheries policy and that he will welcome the agreement that was reached in January. In any given year there are bound to be arguments and discussions between member states about the relative proportions and that is what we are engaged in at present. It is important to have such discussions much earlier in the year and that is a point that we and other member states have already pressed. It would enable us to reach agreement earlier. In addition, the conservation aspect must be taken into account when we are looking at total allowable catches.

    Butter
    Mr. Knoxasked the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food to what extent the United Kingdom is self-sufficient in butter; and how this compares with the position in 1979.
    Mr. MacGregor: Production of butter is estimated to have represented 64 per cent. of total new supplies in 1982, compared with 47 per cent. in 1979.
    Mr. Knox: Do not those figures represent a remarkable improvement since the Government came into power, and a striking improvement since the early 1970s? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that dairy farmers have been adequately rewarded?
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend about the tremendous improvement in our self-sufficiency, which is due to increased productivity and other reasons within our dairy industry. He will know that last year there was a resonable and substantial rise in dairy farm net incomes, which should be seen in the context of declining real incomes in earlier years. Therefore, I hope he will feel that the point that he is making is reflected in that increase.
    Mr. Deakins: Is that not an increased share of a diminishing market? What is so good about that?
    Mr. MacGregor: I would have thought that the fact that we were increasing our self-sufficiency in an area where we can do so would be widely welcomed.

    Cereals
    Mr. Home Robertsonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give an estimate of the tonnage of feeding cereals which will be harvested in 1983; and how this compares with the projected needs of the livestock sector.
    Mr. MacGregor: It is too soon to estimate the size of this year's cereal harvest. However, it seems probable that total production will be sufficient to meet the demands of the livestock sector and other users.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Is it not likely that the harvest will vastly exceed demand, as we have seen over the past year? Is not the most sensible thing to do with feeding grain to feed it? Is the hon. Gentleman not ashamed of the

    695
    fact that he has given figures this afternoon to the effect that 750,000 tonnes of feeding barley have been exported, which could well have been used by the British livestock sector.
    As the intervention system is evidently doing so much harm to British livestock producers, can the Minister give any undertaking that during the current year there will be a more sensible deal, to the benefit of cereal producers, livestock farmers and the housewife?
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will know that last year there was a record harvest and there were sizeable exports. It is still too soon to tell what will happen this year, but, because of the bad weather earlier in the season, this year's crop is unlikely to be larger than last year and may well be smaller. We must await the outcome. Many complex issues arise from the hon. Gentleman's second point. He will know of the current discussions about the cereals incorporation scheme, which, if it comes about, could to some extent help livestock producers. To apply that to all cereal production would be enormously expensive and difficult to entertain.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Rookerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 30 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with Sir Joshua Hassan, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar. This evening I am giving a reception at 10 Downing street for British exporters.
    Mr. Rooker: Does the Prime Minister believe that the families of the unemployed, and the unemployed, should be able to purchase the same amount of food, fuel and clothing from their unemployment benefit in one year as compared with another—yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: That will depend very much on their choice of foods and the movement in food prices. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that last year food prices —[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".]—increased by only 1 per cent., which is a record never bettered by the Labour Government.
    Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady withdraw the answer that she has just made about the choice of food? Does she not think that that is an insulting way to talk of the unemployed people and the way that she is proposing to treat them? Is it not deplorable that this Parliament should have been forced to start with a controversy about the amount of pay that may go to unemployed people in Britain? Has she not recognised that her policies may be adding to the 7 million people already forced to live on means-tested supplementary benefit? Does she say to them that their standard of living merely depends on their choice of food?
    The Prime Minister: How they use their national insurance and supplementary benefit is wholly a matter for their choice—[Interruption.] Of course it is.
    Mr. Heffer: No understanding.
    The Prime Minister: I have a very good understanding of both selling and buying food, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well. The supplementary benefit system is an addition to, and an essential part of, the national insurance system so that if national insurance is not enough sufficient can be provided for a reasonable standard of living and for housing. Naturally, how people wish to use it is for them. If they require extra for specific purposes, such as heating, extra is available.
    Mr. Foot rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop.
    Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Lady—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, I shall call the Leader of the Opposition again in a moment. I have already called the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop).
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: When meeting Sir Joshua Hassan, will my right hon. Friend assure him that the British Government will match any subsidies or other Government assistance given to dockyards in Portugal or Spain, which enable them to undercut the commercial viability of the Gibraltar dockyard?
    The Prime Minister: No, I cannot give that specific undertaking. We have made generous arrangements for the transfer to a commercial dockyard company of the naval dockyard in Gibraltar, accompanied by about £28 million for the development of Gibraltar. It is for the Government of Gibraltar to decide how that money should be spent.
    Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Lady recall the controversy in the last Parliament about the cut in unemployment benefit? Before she allows her Government to cut that unemployment benefit again, will she arrange for a debate in the House of Commons so that hon. Members can take into account what she said about the unemployed and their choice of food?
    The Prime Minister: The arrangements for uprating all national insurance benefits are announced once a year. They are always debated. If those amounts are insufficient, supplementary benefit is available. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that many of the unemployed avail themselves of those benefits, which are for that purpose.
    Mr. Churchill: At a time when, by the admission of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), the Soviet Union has established nuclear superiority in Europe, is it not reckless and irresponsible for the Opposition to endorse the Kremlin's call for a nuclear freeze, bearing in mind that that would let the Soviet Union off the hook of having to make any reductions in its nuclear capability? Is it not clear that if a breakthrough is to be made in Geneva it will be made, in contrast, by the determination and stalwartness of the NATO allies and specifically by the British, American and West German Governments?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is an old and well-known tactic of the Soviet Union, first to modernise a particular group of weapons and then to announce a freeze. That increases its superiority and undermines our essential security and defence. We must never be taken in by that ruse.
    Mr. Fisher: Will the Prime Minister confirm that Britain does not have dual control of United States nuclear

    697
    weapons sited here? Will she also confirm that the so-called understanding that she has is based upon the 1952 Churchill-Truman communiqué which, in one sentence, refers to
    "joint decision … in the light of circumstances prevailing at the time."?
    The Prime Minister: That question was fully answered in the last Parliament in the following terms:
    "The existing understandings between the United Kingdom and the United States governing the use by the United States of nuclear weapons and bases in this country have been jointly reviewed in the light of the planned deployment of cruise missiles. We are satisfied that they are effective. The arrangements will apply to United States cruise missiles based in the United Kingdom whether on or off base. The effect of understandings and the arrangements for implementing them is that no nuclear weapon would be fired or launched from British territory without the agreement of the British Prime Minister." —[Official Report, 12 May 1983; Vol. 42, c. 435.]

    Falkland Islands
    Mr. Wigleyasked the Prime Minister what criteria she will take into account in deciding on the length and size of the British military presence on the Falkland Islands.
    The Prime Minister: The principal criterion will be the threat posed by Argentina to the security of the Falkland Islands.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Prime Minister taking into account the cost of maintaining the military presence on the Falkland Islands? Does she believe that the £400 million a year announced by the Secretary of State for Defence on Monday—£500,000 for every family on the islands—is a reasonable ongoing cost when that money could halve the total of 17 million children a year under the age of five around the world who die from malnutrition? Would not that be a more sensible use of the money than concentrating it on 2,000 families on the Falkland Islands?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting the alternative—that one lets those families be governed by the fascist Argentine junta.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Does the Prime Minister agree that until Argentina formally ends the hostilities that it started last year, the interest, honour and credibility of our country requires the maintenance of an adequate garrison — [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Does my right hon. Friend agree that until Argentina purges itself of those responsible for the disappearance and murder of 30,000 people, including Community citizens and some Britons, there can be no question of making further political progress?
    The Prime Minister: It is absolutely right to defend the people of the Falkland Islands and their right to self-determination with regard to their political future. It is also absolutely right to defend the sovereign territory on which they live. That would be so even if there were a change of Government in Argentina. As I understand British democracy—we have just had an election—it is the right of people to choose their future which matters.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Prime Minister's answer to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) mean that she is prepared to enter into discussion with the Argentine Government when that Government are transferred from the junta's hands to a civilian regime?
    The Prime Minister: No, that cannot be so. We defend the right of British people to determine their own future when they live on British sovereign territory. Day after day and month after month in debates in this House in the last Parliament we accepted that the rights of the Falkland Islanders were paramount. Is the SDP going off that view?
    Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vital criteria—to use the word in the question—are exactly as she has said? Do they not include defending the Falkland Islanders' democratic right to exist as they do now, and giving full support to our armed forces in their job?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that Government Members will do both.

    Engagements
    Mr. John Townendasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 30 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Townend: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing public concern about the availability of video tapes featuring hard pornography and extreme violence? What action do the Government intend to take to deal with the problem?
    The Prime Minister: I recognise the great concern caused by this matter. That is why we referred to it in our party manifesto during the election campaign. It is not enough to have voluntary regulation. We must bring in a law to regulate the matter. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is now considering precisely what form that law should take.
    Mr. Wareing: Will the right hon. Lady publish the report by the Central Policy Review Staff, which was referred to in the third report of the Select Committee on the Environment yesterday, and which predicted the disorders that arose on Merseyside? The Government made no response to the report at the time.
    The Prime Minister: It is not the practice to publish reports by the Central Policy Review Staff —[Interruption.] It is not the practice. In rare exceptions it is done, but in the majority of cases Governments do not publish. That report did not predict the Toxteth riots. It did, however, take the view that if high unemployment persisted and if the entire region became one of concentrated disadvantage the existing support services and income redistribution mechanisms would be inadequate to prevent social unrest.
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 30 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Miller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must make a serious effort to negotiate disarmament, both nuclear and conventional, but that in the light of the Soviet superiority to which she has referred such disarmament must be mutual, balanced and verifiable? As the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) said, is not unilateralism dead?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I believe that the British people have totally and utterly rejected unilateralism and

    699
    that they never really toyed with it at all. I agree that unless disarmament is balanced and verifiable we shall undermine the central security and freedoms upon which the whole foundation of life in Britain depends.
    Mr. Park: Bearing in mind that each fall of 1 per cent. in the inflation rate has led to 200,000 more unemployed, does reducing the inflation rate to zero mean that another 1 million people will join the dole queue?
    The Prime Minister: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I believe that that is a ridiculous question. Those countries that have consistently had a low level of inflation have the lowest rates of unemployment.
    Mr. Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to clarify the situation caused by the Opposition's request for a large number of new Labour peerages? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a certain illogicality in the fact that a party which, before the election, campaigned for the abolition of the House of Lords, is now campaigning for 26 of its failed candidates to be sent there?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot reveal in any way the content of talks between the Leader of the Opposition and myself, which are wholly confidential. It is customary to have a Dissolution honours list, and we are preparing that at present.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:—
MONDAY 4 JULY—Second Reading of the Petroleum Royalties (Reliefs) Bill.
Motion relating to the Rating (Timetables Procedures) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations.
Motion on the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (Section 111) Amendment Order.
TUESDAY 5 JULY—Second Reading of the Housing and Building Control Bill.
Motion on the Pools Competition Act 1971 (Continuance) Order.
WEDNESDAY 6 JULY—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Motion relating to the Merchant Shipping (Medical Examination) Regulations.
THURSDAY 7 JULY — Proceedings on the Local Authorities (Expenditure Powers) Bill.
Motion on the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order.
FRIDAY 8 JULY—There will be a debate on the youth training scheme on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 11 JULY—Proceedings on the International Monetary Arrangements Bill.
Mr. Foot: First, will the right hon. Gentleman rearrange the timing of the debate on the youth training scheme, which is proposed for next Friday? We are all in favour of having the debate, but surely it should take place earlier in the week, particularly in view of the serious and continued rise in unemployment and the fact that almost a million young people in this country have no job and not much prospect of getting one? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will change the time of the debate so that all hon. Members can participate in it.
Secondly, I refer to the Prime Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), who asked that we should discuss the report referred to in the report of the Select Committee on the Environment. That report discusses the suggestions made by the so-called Think Tank, before the riots took place, about what conditions might lead to riots. That matter ought to be debated in the House.
Finally, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider my request to the Prime Minister for an undertaking that, before the Government take any step that would result in a real cut in pay to the unemployed, the matter should be debated in the House. We could thus avoid what happened in the last Parliament, when over several years the unemployed were denied the full benefit to which they eventually secured entitlement through the operations of the House.
Mr. Biffen: Taking the right hon. Gentleman's third point about the re-rating procedures, I shall certainly consider how matters stand, what is legislatively required and what the most appropriate procedures for the House would be. That investigation will be conducted through the usual channels.
702
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the report of the Environment Committee. Very often, the House has taken an opportunity to debate the findings of such a report or of a Select Committee report when engaged in other discussions on motions or on legislation. However, I will consider the right hon. Gentleman's point.
It is only courteous for me to say that I will consider the right hon. Gentleman's point about the present arrangements for Friday's debate, but I do not wish the right hon. Gentleman to be misled by the emollient tone of my remarks into supposing that I am at once going to agree with him. Friday is an important day for debating. It should not be so devalued that we cannot consider matters of major topicality on that day.
Sir Anthony Kershaw: Is it not a pity that the Opposition are blocking the re-establishment of the Select Committees? Will my right hon. Friend nevertheless press on with it?
Mr. Biffen: I do not consider that that is a fair description of the situation. I ask my hon. Friend to cast his eye across the speech that I made at the conclusion of yesterday evening's debate, when I made clear my own reservations about a speedy determination of the membership of those committees.
Mr. James Molyneaux: The Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order is to be debated next Thursday. In the light of the report of the Procedure Committee (Finance), will the Leader of the House consider alternatives to the present procedure for handling these matters, which places an unnecessary burden on Opposition Members and is not to the advantage of Northern Ireland itself?
Mr. Biffen: With regard to the specific debate next Thursday, I hope that we shall reach the motion on the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order at a reasonably early hour in the evening. I should like time to consider the wider points made by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many important Select Committee reports left over from the previous Parliament have never been debated? Is it his intention to find time to debate them during the coming Session?
Mr. Biffen: I think that it will be for the House to adapt its conduct to the existence of a range of important Select Committee reports. We shall have to graft what they provide on to our existing proceduress, because time will not be available for specific debates on them.
Mr. Jack Dormand: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the report of the Top Salaries Review Body will be debated? Will he give a firm assurance that the Government's intention on the recommendations will be made known before the recess begins presumably in about four weeks' time, so that the House will be able to make its views known? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Opposition have very strong views about the recommendations.
Mr. Biffen: I am certainly well aware of the strong feelings which exist. The hon. Gentleman has made it plain with vigour, but total fairness, over past weeks. I am conducting discussions in the light of the report's recommendations, and I hope that it will be possible for the House to take a view on them before we rise at the end of next month.
Mr. John Stokes: Will there be an opportunity this week for the House to discuss the matter of retired chief constables selling their stories to the Sunday press for large sums of money?
Mr. Biffen: I do not think that, within the framework of the business that I have announced, such an opportunity will arise. However, the House has a wide range of opportunities to make known its feelings on the subject, and I know that the view which motivates my hon. Friend is widely held.
Mr. George Foulkes: Is the Leader of the House aware that, because of the combination of trade and industry questions on one day and the allocation of a short cycle of questioning to a Monday, Welsh Question Time takes up more time, over the period of a Parliament, than Scottish Question Time? As the Scotttish Office represents the equivalent of six Whitehall Ministries and carries a whole range of responsibilities, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter and see whether Scottish Question Time can be included, after the recess, in the short cycle?
Mr. Biffen: If I wanted to be provocative, I could say that one could generously consider the possibility of Scottish questions being held on Mondays, but I know that the moment that proposition is put, the whole complexity of the issue is raised. Of course, it is perfectly appropriate for this issue to be reconsidered through the usual channels.
Sir Bernard Braine: Will my right hon. Friend take note that many of us on both sides of the House are concerned about the continued failure to implement the Lisbon agreement on Gibraltar and would not take kindly to anything that let down a loyal and hard-pressed people? In view of that, will my right hon Friend give an undertaking that a statement will be made soon on Gibraltar, at least before we rise for the summer recess?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly draw that point to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that service men who are severely injured in the course of their duties—other than in military action—and as a result of the negligence of others, are not allowed to sue for negligence, unlike all other public servants? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that one of my constituents is suffering severely as a result of that outrageous anomaly? Will he arrange for a debate on that most important subject?
Mr. Biffen: I am aware of the real difficulties involved, and I shall certainly draw that point to the attention of the Minister responsible.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) about the Top Salaries Review Body, most of us would like a much firmer assurance that the matter will be settled before the summer recess. As we all know, there is extant a report with the stupid idea from the Plowden committee that Members of Parliament should receive 30 per cent. If we are meant to lead the country on to a better path in the fight against inflation, and if we are advising others to take 2 per cent., should
704
we not inform the British people soon that Members of Parliament will lead from the front and not from their back pockets?
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)indicated assent.
Mr. Biffen: I shall not be drawn into commenting on the merits of the Plowden proposals, but there is a resolve in many parts of the House to determine the issue as speedily as possible.
Mr. David Alton: When the Leader of the House considers the need for a debate on the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, will he also consider the two early-day motions on the Order Paper that call for a debate about the massive unemployment on Merseyside?
[That this House is gravely concerned at the proposed closure of the Crawford Biscuit Company factory in Liverpool, with the loss of 2,000 jobs in an area with more than 140,000 unemployed; and calls on Her Majesty's Government, to have urgent discussions with Sir Hector Laing, Chairman of United Biscuits, in an effort to save this factory and the jobs involved.]
[That this House notes with deep dismay the decision of United Biscuits Limited to close their Liverpool factory, with a subsequent loss of 2,000 jobs; condemns this decision as socially irresponsible and utterly unjustifiable; urges United Biscuits to bear in mind that: (a) no strike has occurred at their Liverpool factory since the turn of the century, (b) of their five factories, Liverpool recorded the highest increase in productivity last year and (c) as there are currently 15,740 people registered as unemployed at the local employment office, while only 143 jobs are available, alternative jobs will not be available for redundant employees; therefore, further urges the management of United Biscuits to think again; calls on the Department of Employment to meet the Trade Union Co-ordination Committee and United Biscuits management as a matter of urgency; and warns Her Majesty's Government that if nothing is done to alleviate unemployment in Liverpool it will simply sow the seeds of bitterness, anger, militancy and crime.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for an early statement to be made to the House about whether the Secretary of State for the Environment is to assume the title "Minister for Merseyside"?
Mr. Biffen: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. Of course, he will appreciate that, if Friday's business stands, it will be perfectly possible to discuss unemployment then.
Mr. Reg Prentice: Given the widespread public discussion of the principle of electoral reform among supporters of all political parties, and the strong support shown for the principle in a recent Gallup poll, should not the House hold an early debate on this subject?
Mr. Biffen: All I can say is that such a debate is certainly not provided for next week.
Mr. Joe Ashton: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his answer about the chief constable writing his memoirs on the Yorkshire ripper? Is he aware that, although the Prime Minister shed crocodile tears last week about their publication, a report in today's edition of the Sheffield Morning Telegraph states that the Home Office was notified on 8 June that they were to be

705
published, and that action could have been taken by the Attorney-General under the Official Secrets Act during the past two or three weeks to stop publication? The Prime Minister and her Government did nothing to stop publication. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Attorney-General to make a statement on that next week?
Mr. Biffen: In response to that request, I shall, of course, ensure that the Attorney-General is made aware of that point.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) about the appointment of the departmental Select Committees? Does he realise that a considerable time passes from the announcement of an inquiry until it has got under way, because papers and research work have to be prepared? It would be of considerable use to the Committees if they could be appointed before the summer recess and could have just one meeting before then, so that they could set their programmes in train and operate properly from the moment that we return in November.
Mr. Biffen: I am sensitive to the points that my hon. Friend has put, but they must be weighed alongside other considerations, and I cannot go beyond what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw).
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who are rising in their places, but I would ask for brief questions to the Leader of the House.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Has the Leader of the House noted the ambiguity in the comments made yesterday at Question Time by the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, in reference to regional policy and the in-depth review currently taking place in the Department of Industry? May we have an assurance that, before the review is announced, there will be a full opportunity for the regional groups in the House and the House as a whole to debate regional strategy?
Mr. Biffen: I shall draw that point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's concern for a debate on the issue.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: Having listened most carefully to what my right hon. Friend said, not only last night but today, may I also reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) about Select Committees? May I add one other reason why this issue should be considered perhaps even more urgently? The Select Committees are supported by a substantial and expensive staff who serve the House of Commons. It is not desirable that they should be less than fully employed for four or five months.
Mr. Biffen: I note what my hon. Friend has said, but having made that statement at the conclusion of the debate last night it would be wholly misleading if I said that I thought that there could be a speedy change.
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Given that the Government's economic policies have led to the closure of dozens of factories and the loss of 50,000 jobs
706
on Merseyside, and that those policies were decisively rejected by that area's electorate, may we have an early debate on Merseyside and be given a clear idea what the Government propose for that area's industrial and economic regeneration?
Mr. Biffen: There is no plan in the business that has been announced for a debate to be held specifically on Merseyside, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to make his speech if Friday's business stands.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Given the importance of yesterday's decision of the Court of Session in the Strathclyde case to all those in the country who are opposed to the compulsory mass medication of public drinking water, and as the case concluded that fluoridation in Scotland was unlawful, will my right hon. Friend find an early opportunity for a Minister to make a statement in the House about the implications of that decision for public water fluoridation in the rest of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly make that point known to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
Mr. John Morris: Given that today is the deadline for a decision by the EC on the British Steel Corporation's corporate plan, and given the importance that the Government attach to investment at Port Talbot Steel, when can we expect a statement from the Minister on the recent discussions?
Mr. Biffen: I shall consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and hope to inform the House accordingly.
Mr. John Spence: Given what my right hon. Friend has said about Select Committee reports generally, may I draw his attention to the important report of the Select Committee on Agriculture, entitled "Organisation and Financing of Agricultural Research and Development"? It covers an important area and when my right hon. Friend has read the report I do not think that he will disagree with what we have to say. There is an awful lot to be done in this country to bring ourselves up to date on agricultural research. In deciding his priorities for Select Committee reports, will my right hon. Friend give top priority to a debate on the report?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly bear that in mind.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House take into account an alternative point of view on the setting up of Select Committees since a few of us voted against their establishment on a grand scale a few years ago? Will he also take into account the fact that the arguments put forward by many of his hon. Friends and by the Liberals and the SDP about the setting up of the Select Committees before the summer recess leads me to the conclusion that some of them are worried about whether they will have to pay for their own holidays or whether they will get them on the cheap?
Mr. Biffen: The wisest thing for me to do is to say that I note that interesting contribution to our debate.
Mr. Richard Alexander: Among the great and weighty matters that my right hon. Friend must consider, will he include the plight of new Members, most of whom still do not have a desk at which to work? Is he aware that yesterday I saw one hon. Member, whose

707
name, and therefore party, I do not know, who felt obliged to work from the floor of the cloakroom of the House of Commons? The Dissolution of the last Parliament removed 635 hon. Members and the new Parliament saw the introduction of 650 Members. In view of that and as most Ministers have been appointed for two weeks or so, surely it should not have been beyond the wit of those responsible by now to have given new hon. Members decent conditions in which to work.
Mr. Biffen: The Serjeant-at-Arms is doing a first-class job in this respect, but there are bound to be initial difficulties. I think that to be here is a great privilege and that one should put up with a certain amount of initial adversity in accommodation.
Mr. John Home Robertson: In view of what the Prime Minister said half an hour ago about the right of self-determination, would it not be appropriate if the Scottish business that the Leader of the House has scheduled for next week were dealt with in the Scottish Grand Committee?
Mr. Biffen: No, I think that that is a treat in which we are all invited to share.
Mr. W. Benyon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us listened with great interest and some pleasure to his remarks last night about the Select Committee on Procedure? Is he further aware that he will cause grave disappointment to both sides of the House if the appointment of the Committee is delayed until after the beginning of the recess?
Mr. Biffen: There are recognised modalities for securing the establishment of the Select Committee on Procedure. My speech was designed to be consistent with those and not to stray one millimetre beyond them.
Mr. Alfred Dubs: What attitude will the Leader of the House take to the Special Standing Committee procedure in the coming session? If he is not too enthusiastic about it, will he at least give us the chance to debate it? Does he agree that, had we had the benefit of that procedure, the Government might have averted the muddle they found themselves in on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill in the last Session?
Mr. Biffen: There will be at least two views on the hon. Gentleman's conclusions. It would be wise if one proceeded to consider such a procedure on its merits for those Bills for which it was thought to be appropriate.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: Is my right hon. Friend aware of our disappointment that there was nothing in the Gracious Speech about the implementation of the Cork committee report? Is he further aware that the implementation of this important reform would go some way to reduce the unnecessary loss of jobs? Will he seek to provide time for a debate on this important reform?
Mr. Biffen: I note my hon. Friend's disappointment. He will, I am sure, understand that there is tremendous pressure on the legislative time available. I will bear in mind his views on the desirability of an early debate.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, shortly before the end of the last Parliament, some of us, including the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), had high hopes of a debate on the Civil Service? Will there be such a debate or will that he dispatched to oblivion as well?
Mr. Biffen: The Civil Service is always with us and is unlikely ever to be dispatched into oblivion as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but I will bear in mind what he so charmingly says.
Mrs. Renée Short: When will we have time to debate the Select Committee report on the age of retirement? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Members on both sides of the House are interested in the subject and they will be greatly aided in the debate if they can have the Department's response beforehand?
Mr. Biffen: I will make representations to the Department concerning the desirability of a response by it to the Select Committee's report. I can offer no prospect of an early debate on the report as such. As I said earlier, in these affairs we must try to integrate the consideration of these reports with other relevant business.
Mr. Roger Moate: May I refer my right hon. Friend to the several early-day motions on the Order Paper concerning postal voting and, in particular, to early-day motion 2?
[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to invite Mr. Speaker to call a conference to consider the present system of postal and proxy voting, particularly with a view to: (a) providing voting arrangements for electors away on holiday, (b) ensuring the adequacy of arrangements for service voters and their families and (c) providing adequate notice for those eligible for postal votes.]
As my right hon. Friend has now had a further week to consider these matters, may we expect a Government initiative on the subject?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend will be aware that the issues that he mentioned are the subject of a recommendation from the Select Committee on Home Affairs. That recommendation is now with the Home Office and I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: If the Government are not to accede to the request from the Opposition Front Bench on Tuesday night for a public inquiry under an Appeal Court judge such as Lord Scarman or Lord Devlin, what proposals do they have for giving a serious and detailed reply to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and others who, at great length and in detail, have raised questions on the Belgrano that deserve answers?
Mr. Biffen: We believe that the Franks inquiry dealt comprehensively with this topic.
Mr. Dalyell: He did not cover that.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the Leader of the House study the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech yesterday and note the absence of any real proposals to deal with mass unemployment? I press the right hon. Gentleman further on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) and by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that an early debate on the Think Tank report is now essential in view of the unemployment on Merseyside.
Mr. Biffen: I note the hon. Gentleman's comment, but I cannot add to what I have already said to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk).
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one who gave evidence to Lord Franks and his committee, I can say that Lord Franks' opening remark to me was that nothing after—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me.
Mr. Biffen: It might be helpful to the House generally to say that I misunderstood and did not properly take the hon. Gentleman's point. My suggestion that the Franks report covered it was wholly erroneous. That said, I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's point and refer it to the relevant Minister.
Mr. Dalyell: Thank you very much.
Mr. John Silkin: When is the defence White Paper likely to be published, and how soon afterwards may we have our usual debate?
Mr. Biffen: I am not yet in a position to give a specific date, but I hope that it will be published quite soon and that a debate will take place before we rise for the summer recess.

Ways and Means

  INCOME TAX (CHARGE OF HIGHER RATES FOR 1983–84)
  3.58 pm
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Rees): I beg to move,
  That income tax for the year 1983–84 shall be charged—

  (a) in respect of so much of an individual's total income as exceeds £14,600 at such higher rates as are specified in the Table below; and

  (b) in respect of so much of the investment income included in an individual's total income as exceeds £7,100 at the additional rate of 15 per cent.

  TABLE

  Part of excess over £14,600

  Higher rate

  The first £2,600

  40 per cent.

  The next £4,600

  45 per cent.

  The next £7,100

  50 per cent.

  The next £7,100

  55 per cent.

  The remainder

  60 per cent.

  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
  As the House will see, these motions open the way for the Finance Bill, which the House will debate next week and which is designed largely to restore various clauses which had to be dropped from the earlier Finance Bill because of the imminence of the general election.
  3.59 pm
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: In welcoming the Chief Secretary to our debate, I must tell him that he is coming on to well-chewed food, as we have discussed these matters at considerable length. I also offer my good wishes to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I happen to hold a minority opinion in the House, although not on the Opposition Benches, that the last Finance Act of the previous Government was the best one that they produced. It was the only good one, mainly because of the part played by my hon. Friends who filled their notable role in its final production. It was the only good one because it raised income tax thresholds for the ordinary man and woman and did not widen the gap between the rich and the poor.
  I recall the Government's threats to reintroduce some of the lost clauses of the previous Finance Bill, and we see some of them in regurgitated form in the motions before us. We shall, of course, express ourselves amply and fully in the various stages of the Finance Bill produced as a result of these Ways and Means motions, and that will take place in the next week or so.
  At the time of the Budget motions in March, we did not divide the House on the motions that have now been presented to us. The only one on which we intend to vote is the first. This is the most offensive, as it continues the Government's philosophy by giving to those with the highest incomes the greatest tax reliefs. The other matters will appear in greater detail in the Finance Bill and they will be subject to the same examination, scrutiny, debate and opposition as we have always provided for the Government's fiscal proposals.
  4 pm
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know so well in your high office, on which Liberal Members warmly congratulate you, the motions before us are a key part of the House of Commons' fundamental responsibility for taxation.

  711
  Although I and my hon. Friends are quite content to go along with the proposal of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) to have, as it were, a token vote, it is nevertheless inappropriate that the debate should be greatly foreshortened simply because some hon. Members, though not the 150 new hon. Members, have been over this ground before. I take slight issue with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that we have discussed these matters at great length before, because, although that is literally true of some of us, it is not true of the 150 new Members.
  I am sure that Treasury Ministers will not take refuge in the threadbare alibi that all this can be debated satisfactorily in a one-day Second Reading debate. So many matters will be covered in the Finance Bill that it will be impossible for every party now represented in the House to cover the important ground contained in these proposals.
  It may be suggested that because Treasury Ministers have simply dragged a dead sheep out of the freezer and brought its form back to the House exactly as it was in March we need not go over the ground again. However, since the middle of March the economy has changed substantially and is in quite different shape. For example, mortgage interest rates have risen substantially, the rate of inflation looks as if it is beginning to rise again, and the balance of trade appears to have deteriorated sharply. We cannot be complacent and take the view that all that was said by some hon. Members in the middle of March covers the ground today.
  I should make it plain that, just as they did in March, Liberal Members continue strongly to oppose three of the motions. The first is the raising of all income bands subject to higher taxation by an appalling 14 per cent. —two and a half times the appropriate rate of inflation. Secondly, we continue to oppose strongly the raising of the mortgage threshold on which tax relief is given. Thirdly, we oppose, as we did previously, the sharp reductions in capital transfer tax.
  On the raising of mortgage interest relief thresholds, the Prime Minister said that
  "in the big cities of the south-east about one third of new mortgages are for more than £25,000".
  That was the sole point on which the right hon. Lady based her defence for bringing the proposal back to the House three months after it first appeared.
  In reply to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who was as pertinent as ever, the Prime Minister said:
  "The demand for mortgages is so great that the building societies must obtain more savings to meet that demand, which has arisen because Tory Governments give greater opportunities for home ownership".—[Official Report, 22 June 1983; Vol. 44, c. 5–55.]
  I assent to that proposition entirely, and that is why we object to this move. As the Prime Minister made so crystal clear, if the Government encourage some people to take out larger mortgages, thus adding to the excessive demand, there is bound to be an increase in the interest rate for everyone.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman registers an objection. Does he intend to take it as far as voting against these motions?
  Mr. Wainwright: I have already explained that I assent to the token vote proposition, because there is no purpose in asking hon. Members to vote on everything
  712
  —[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]— but we shall take our opposition to the country and make it plain in our vote on Second Reading of the Finance Bill—
  Mr. David Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on this point?
  Mr. Wainwright: I shall incur the wrath of the Chair if I give way any further.
  How right Sam Brittan was when he said in the Financial Times, on the day after the Budget in March, that
  "this is the type of distortion which does more to raise interest rates than a quite substantial increase in the Budget deficit would do".
  Mr. Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wainwright: I will now.
  Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whose argument I am following closely. As he knows, he has expressed the views of Labour Members. During the election campaign, did the Liberal party or did the Liberal leader make clear that objection to raising the tax relief on higher mortgages?
  Mr. Wainwright: I am surprised at that question. It is precisely 20 years since the Liberal party published its policy on mortgage interest relief, and up and down the land I have been eloquent in commending it ever since.
  It follows from the Prime Minister's excellent analysis of the economics of encouraging larger mortgages that, when additional tax relief is given on larger mortgages, the building societies will be in a worse demand-supply position, and that is bound to mean higher interest rates. Thus, the average first-time buyer—and it was the first-time buyer about whom the Prime Minister was so deeply concerned — will gain no benefit whatever from this proposal but will suffer considerable harm as a result of the higher interest rates which he or she will have to pay.
  It may already be well known that at present the average mortgage taken out by first-time buyers is reported by the Nationwide Building Society to be about £18,690 and by the Leeds Permanent Building Society, as of last month, to be £16,634. It will be seen from those figures that the means of the average first-time buyer are a long way off even the present threshold of £25,000. Even those in the big cities of the south-east will in the end be no better off, because of the extra interest that they will have to pay.
  There are many big cities outside the south-east. As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know from your constituency, the aggregate urban population is larger elsewhere in the country than it is in London. I have made some brief inquiries of the daily and 13 evening newspapers in that area, including Liverpool, Leeds, Bradford, Manchester and Sheffield. It is clear that the typical house sought after by the first-time buyer is available on the market. There are perfectly reasonable properties at between £15,000 and £20,000 — miles away from the present maximum figure.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: Did the Liberal party vote against this Ways and Means motion in March?
  Mr. Wainwright: No one voted against this Ways and Means motion in March. We all went along with the civilised view that one or two votes on these motions were sufficient to register our disapproval pending the arrival of the Finance Bill.

  713
  One of the features of this largest aggregate of urban population is that, for the first time in many years, that area has returned a substantial number of Conservative Members. I am sure that all of them, being diligent representatives of constituents, will consider carefully whether there is a single first-time home buyer in their constituencies who needs to borrow more than £25,000. All the rest will be put at a serious disadvantage by the effects of this proposal. Certainly, constituencies such as Dewsbury, Pudsey, Batley and Spen and Calder Valley will find that that is the position.
  Mortgage tax relief in its present form and context ought to have been allowed to wither on the vine. Why should there be tax relief on adding a room to one's home when there is no tax relief on borrowing money to buy anything else as an adjunct to the quality of life? I ask Treasury Ministers why there is no tax relief on interest of £100 a year—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Wainwright: I shall not give way — incurred solely to acquire an asset that brings in a taxable income of £200 a year? How can the Treasury Ministers say that they will tax credits but conveniently ignore the essentially linked debits? To pick out one form of expenditure and borrowing on which to give tax relief is unjustifiable and primitive and flies in the face of all business sense. It is a symbol of Victorian superstition about bricks and mortar which the House ought to forget as soon as possible.
  4.12 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: During the course of the debate, Labour Members showed some zeal for voting against motion No. 3. It was not intimated beforehand by the Labour Front Bench spokesman, who told me that they would be unwilling to vote against this provision for reasons which they might like to explain. [Interruption.] Therefore, we can use the procedures of the House to give those hon. Members the opportunity to vote with us against the motion.
  4.13 pm
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: Perhaps the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) did not hear what I said. I made it clear that no one voted against the Ways and Means motion on the Budget. That does not preclude us from any decision on any of these motions or any other clauses of the Finance Bill as they come up and are debated in the House. That is the position and always was.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 115.

  Division No. 4]

  [4.15 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Alexander, Richard

  Bellingham, Henry

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Benyon, William

  Amess, David

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Arnold, Tom

  Best, Keith

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Blackburn, John

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Peter

  Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)

  Body, Richard

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Baldry, Anthony

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Batiste, Spencer

  Bright, Graham

  714

  Brinton, Tim

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Key, Robert

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  King, Roger (B'ham, N'field)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Knight, Mrs. Jill (Edgbaston)

  Budgen, Nick

  Knowles, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Lang, Ian

  Butterfill, John

  Latham, Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Carttiss, Michael

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Chope, Christopher

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Clark, Michael (Rochford)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Lester, Jim

  Cockeram, Eric

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Colvin, Michael

  Lilley, Peter

  Conway, Derek

  Lord, Michael

  Coombs, Simon

  Luce, Richard

  Cope, John

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Couchman, James

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Cranbourne, Viscount

  Major, John

  Crouch, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Currie, Mrs. Edwina

  Maples, John

  Dicks, T.

  Marland, Paul

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Mates, Michael

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Mather, Carol

  Dykes, Hugh

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Evennett, David

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Eyre, Reginald

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Fallon, Michael

  Mellor, David

  Favell, Anthony

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Mills, Sir Peter (Devon, West)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Moate, Roger

  Fox, Marcus

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Franks, Cecil

  Moore, John

  Fraser, Sir Hugh

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S.)

  Freeman, Roger

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Gale, Roger

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Galley, Roy

  Murphy, Christopher

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Needham, Richard

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Norris, Steven

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Onslow, Cranley

  Greenway, Harry

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gregory, Conal

  Page, Richard (Herts, SW)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Pawsey, James

  Ground, Patrick

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Porter, Barry

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Powley, John

  Hannam, John

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Price, Sir David

  Harvey, Robert

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Raffan, Keith

  Hawksley, Warren

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hayes, J.

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Hayward, Robert

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Heathcoat-Amery, David

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Heddle, John

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Hickmet, Richard

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Rost, Peter

  Hirst, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Ryder, Richard

  Hordern, Peter

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Howard, Michael

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Silvester, Fred

  Hunter, Andrew

  Sims, Roger

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  715

  Speller, Tony

  Trippier, David

  Spence, John

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Spencer, D.

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Spicer, Michael (Worcs, S)

  Waddington, David

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Stern, Michael

  Walden, George

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Waller, Gary

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Wardle, C. (Boxhill)

  Stokes, John

  Watson, John

  Sumberg, David

  Watts, John

  Tapsell, Peter

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Wheeler, John

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Whitfield, John

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Woodcock, Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich, N)

  Yeo, Tim

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford, S)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Thurnham, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mr. David Hunt and

  Tracey, Richard

  Mr. Michael Neubert.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Alton, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  John, Brynmor

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Ashton, Joe

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Bagier, Gordon A.T.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Barron, Kevin

  Lloyd, Anthony (Stretford)

  Beckett, Mrs. Margaret

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Beith, A. J.

  Loyden, Edward

  Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Bermingham, Gerald

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Bidwell, Sydney

  McKelvey, William

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Maclennan, Robert

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Madden, Max

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

  Marek, John

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Buchan, Norman

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Callaghan, Rt. Hon. J.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Clarke, Thomas (Monkl'nds)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Cohen, Harry

  Nellist, David

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Corbett, Robin

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Patchett, Terry

  Cowans, Harry

  Penhaligon, David

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Pike, Peter

  Davies, Rt. Hon. Denzil (L'lli)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Randall, Stuart

  Deakins, Eric

  Redmond, M.

  Dixon, Donald

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Dobson, Frank

  Richardson, Jo

  Dormand, Jack

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Douglas, Dick

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Rooker, J. W.

  Dunwoody, Mrs. G.

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Rowlands, Ted

  Faulds, Andrew

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Fisher, Mark

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Forrester, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Foster, Derek

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

  Freud, Clement

  Soley, Clive

  George, Bruce

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Straw, Jack

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Thompson, J, (Wansbeck)

  Haynes, Frank

  Tinn, James

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Wainwright, R.

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Wallace, James

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Wareing, Robert

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Welsh, Michael

  716

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Wilson, Gordon

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winnick, David

  Mr. Allen McKay and

  Woodall, Alec

  Mr. Mr. Norman Hogg.

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That income tax for the year 1983–84 shall be charged—

  (a) in respect of so much of an individual's total income as exceeds £14,600 at such higher rates as are specified in the Table below; and

  (b) in respect of so much of the investment income included in an individual's total income as exceeds £7,100 at the additional rate of 15 per cent.

  TABLE

  Part of excess over £14,600

  Higher rate

  The first £2,600

  40 per cent.

  The next £4,600

  45 per cent.

  The next £7,100

  50 per cent.

  The next £7,100

  55 per cent.

  The remainder

  60 per cent.

  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I am now required under Standing Order No. 114(3) to put successively and without further debate the Question on each of the Ways and Means motions Nos. 2 to 9.
  Does any hon. Member wish to divide the House on any of those motions?
  Mr. Beith: We wish to divide on Motion No. 3, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, instead of reading out each motion in extenso, I propose to follow the procedure used in recent years. That is to say, I shall first state the title of the motion and then simply put the Question, That the motion be agreed to.

  CORPORATION TAX (SMALL COMPANIES)
  Motion made, and Question,
  That—

  (a) for the financial year 1982 the fraction by reference to which corporation tax charged on income is reduced under subsection (2) of section 95 of the Finance Act 1972 shall be seven two-hundredths; and

  (b) for that financial year and subsequent financial years, subsection (3) of that section shall have effect with the substitution for any reference to £90,000 of a reference to £100,000 and for any reference to £225,000 of a reference to £500,000; and

  (c) where, by virtue of paragraph (b) above, section 95 of the Finance Act 1972 has effect with different relevant amounts in relation to different parts of the same accounting period, those parts shall be treated for the purposes of that section as if they were separate accounting periods and the profits and income of the company for that period (as defined in that section) shall be apportioned between those parts. — [Mr. Peter Rees.]

  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 114 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  RELIEF FOR INTEREST (LIMIT FOR 1983–84)
  Motion made, and Question,
  That, for the year 1983–84,—

  (a) the limit imposed by paragraph 5 of Schedule I to the Finance Act 1974 shall, subject to any reduction to be made under that paragraph, be £30,000 and, accordingly, for any reference in sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph to £25,000 there shall be substituted a reference to £30,000; and

  717

  (b) for any reference in paragraph 24(3) of that Schedule to £25,000 there shall be substituted a reference to £30,000.

  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.—[Mr. Peter Rees.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 114 (Ways and Means Motions):—
  The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 21.

  Division No. 5]

  [4.27 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Franks, Cecil

  Alexander, Richard

  Fraser, Sir Hugh

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Freeman, Roger

  Amess, David

  Gale, Roger

  Arnold, Tom

  Galley, Roy

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Baldry, Anthony

  Gorst, John

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Greenway, Harry

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gregory, Conal

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Ground, Patrick

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Grylls, Michael

  Best, Keith

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Blackburn, John

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Blaker, Rt Hon Peter

  Hannam, John

  Body, Richard

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Bottomley, Peter

  Harvey, Robert

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Hawksley, Warren

  Bright, Graham

  Hayes, J.

  Brinton, Tim

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Hayward, Robert

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Heathcoat-Amery, David

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Heddle, John

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Hickmet, Richard

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Budgen, Nick

  Hirst, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Hordern, Peter

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Howard, Michael

  Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Chope, Christopher

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Clark, Michael (Rochford)

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hunter, Andrew

  Colvin, Michael

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Conway, Derek

  Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Coombs, Simon

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Cope, John

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Couchman, James

  Key, Robert

  Cranbourne, Viscount

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Crouch, David

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

  Dicks, T.

  Knowles, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lang, Ian

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Latham, Michael

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Evennett, David

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fallon, Michael

  Lester, Jim

  Favell, Anthony

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Lilley, Peter

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Lord, Michael

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Luce, Richard

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Fox, Marcus

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  718

  Major, John

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Mallins, Humphrey

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Maples, John

  Silvester, Fred

  Marland, Paul

  Sims, Roger

  Mates, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Mather, Carol

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Speller, Tony

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Spence, John

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Spencer, D.

  Mellor, David

  Spicer, Michael (Worcs, S)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Stern, Michael

  Mills, Iain (Meridan)

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Mills, Sir Peter (Devon, West)

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Moate, Roger

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Stokes, John

  Moore, John

  Sumberg, David

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Murphy, Christopher

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Neale, Gerrard

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Needham, Richard

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Neubert, Michael

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich, N)

  Norris, Steven

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford, S)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Ottaway, Richard

  Thurnham, Peter

  Page, Richard (Herts, SW)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Pawsey, James

  Tracey, Richard

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Trippier, David

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Porter, Barry

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Waddington, David

  Powley, John

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Walden, George

  Price, Sir David

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Waller, Gary

  Raffan, Keith

  Wardle, C. (Boxhill)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Watson, John

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Watts, John

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Wheeler, John

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Whitfield, John

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Wood, Timothy

  Rost, Peter

  Woodcock, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew

  Yeo, Tim

  Ryder, Richard

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Mr. Archie Hamilton and

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Mr. Douglas Hogg.

  NOES

  Alton, David

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Dixon, Donald

  Wallace, James

  Freud, Clement

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Wilson, Gordon

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Penhaligon, David

  Tellers for the Noes

  Richardson, Jo

  Mr. A. J. Beith and

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Mr. Richard Wainwright

  Rooker, J, W.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the agreement of the House I shall put the remaining motions together.

  LOANS OBTAINED BY REASONS Of EMPLOYMENT
  Motion made, and Question,
  That provision may be made amending Part III of Schedule 8 to the Finance Act 1976—[Mr. Peter Rees.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 114 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  RELIEF FOR INVESTMENT IN CORPORATE TRADES
  Motion made, and Question,
  That provision may be made amending Schedule 5 to the Finance Act 1983.—[Mr. Peter Rees.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 114 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  DWELLING-HOUSES LET ON ASSURED TENANCIES
  Motion made, and Question,
  That provision may be made amending Schedule 12 to the Finance Act 1982 and section 34(4) of the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979 in relation to allowances under that Schedule.—[Mr. Peter Rees.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 114 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  BOUNDARY CHANGES: CAPITAL GAINS TAX AND STAMP DUTY
  Motion made, and Question,
  That relief from capital gains tax and stamp duty may be made by provisions relating to property transferred from and to local constituency associations of political parties in consequence of a reorganisation of constituencies resulting from an Order in Council under section 3 of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949.—[Mr. Peter Rees.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 114 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  CAPITAL TRANSFER TAX
  Motion made, and Question,
  That—

  (a) section 91(1) of the Finance Act 1982 (indexation of rate bands) shall not apply to chargeable transfers made in the year beginning with 6th April 1983;

  (b) for the Tables in section 37(3) of the Finance Act 1975 there shall be substituted with respect to chargeable transfers made on or after 15th March 1983 the Tables set out below—

  FIRST TABLE

  Portion of value

  Rate of tax

  Lower limit

  Upper limit

  £

  £

  Per cent.

  0

  60,000

  Nil

  60,000

  80,000

  30

  80,000

  110,000

  35

  Portion of value

  Rate of tax

  Lower limit

  Upper limit

  £

  £

  Per cent.

  110,000

  140,000

  40

  140,000

  175,000

  45

  175,000

  220,000

  50

  220,000

  270,000

  55

  270,000

  700,000

  60

  700,000

  1,325,000

  65

  1,325,000

  2,650,000

  70

  2,650,000

  —

  75

  SECOND TABLE

  Portion of value

  Rate of tax

  Lower limit

  Upper limit

  £

  £

  Per cent.

  0

  60,000

  Nil

  60,000

  80,000

  15

  80,000

  110,000

  17½

  110,000

  140,000

  20

  140,000

  175,000

  22½

  175,000

  220,000

  25

  220,000

  270,000

  30

  270,000

  700,000

  35

  700,000

  1,325,000

  40

  1,325,000

  2,650,000

  45

  2,650,000

  —

  50

  (c) provision may be made amending section 28 of the Finance Act 1975 (burden of tax) and the law relating to capital transfer tax so far as it applies with respect to gifts to charities, relief for business and agricultural property, the payment of tax by instalments and the domicile of certain persons.—[Mr. Peter Rees.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 114 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

  DEVELOPMENT LAND TAX (TELECOMMUNICATIONS)
  Motion made, and Question,
  That provision may be made amending the definition of "development" for the purposes of the Development Land Tax Act 1976 so as to exclude certain operations relating to telecommunication cables and other equipment.—[Mr. Peter Rees.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 114 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Peter Rees, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, Mr. John Moore and Mr. Barney Hayhoe.

  FINANCE
  Bill to grant certain duties, to alter other duties and to amend the law relating to the National Debt and the Public Revenue, and to make further provision in connection with finance, presented accordingly by Mr. Nicholas Ridley and read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 6.]

Cable Systems and Services
4.39 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): I beg to move,
That this House approves the White Paper on the Development of Cable Systems and Services (Cmnd. 8866).
The White Paper, which was published on 27 April, reflects the considerable work undertaken since the publication of the report of the Prime Minister's information technology advisory panel in March 1982. That report brought to public notice the benefits to the United Kingdom of promoting the development of wideband cable systems.
The opportunities that cable expansion presents have become apparent. Until now, scarcity of channels has dominated attitudes towards broadcasting. Cable has changed all that, because it creates the possibility of greater increases in choice for the viewer. More important still, it offers new scope for a wide range of two-way services. Over time, that will yield important economic benefits in the form of more efficient working methods, swifter business transactions and higher productivity. Cabling Britain will be an investment in tomorrow's growth and jobs, and in the country's future.
The Government's role is to create conditions in which those opportunities can be maximised. We cannot guarantee that the potential benefits of cable can ultimately be fully realised, but we believe that it is not for the Government to be satisfied that the future success of cable is assured before taking the steps that can allow expansion to take place. Our task is not to make constant judgments about what forms of economic activity may or may not succeed and then to give the go-ahead only to those which we believe to be viable. Rather, it is to establish the financial and regulatory framework within which customer satisfaction and economic progress can be achieved while the public interest is safeguarded.
What is clear about cable is that many people believe that the demand exists and can be met profitably, and that in the process the country as a whole will reap the benefits to which I have referred. The Government believe that those who not only predict a bright future for cable, but who are prepared to make the investment to bring it about, should be encouraged rather than inhibited. If they succeed, we shall all gain. If they fail, it is part of the risk that private enterprise assumes in a market economy. The investment and the risk are theirs alone, and they do not look to the state for aid or subsidy.
Nevertheless, we have recognised all along that the Government must take some issues into account when judging how unfettered the freedom should be. If we are to contemplate the expansion by market forces of television-type entertainment, it is entirely right that we should reflect on the implications that that has for our system of public service broadcasting. It is for that reason that, when the report of the information technology advisory panel was published 15 months ago, my right hon. Friend and predecessor, Viscount Whitelaw, set up an independent inquiry into the broadcasting policy aspects of cable expansion, under the chairmanship of Lord Hunt of Tanworth. As the House knows, the White Paper is largely founded on the inquiry's report, which we debated last December.
Our broadcasting policy has been based, inevitably, on the need to make the best use, in the public interest, of the
722
limited frequencies that are available for television and radio services to the public. That has meant much regulation and control. With the possibility of many more channels and far wider choice, the regulation and control required are much reduced. An important distinction must be made between control in the form of the imposition of positive requirements and control in the form of the imposition of negative limitations.
If only one television channel is available, it is reasonable to impose a positive requirement that it should offer a carefully balanced service of information, education and entertainment, catering for as wide a range of interests as possible. However, the more channels there are, the less justification there is for imposing such requirements. However, that does not mean that unfettered freedom should be given to cable programmes.
There are two reasons why, although we should no longer make detailed, positive demands of the new services, some defensive constraint is still necessary. First, the analogy of publishing has been used to defend a policy of total liberalisation for cable use. But, as the Hunt inquiry concluded, that falls down because there is a real difference between the act of going out to buy a book or magazine of one's choice, and the turning of a switch on a television set bringing programmes direct into the family living room. There must be a more careful setting of standards in the latter case than in the former.
Secondly, for some time to come, cable will serve only a minority of the population. If, during that period, it were allowed to cream off, from the broadcasting services available to all, the attractive programmes for which cable subscribers were prepared to pay, that would not be defensible. To avoid that, the Hunt inquiry recommended some safeguards to protect those viewers solely reliant on public service broadcasting. The safeguards, with some modifications, are set out in the White Paper.
We cannot be sure—indeed, no one can be sure—at this stage how cable will develop and what effects its expansion might have in the long term on public service broadcasting. However, the evolution of our broadcasting system is inevitable, and we should not try to restrict its development to the pattern of the past. Therefore, our concern is to establish a framework for a flexible, orderly future development, while preserving the value of what we already have. That is the approach of the White Paper.
We shall bring before the House in this Session a Bill based on the proposals in the White Paper. It will set up the new cable authority and give it the powers to grant franchises for the operation of cable systems and to supervise, albeit with a light touch, the services that they provide. Therefore, the House will have a full opportunity in due course to consider the details of the future regulation of cable and of the cable authority's constitution, powers and procedure.
My object today in moving the motion that the House approves the White Paper is not to set its proposals in concrete or to restrict the right of Parliament to decide the contents of the legislation. But the Government believe it important that Parliament should approve the broad framework of our legislative proposals and the limited steps that we propose to take in the meantime before legislation is enacted.
Chapter 8 of the White Paper explains why, to maintain the momentum for the expansion of cable systems, we have concluded that we should not wait for an Act of Parliament before industry can make a start in developing

723
cable technology and new cable services. We have done much during the past 15 months to encourage thinking and planning for the future of cable. New companies have been formed, and many existing companies have built up teams of experts to undertake technical planning. Detailed proposals have been worked out for new cable systems and services. It would be a tragedy if, by saying to industry that nothing further can happen until an Act of Parliament is on the statute book and the cable authority can start to take decisions, we failed to take advantage of that interest, enthusiasm and commitment.
I shall return to the details of the Government's interim proposals, but, first, I should review briefly what the White Paper proposes overall. Chapter 2 deals with cable technology, on which my hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology can expand. However, the most important technological points are well understood. They are that the Government will not for the moment prescribe either the cable material to be used or the system design to be adopted. It will be for cable providers to decide whether to use coaxial cable or optical fibre, and whether to lay their systems on a tree-and-branch design or a star-switched basis. However, underground ducts must be laid in a star configuration to allow for future conversion to that design, which has longer-term attractions. The approach is to avoid inhibiting development by too much interference, while providing for and encouraging future progress.
Chapter 3 deals with the new cable authority, which will he responsible for the general promotion of cable development, for the grant of franchises for the operation of local cable systems, for the general regulation of programme services and for the oversight of cable operators and their performance. The Government accepted the recommendation of the Hunt inquiry that those were tasks for which a new central body was required.
The White Paper, like the Hunt report, proposes that the cable authority will not exercise constant scrutiny of the activities of cable operators. I have explained why I think that that is right. Supervision will be kept to the minimum. In addition to dealing with any complaints that operators may not be conforming to the conditions of their licences, the cable authority will have some specific interests—for example, on the use of British material, which I shall come to in a moment—and will need to assure itself that operators live up to the promises on which the franchise was awarded.
Chapter 4 sets out in more detail what the franchising and licensing process will comprise. The cable authority will be responsible for deciding on the areas for each franchise. It will be required to advertise each franchise and to consider competing bids. Paragraph 65 of the White Paper sets out the criteria against which franchise applications should be judged.
Chapter 4 also lays down the restrictions that the Government propose to place on the ownership of cable operators. Those are designed to avoid the political or religious domination of local systems or control by foreign companies. The cable authority in addition will be obliged to prevent the undue concentration of power and influence by existing media groups, so that, for example, the company which holds the ITV franchise for a particular area will not be allowed to control a cable system in the same area, though we do not rule out minority
724
participation. Monopoly power in broadcasting is, I am sure, a proper source of concern to Government and so a proper subject for regulation.
Chapter 4 also deals with the sanctions available to the cable authority. In the last resort, the authority can refuse to renew a franchise or even deprive the operator of his franchise at any time. Short of the ultimate sanction, the cable authority can forbid the showing of certain programmes or, if it considers the operator's performance less than satisfactory, to bring him within a closer measure of supervision by requiring, for example, the advance submission of programme schedules or programmes themselves.
Chapter 5 deals with some of the central issues of broadcasting policy that the Government considered in the light of the Hunt inquiry's recommendations. Some modifications to the Hunt proposals were thought appropriate. In some cases those are moves for more restriction, in others for less.
In the former category comes our proposal for advertising. The Hunt inquiry proposed no restrictions on it. The Government accept that cable should in general have greater freedom to use advertising, provided that comparable standards apply in its content. But the Government believe that it would be wrong to remove the restrictions on advertising on ITV and that, where cable services are of a kind analogous to ITV, the same restrictions should apply.
Foreign programme material is another matter on which we intend to place more stringent obligations on cable operators than Hunt proposed. The cable authority will be required to ensure that cable programmes use a proper proportion of British material, which is exactly the same obligation that the Broadcasting Act 1981 places on the IBA. The interpretation of what constitutes a proper proportion will be a matter for the cable authority itself, but it will be required to take into account the plans of cable operators in that respect before granting a franchise, and to work towards a progressive increase in the proportion of British material as cable establishes itself and production capability rises. Those changes are all on the side of greater restriction. There are others in the opposite direction.
We feel able to take a less restrictive attitude than Hunt suggested towards the means by which cable operators charge for their programme services. The inquiry considered that the risk of popular events being creamed off to cable, to the detriment of ordinary television viewers, pointed to a complete ban on pay-per-view arrangements, at least for the time being. However, it is common ground that there is scope for a good deal of pay-per-view which would add to the choice available to cable viewers without in any way diminishing the availability of popular events to the broadcast service. So we propose that pay-per-view should be allowed subject to the cable authority ensuring that no cable programme is offered on a pay-per-view basis if the result is to deprive the broadcast viewer of an event customarily shown on an existing channel. That protection will be underpinned by a ban on exclusive rights for a number of specified events of national importance. The approach is again to maximise choice and new viewing opportunities without jeopardising existing viewers' interests.
Mr. John Gorst: Would my right hon. and learned Friend make it quite clear that if a cinema

725
film were denied to the main channels because pay television offered more for it, that would be perfectly reasonable and acceptable, even though it was not consistent with what he has said?
Mr. Brittan: We are not envisaging such a position. The cable authority will not allow a cable programme to have something if it deprives the broadcast viewer of an event customarily shown on an existing channel. What my hon. Friend has in mind would not come within that.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: The question asked by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) is the one that must be answered—although I think that the hon. Gentleman and I will come down on different sides of the argument. The term "customarily shown" presumably means that cable could not take over "Coronation Street" and deprive parts of the country that usually enjoy that programme of the opportunity to see it. As "Chariots of Fire" is not customarily shown on television, presumably cable companies could acquire that film and deprive certain parts of the country of the opportunity to see it.
Mr. Brittan: I am not sure that I can accept the right hon. Gentleman's example of what would be covered. However, the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that if a perfectly ordinary film, which could not be described as being customarily shown on an existing channel, is bought by cable television, that would be all right.
Chapter 6 covers a number of other programming matters, most of which have not been the subject of controversy, but I should mention two points in particular which have. The White Paper proposes that cable systems should be obliged to carry all broadcasting services, including future services of direct broadcasting by satellite. That is because the Government take the view that broadcasting services should, as far as possible, be available to everyone in the United Kingdom, and the small number of frequencies available to us are allocated by the Government on that basis. I am aware of the strength of feeling in some parts of the cable business about certain of the implications of that rule, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Home Office will be meeting representatives of the industry to discuss those issues further. But I must make it clear that we think it right that those connected to cable systems should have access to the same range of services as those equipped with individual aerials. Therefore we have a firm commitment to the principle that cable must carry existing and future broadcast services.
The other programme in question, which gave rise to controversy—
Mr. Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend consider the cable authority as a means by which a fair rate might be determined between the BBC and the cable companies? There will be a problem about the BBC's commission payable to cable companies under the "must carry" principle, on the basis that we do not have a willing buyer and a willing seller position.
Mr. Brittan: As my hon. Friend knows, the proper amount to be paid will have to be discussed and negotiated. The White Paper envisages the possibility of arbitration in the last analysis if agreement cannot be
726
reached. For those broadcasting services that are not provided free—that is, provided on the basis of either a licence fee or advertising for which there is a subscription—a fee will have to be paid which will have to be negotiated.
The other programming question that gave rise to controversy related to taste and decency. Hunt proposed that the normal rules might be waived in relation to cable subscription channels which could be locked electronically to stop unsuitable material being seen by children. The Government's view on that is quite clear. All cable channels must observe the same taste and decency requirements to which the broadcasting authorities are subject, and there will be no exception. Moreover, cable channels will be made subject to the Obscene Publications Acts. I should emphasise that the liability of cable operators to the law of the land and to the sanctions of the cable authority will relate only to cable-originated programmes. We do not suggest that they should be held in any way responsible for those broadcast services that will be relayed by cable under the "must carry" obligation.
Chapter 7 deals with the telecommunications implications of cable expansion. With regard to chapter 8, I have already explained why the Government think it essential to move forward now without waiting for legislation. I shall now explain what we propose to do and for what it is that we seek Parliament's approval.
Sir Edward Gardner: There is one important point relating to the choice of cable. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we lead the world development in optical fibre? Without wanting the Government to impose restrictions on which cable should be chosen, can my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that every encouragement will be given, without slowing down the development of cable television, to persuade the companies to adopt optical fibre.
Mr. Brittan: It will be for the companies to decide, but my hon. and learned Friend is right in pointing out the advanced nature of British involvement in this development. The measure of the Government's regard for it is shown by the significant extent of the public money being put behind it.
Clearly, the general development of cable cannot be undertaken until the statutory framework is in place and the new cable authority can start its work. Moreover, we are anxious that we should not take steps now that will preempt its decisions or narrow the options open to it. What we have in mind in the intervening period are very limited steps of two kinds.
The first would be the grant of licences under existing ministerial powers for up to about 12 new cable pilot projects which would make a significant contribution to new cable technology. The second would be the grant of licences to existing cable operators to start providing new programme services on their cable systems. I shall deal with both of them in turn.
Once the White Paper has been debated by this House and in another place, the Government intend to invite applications for the installation and operation of new cable systems. It will be for applicants to identify the area that they would like to cable in this way. We do not wish to pre-empt the decisions of the cable authority about how large a franchise area might be, so the White Paper makes it clear that we shall expect applicants for pilot project

727
licences to limit themselves to identifiable and self-contained communities of not more than about 100,000 homes. We shall not be inviting competitive applications for specified areas, nor shall we be initiating local consultations about which applicant is the best to provide services in that area, but that does not mean that applications will readily be granted.
Only a limited number of licences are on offer and the maximum number will not necessarily be granted. One of the purposes of interim licensing is to encourage the development of British technology.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: What about the proposal for aiming programmes towards ethnic minority communities? Will that idea be firmly in the mind of the Government schemes envisaged in the White Paper as dealing with such matters? Such communities may not rise to the 100,000 homes that the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned, and this point may be difficult to sort out.
Mr. Brittan: For the reasons that I have given, it would be inappropriate in cable for there to be positive obligations about programme content such as exist for public services broadcasting. Plainly, in considering licence applications, all aspects of the proposals will be taken into account.
The applications that succeed will be those that offer the most positive contribution to the application of advanced technology in this area and at the same time a comprehensive range of programme services — that relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell)—and the capability for two-way so-called interactive services. I recognise that it is exceptional that a start should be approved before legislation is passed. Such a step is only justified in the case of applications that clearly meet the criteria that I have defined, and would amount to the exercise of powers that undoubtedly exist, rather than the grant of fresh powers.
The second kind of licensing raises less sensitive questions. We are here dealing with cable systems that already exist, and no question of pre-empting the statutory franchising process arises. I shall be prepared to license cable operators to start providing additional programme services to their customers and, if necessary, to permit them to stop carrying BBC and ITV services on their cable so long as they provide their current subscribers with alternative means of receiving those services without extra charge.
Apart from allowing cable operators to make better use of the systems that they have, there is an important reason why we should allow an early start to the provision of new services. Programmes are going to be the key to cable's success. Programme providers need not only to gain experience of putting together new packages that the public will be prepared to buy but to be able to reach a potential audience of a size that might justify attractive and almost inevitably expensive programming. The first new cable systems could not provide that kind of audience, but the existing commercial cable systems, which reach about 1⅓million households in the United Kingdom, could make all the difference.
I recognise that the regulation of programme services, on both new pilot projects and existing systems, involves certain problems in advance of the institution of the cable
728
authority. For example, I shall not be prepared to allow new kinds of sponsored programmes or programmes provided by pay-per-view until the cable authority exists to exercise its judgment in the relevant fields. I do not think that those limitations will represent a serious inhibition on cable during the comparatively short period of my direct responsibility for cable operators' licences.
Mr. Stanley Orme: Why is the Home Secretary going ahead at such a speed when the White Paper says that the new technology will not be available at the earliest until 1985, and possibly 1986 or 1987?
Mr. Brittan: I do not consider that 1985 is that far ahead when compared with the substantial preparations that are involved. I said earlier that considerable work and a great momentum offer opportunities to British industry. Therefore, with the careful controls that I described and the limitation that I propose in the pre-legislative exercise of my powers, it is right to give full speed ahead for a major development for British technology and consumer choice.
Mr. John McWilliam: Where did the Secretary of State get that information about British technology? Is he aware that the major technological advances are in American tree-and-branch systems, which he is proposing to introduce? Does he wish to increase the bandwidth beyond that which is already available in existing technology?
Mr. Brittan: I do not accept that that is so. My hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology will be able to expand on that aspect of the matter. What is proposed at the moment involves major opportunities for British technology, and it will not be difficult to establish the details of that.
Finally, I should say something about the future timetable. As soon as both Houses of Parliament have debated the White Paper, we shall invite applications for both kinds of licence that I have described. We shall also make notes of guidance available to potential applicants. As a number of groups are already in an advanced stage of planning for new cable systems and have had two months to prepare since the White Paper was published, we shall ask for all applications to be submitted by the end of August. Those applications will be assessed by the Department of Trade and Industry and by the Home Office, and we hope that decisions will be announced and licences granted by November.
Over the same period, we shall also be granting licences for additional services on existing systems, although we shall not impose a final date by which those applications should be received. I expect that the cable Bill will be introduced before Christmas. As the White Paper suggests, we hope to be able, while the Bill is before Parliament, to set up the cable authority in a shadow form to give advice on the supervision of the new cable services which may then be in operation and to prepare the ground for the new system which will come into force on the enactment of the Bill.
I believe that the White Paper offers a positive and constructive approach which will enable us to seize the opportunities that technological innovation presents to us. The full programme of cabling can start once Parliament has had a proper opportunity to consider the terms of the Bill that we shall bring forward in this Session. In the

729
meantime, I hope that Parliament will approve the first limited steps proposed in the White Paper which will ensure that time is not wasted in encouraging industry to get ahead and, indeed, to keep ahead of our competitors. I commend the White Paper to the House.
5.11 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: I begin with two propositions that I hope are sufficiently banal to commend themselves to the whole House. First, it seems clear that the technological, economic and, indeed, social revolution that the cable system represents is irresistible. Secondly, it would be neither right nor sensible to attempt to stand in the path of that irresistible force.
However, I am deeply sceptical about both the speed and the size of the economic effects that some of the proponents of a cable system have predicted for its introduction. There were welcome notes of realism in the Home Secretary's speech, as there were in the White Paper, especially in their predictions of the result of the revolution, compared with what was said by the Minister for Information Technology in a debate in the previous Parliament and in Edinburgh last summer and, above all, with what was said by the Prime Minister at that extraordinary event at the Barbican in which she took part six months ago.
Even allowing for the modified aspirations, I accept that the cable revolution is substantial and irresistible. Nothing that I say today is intended to be an expression of vain regret that cable has come or a simple statement of Luddism in the face of a desirable change.
However, what I have to say is an attempt to influence the course that the cable revolution will take. The history of industrial innovation, from the spinning jenny, through the cotton gin to the computer, confirms that sudden changes have to be carefully regulated if society is to avoid the dire economic and social consequences that they can bring about.
The White Paper makes some references to regulations and the Home Secretary was prudent to make as much of them as he could. I am delighted that substantial increases in broadcasting safeguards have been added since our debate in December and that much of the rather strange broadcasting laissez-faire approach of the Hunt committee has been properly ditched and rightly abandoned.
Notwithstanding that, problems remain about how the cable revolution is to come to this country, not least because the Government stick obdurately and unthinkingly to their prejudice about the ownership and management of the system. The details of the creation of the system and the technicalities involved will be dealt with later by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), but I must say something about an unsubstantiated and unqualified assertion that appears in the introduction to the White Paper and in its summary as if it were a statement of irrefutable principle.
The White Paper says three times that cable investment should be
"privately financed and market led".
I note that Conservative Members nod sagely as I repeat those words. Perhaps as the debate continues, some of
730
them will seek to justify and substantiate those words, rather than merely assert them, because in the White Paper there is assertion and nothing else.
Some of us might ask why it is so obviously the case that cable investment should be privately financed and market led. The answer may be self-evident to Government dogmatists and the private interests that want to make a fortune out of exploiting the most profitable cable areas, but, in terms of the national interest, it is by no means self-evident that "privately financed and market led" is the proper answer.
I hope that the Minister for Information Technology will, uniquely—for no one else has done it—attempt to answer my question at the end of the debate. I hope that he will also clarify another point. The substantial paragraphs in the White Paper that talk about the obligations of private financing and private companies seem to include some ambiguity about how far the "market led" principle is to be applied.
I understand that the authority will be able to say to potential cable providers that they should edge out from their area of choice into areas of less financial desirability. I offer an example that I hope is at least as apposite as the example that I used when I intervened during the Home Secretary's speech. If someone says, "We want to lay cable only in the profitable urban area of greater Newcastle," will the authority be able to say, "You will not obtain the franchise unless you extend the provision of cable to the less profitable areas of Northumberland and Durham."? I give that example, because it is not clear from the White Paper what the regulation implies. Whatever it implies, I fear that it does not answer our fundamental doubts and our anxiety about the private enterprise development of the cable system.
The White Paper proposes that companies should be largely empowered to install cable systems in areas that they determine. There may be some informal guidance from the new authority about the size of the area or its boundaries; the cable authority may produce something called an indicative plan. Presumably, when the time for franchising comes, the authority will be able to choose the offer that, in its judgment, covers the appropriate areas and best meets the social obligations.
Essentially, however, the decisions on which areas are to receive cable will be for the private companies that lay the cable. As a result, cable, with all its benefits, real and imaginary, will appear only in certain selected areas. There will be no national network and I fear that, in at least one of its manifestations, the fact that cable appears only in scattered and patchy areas will result in a deterioration in the broadcasting systems received by the rest of the country.
Mr. Brittan indicated dissent.
Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary shakes his head. I am willing to give way if he wishes to tell me that I am wrong and I shall listen later to the arguments of the Minister for Information Technology, but I do not know how an argument can be constructed that does not suggest that if a cable system can make profitable bids for the best and most popular programmes, so that they are shown only in the limited parts of the country where cable operates, the rest of the country, including for example the constituency of Caithness and Sutherland, which I had the

731
good fortune to visit three weeks ago — to no great purpose—will be denied what other areas, already more fortunate in many respects, enjoy.
I shall make the Opposition's position clear. We believe in the creation of a single common carrier committed to the provision of a national network. We believe that that common carrier should be British Telecom. The move towards a national service would, of course, take some time. Does the Home Secretary intend or believe that there should ever he a national cable system? I ask him that question, because one assumes from the White Paper that there never will be a national cable system, although in his speech the Home Secretary talked about cable "initially" covering only part of the country. Does he believe that the initial period will ever be over? Does he believe that there will be a time when the boons and benefits—I say again, real and imaginary—will be available to the country as a whole? Does he even aspire to a national network?
I know that, in part, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer to my question is that that must be determined by the private companies which decide whether cable is worth financing in some of the more remote or less profitable areas. His objection to the scheme that we put forward—a national cable carrier run and financed by British Telecom—comes in two forms. The first concerns money, and the second concerns the enthusiasm in the White Paper, which the Home Secretary repeated, for a plurality of ownership—different firms doing different things in different ways.
I want to say a word about both those objections. I regard the money argument as absurd. If it is profitable for a number of private companies to cherry-pick—I think that is the phrase—areas of profitability and say, "Here we can make money out of a cable system," why cannot British Telecom be allowed to make the same judgment and make money out of some limited cable system? The only thing that prevents that is the absurd conventions of Treasury accounting, which regards the economic activity of a publicly owned corporation as different from the economic activity of a private limited corporation. It is either that, or simple, old-fashioned Conservative dogma which says that it is the duty of a public authority to lose money and that of a private company to make money.
Mr. Brittan: Surely the only advantage claimed by the right hon. Gentleman for a public authority, as opposed to a private authority, doing it is that the public authority would do something different. It would provide a service which in private enterprise terms would not be profitable. Therefore, what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting, if he is suggesting anything, is that public money should be spent in a non-profitable way and that the taxpayers' money should be used for that purpose, rather than for other purposes for which it is used at present. I find that indefensible.
Mr. Hattersley: The implication of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said—he has answered the question that he would not answer before—is that he does not intend to have a national cable system, but that he intends to have it only where it is profitable for private companies to provide it. That is the clear implication.
I put another question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Why is it that in a profitable area he should choose to deny the rights of operation to the public
732
corporation when he knows perfectly well, in either cable or other activities, that the public corporation will be left to do those things out of which private enterprise cannot make money? We on these Benches believe that if, in the initial stages, there is money to be made from a limited cable operation, it seems only reasonable that the private companies that are required to run into deficit for other necessary features of our national life should be allowed to compete for it, and should be allowed to make a profit.
The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I think that the right hon. Gentleman, not intentionally, is misleading the House. He said that British Telecom would be denied the right to participate. We are not denying BT the right to participate in cable. It has asked for a total monopoly to establish a national network. We find that unacceptable. If it wishes to participate as a partner with other companies and consortia, it can do so. We are not denying it the right to be part of that. We have said that it must participate in consortia.
Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman should not treat the House so disingenuously. If BT is to be allowed to participate on a fair basis it should be able individually to compete as a single unit against private companies. All that it can do is to pick up a few bits left over from private consortia. The Minister knows that, and he should regard that as undesirable.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The right hon. Gentleman has not got it right.
Mr. Hattersley: I assure the hon. Member for Wealdon (Sir G. Johnson Smith) that in terms of consortia and single bidding I have got it absolute!) right, and the companies that he works for and advise him will confirm that, if he asks them.
I come to the other criticism that has been made, and will be made, of the Opposition's plan — that there should be plurality, and that a different sort of company should be allowed to compete in different ways. I should find that much more convincing if the Government were really going for plurality of ownership and intended to avoid the one area of local monopoly that in my opinion they seem likely positively to encourage—the rights and abilities of one organisation both to own and provide the cable and to provide the broadcasting that goes through the cable. If the Government really wanted plurality whereby there can be proper control, they would insist, as we have urged them to insist, and as they now refuse to insist, on a division between the ownership of the cable and the production and the broadcasting of the programmes that go down the cable.
It is our belief that if a single company owns the system and owns its use for broadcasting, the idea that the authority can control and have a real influence over the standard and quality of the broadcasting that is produced is a myth and a chimera. In the real world, the not very authoritative cable authority will find it almost impossible to say to a broadcasting company, "We do not approve of the programmes that are going out from you," when that authority knows that that broadcasting company, in part or in whole, owns the system through which the alternative company would subsequently have to broadcast. The companies would have two simultaneous powers—an ability to dominate the area, and an ability to ignore the

733
cable authority's wishes. That, I think, is what would happen if we had a cable authority with much sterner powers and a much greater ability to regulate than the one that we are at present offered.
The White Paper's description of the authority is a fascinating study for those who are interested in the machinery of Government. We are told that the authority is to be set up after close consultation between the two Secretaries of State. I shall not ask the Minister of State to tell us which other Secretaries of State consult but not very closely. It is the only time in the Government document that we have been promised close consultation, and I assume that it must be a throw-back to the days of less happy co-operation between previous Ministers, when there was a conflict between the two Departments about whether the technological argument should prevail or whether the standards that the previous Home Secretary wanted to be preserved should be the primary consideration. Although there have been some improvements in the standards and protection provided, in our opinion they do not go as far as we should like. Indeed, the White Paper does no more than promise that the new authority will exercise some oversight of the services provided.
Of course, at the time of the cable rush, the time when the most profitable areas are cable-ised, this authority will not even be in existence and the franchises will be handled by the Home Office. I say no more, because I wish to make no allegations about the Government's integrity in these matters, but the thought of the Government giving out profitable franchises to a group of people determined to make substantial profits from them, and the decisions about how the money should be allocated being in the Government's hands alone, fills me with foreboding.
Mr. Brittan: Foreboding about what?
Mr. Hattersley: I am filled with foreboding that the Government will fulfil their traditional role and think of the interests of the people who make a profit, rather than the interests of the people from whom the profit is made.
Mr. Tim Brinton: As I understand the Government's plans, as outlined by my right hon. and learned Friend, during the interim period, until we have Second Reading and the authority is appointed, the franchises are to be given on a pilot basis of no more than 100,000 subscribers. Will the right hon. Gentleman say where the profit is in those 100,000 subscribers?
Mr. Hattersley: If it is to be privately financed and market led, the rules of private finance and market leadership mean that if there is no profit there is no company. That is the gravamen of the Government's argument. That is the argument that the Home Secretary must have advanced to his Ministers because it is they who say that profit must determine these matters and that if there is no profit, there is no company. I am saying something quite different and I shall proceed to say that in terms of the standards that we want to see preserved for broadcasting when cable comes in.
I am sure that my forebodings about the period before the authority is set up are not reflected in the forebodings that cable companies have about the rigours that they will
734
have to face after the authority is created. The White Paper says that the powers used by the authority will be light and flexible and will be
"reactive rather than interventionist".
I want to ask the Government some specific and direct questions about what that means for the authority.
Some regulations that the Government intend to apply must be welcomed. If the 25 channels are to exist in some areas it is clearly right that four must carry the national services. That is a substantial improvement on what has gone before. I admit at once that the idea that there should be an adult channel with a preposterous device known as the decency key was never something that the Government would have accepted. When the previous Home Secretary said that he had to consider these matters and should not be rushed into a decision I told him that I had no doubt at all that he would reject them. I am glad that my view has been confirmed. I do not understand how such a preposterous idea ever saw the light of day. I am glad that it is being abandoned with some derision as well as disapproval.
That does not stop our concern about standards in general, the protection of the British film and television industries, the results of the way in which the enterprises are to be financed and the national effect of local cable systems when some areas are without them. I want to deal with those four areas of concern briefly but individually.
First, there is to be no general requirement on content or balance. That is a relaxation of the rules governing the present programme companies. It will be argued, and it is an irresistible argument, that if there is to be an almost infinite number of channels broadcasting a perhaps infinite permutation of programmes, it is impossible to ask any authority to preview every programme and advertisement. I welcome the Government's intention—I hope that the Minister of State will confirm my interpretation of what the Home Secretary said — that the authority will, if there is particular anxiety about one cable service, be empowered to operate one of the IBA rules and say that it is so concerned about what is being done that it requires the programmes and advertisements to be submitted in advance of their being broadcast. That is wholly desirable and I congratulate the Home Secretary on including it in the White Paper.
That there cannot be previewing and pre-vetting of all programmes and advertisements is an argument not for washing the Government's and the authority's hands of any regulation, but for laying down some comparatively firm, though not rigid, rules about what the non-previewed programmes should be and how the obligations of good broadcasting should be observed. If there is to be a light touch, and the Government expect the authority to be reactive rather than interventionist without saying what the authority will react against or in what direction the touch is likely to push individual companies, that is an invitation to deterioration in the standards of broadcasting which I regret.
I told the House a year ago that if we were to be presented with a policy which simply says that there is the ultimate and major sanction of the right to refuse the renewal of a licence in six, eight or 10 years, by which the authority will exercise its real control over broadcasting. I would regard that as being no sanction at all. Again, I admit freely that the right occasionally to pre-vet and preview is a great improvement, but as we are talking about many, channels, it is not enough. Some criteria ought

735
to be laid down and the companies ought to be told that they are, in general, the standards to which they ought to aspire. The nature and tone of the White Paper is vague—I believe intentionally vague—about regulations and criteria. It is certainly vague about British material and its use.
The British film and television industries are given none of the safeguards that they believe themselves to need, and without which they will be lost. The authority will be required to see that a proper proportion of British material is used. However, what is a proper proportion? It is clear from the White Paper that it will not be a large proportion at the beginning of the operation of cable. The White Paper says that, ideally, the amount of British material will increase as the years go by. That means that at the beginning of cable operation we shall have a large amount of cheap foreign material. The Secretary of State is less of a realist and more of an optimist than I take him to be if he thinks that cable can get off the ground with cheap foreign material and suddenly improve its standards and change its ways after five years. If we start off with cheap foreign rubbish, we shall end up with it. That is one of the arguments against doing what the Government seem to us to be doing for reasons about which we can only speculate — rushing into this with an extraordinary speed.
If the Government were prepared to take a more sensible view of the time scale, it would not only be a great bonus to modern technology but would enable them to come to a sensible decision about the British content of the programmes once they are on the air.
Mr. Clement Freud: Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that there would be such a general compulsion to watch cheap foreign rubbish?
Mr. Hattersley: Because I fear that that is the experience of cable in other countries. Supporters of cable constantly tell us that its glory is in those areas where it produces a 24-hour news and current affairs programme. In fact, such programmes find themselves in difficult financial straits. The hon. Gentleman, who I suspect goes to New York rather more often than I do, will, if he sees cable television there, see many channels which both he and I would regard as rubbish. It is not regarded as foreign rubbish there but it would be were it to be shown in the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that there would be many such programmes on cable.
The New York experience also relates to an omission from the White Paper. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) asked about programmes for ethnic minorities. We have been told constantly that the second glory of cable television is that it will enable programmes to be produced for minorities who are normally neglected on national networks. Parts of the White Paper hint at that and suggest that in a peculiar way the cable systems will be local broadcasting with pictures. If that is to be the case, as American experience shows, there must be regulations requiring the cable companies to accommodate the minorities who ought to have channels. As I understand the White Paper, that is not provided, and I shall be grateful if the Minister of Stale will clarify that point.
Mr. Michael Shersby: I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman's point about British content.
736
How does he see that being protected by means of, for example, some sort of quota system or some other mechanism of the type with which we have been familiar in the British film industry? Will he expand on that important point?
Mr. Hattersley: I have offered one answer and I repeat it. The White Paper implies that British industry is not yet ready to meet demands and that cable must try to adjust to British industry when it is. Rather than rush into it, it would be sensible to give British industry time to prepare to meet the new demands made upon it. Then I would go to a figure which will have to be decided after negotiation without which the British film and television industries will labour under a terrible disadvantage.
Our principal concern about the general regulators relates to the national provision rather than the local provision. The Government at least make a bow in that direction in paragraph 114 of the White Paper which states:
"The Government shares the concern of the BBC and the IBA that cable should not lead to an impoverishment of the range and quality of programmes now provided on the four nationally available television channels."
We agree that it "should not"; the question is whether it will or will not. The Government say:
"This applies in particular to sporting events."
It applies to sporting events in one sense. I am determined and enthusiastic to support the Government view that the cup final should be available throughout the United Kingdom, although I am less concerned about the Grand National. If we limit ourselves to sporting events that will be much to the disadvantage of some parts of the country which want a universally high level of broadcasting, but will not get it through cable.
It is all very well to say that the trooping of the colour will be available and that the state opening of Parliament can be enjoyed in every home in the land, as I am sure it always is, but people want to enjoy other things which may not be available to them under the cable system, particularly as it is proposed to be financed in the White Paper.
I have already used films as an example. Under pay-as-you-view it will be possible for pay-as-you-view companies to out-bid the national networks for all types of the most desirable programmes. As a result the most desirable programmes will go to the homes of pay -as-you-view subscribers, who will be in two categories. The first will consist of people who can afford pay-as-you-view and the second of people who live in areas where pay -as-you-view is available. Not only will people in the rest of the country not have pay-as-you-view, but they will not be able to watch desirable programmes and their service will deteriorate. That is undesirable because often the most profitable and popular programmes are those which should be broadcast nationally. To deny them to a large part of the country seems wrong.
Mr. Michael Marshall: Is not the reality that the programmes, after being sold to and used by the cable companies, will be sold to the networks? Surely that will be the second stage in a commercial operation.
Mr. Hattersley: If that is the second stage it will create a different social and geographical hierarchy. It will create two nations. Some people will pay extra and receive something special while the generality of people will not

737
pay extra and will not receive something special. We are opposed to additional divisions in a society that should be united rather than split.
Since Hunt was published, there have been improvements in regulation and control. I welcome them, but other improvements are necessary. We shall continue to press for them when the Bill goes through the House.
5.43 pm
Sir Paul Bryan: I declare an interest as a director of Granada Television. I wish to review the attitude of industry, on the eve of legislation, to the prospects of cable. That attitude has changed markedly in the last couple of years. The development reminds me of what has happened to trade with China since it opened its gates to the West. That opening provoked a Klondike-type rush of business people to Peking. They all returned with optimism but no signed orders. The predicted flood of business has been reduced to a healthy stream from which sound businesses are making reasonable profits.
When the Government first announced their plans for cable, Americans and Canadians came here in numbers to see the form. They have all gone home. The executives of some large British concerns, after attending seminars, setting up working parties and visiting America, have decided to let others start first. The City's ardour for cable has cooled. None of that is disastrous. It may even be healthy, but the Minister may have to take steps to help maintain what the previous Home Secretary described as the momentum of our cable policy.
The main brake is not only the huge scale of investment required but the current calculation that it will take eight years to receive a return on investment, and three to four years to achieve a positive cash flow.
The latest American experience is discouraging. There are plenty of "pa and ma" cable operators which continue to make a steady living with fairly unsophisticated plant. However, companies trying to expand in a big way with multi-channel interactive equipment are having to slow down their expansion. Indeed, the general presumption that money can be made automatically out of the television screen has received some ugly dents in America and in Britain in the last year or two.
I am not suggesting that we should take drastic steps to put courage into faint-hearted investors, but the Minister should look again at some of what seem at first sight to be small restrictions which tend to make people delay entering the cable business.
I cannot understand why the first 10 or 12 operators which are to receive franchises before legislation are to be denied the advantages of pay-per-view. Any potential investor in cable will be watching that first bold dozen like a hawk. It is essential to the momentum of the Government's policy that those operators get off to a promising start.
Income from advertising and basic fees will develop slowly, but pay-per-view could bring in some early money and at the same time stimulate the subscriber rate. As is almost suggested in the White Paper, perhaps those companies will be able to have pay-per-view once the legislation is passed, and the interim period will be spent in getting off the air. If that is so, why not give the companies pay-per-view from the start, on the assumption that soon they will be under the authorities' control?
738
Another aim of granting interim licences should be to test the market — to find out what the public are prepared to pay for and how much they are prepared to pay for it. Many interested parties and potential investors, the ITV companies among them, will be watching not only the financial fortunes of the interim licence holders but their programme experience. The interim is an important experimental period.
The White Paper proposal that ITV companies should not be cable franchise holders for any part of their existing ITV franchise areas is an anti-monopoly stance that is superficially sound but nonsense in practice. About 3 million homes are located in the Granada Television franchise area. If Granada were given a franchise for cablecasting 100,000 homes—the maximum allowed for interim licences — it might hope to glean 30,000 subscribers. That is 1 per cent. of all the homes in its television franchise area. That makes the White Paper's phrases such as
"prevention of a concentration of power in a particular area"
and
"the need to secure a diversity of ownership of cable television in the country as a whole"
look ridiculous.
The cost of cabling 100,000 homes has been estimated at about £14 million. Therefore, a television company is unlikely to have more than a part-share of the franchise, and that makes the element of monopoly even more derisory. We can set against that objection—if it can be called an objection — the positive advantages of the availability of experienced staff and of local knowledge, which is an important feature of all ITV companies and is highly desirable in a cable company.
I support that objection of the Cable Television Association of Great Britain to paragraph 129 of the White Paper, which lists among the "must carry" obligations of the cable operator the requirement to carry direct broadcasting of BBC satellite services free of charge to the broadcaster. In their strategy for cable television, the Government have always aimed—rightly—to protect the existing broadcasting services, but it has never before been understood that cable television would have to provide free facilities for new commercial competing broadcasting services.
Under paragraph 129, one commercial enterprise would be forced by Government ruling to provide free facilities to a competitor. By the time the BBC is broadcasting its pay-per-view service from satellite, a cable operator might already be using a similar—and perhaps in its view superior—service from some other source. He would, therefore, not be attracted by the assumption in paragraph 129 that the cable operator would be recompensed by a higher tariff for the basic package. That is a rash assumption, for the BBC offering might not even improve the basic package. What is more, the operator might not want to impose a higher tariff. If a broadcaster by DBS wants to use cable to distribute his broadcasts, he should pay for the service and not expect to be able to impose it.
Incidentally, the BBC is buying its way into DBS on what may turn out to be a Concorde of a satellite. If its costs are to be recovered, its pay-per-view may be uncompetitive, for others may be able to buy space on low-powered satellites more cheaply. New companies could also be ahead of the BBC in that field. Mr. Murdoch has recently bought a new company with a transponder on the first European communications satellite. That company

739
could produce a rival pay-television package several years ahead of the BBC. The advantage of being first in the market has been well illustrated by the BBC's success on breakfast television, and in America by Home Box Office, which is more profitable than the later arrivals.
After seeing the web of restrictions and local authority regulations under which American cable operators struggle, it is refreshing to see the Government's genuine attempts in the White Paper to make local authority control as light as possible. That is an encouragement to the investor, who is wary of controls of any sort. However, a careful study of the controls and standards to be laid down by the cable authority makes it plain that they are not very different from those imposed or maintained by the IBA. That leads one to believe that when the Government are forced to define the obligations for the purposes of legislation, they may look much more forbidding than they do in the White Paper. I would value the Minister's comments on that point when he replies to the debate.
The Home Secretary will have learnt, from taking the Broadcasting Bill through the House of Commons, that the details of that Bill had a marked effect on Channel 4, as indeed they were meant to do. However, those who complain about the low ratings of Channel 4 do not realise that they are almost entirely due to the obligation laid by the Act on that channel to provide minority programmes. Minority programmes are, by definition, programmes that attract small audiences.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: It is said that some of the difficulties faced by Channel 4 and its lack of commercial success have been caused much more by the relationship between it and the Independent Television Companies Association, and by the lack of advertising push that has been provided for it, than by the programmes.
Sir Paul Bryan: That can be argued, but I am simply saying that the legislation had considerable influence—as it was meant to have—and that it will be equally influential in this case.
Both ITV and BBC television have settled down fairly satisfactorily on the 14 per cent. ration of foreign material. That is due not merely to the altruism of the employers — who could no doubt make more money by using more cheap foreign material—but to the strong views held on the subject by the relevant unions. With cable it will he different. Many other unions interested in the general development of cable will be involved, and the trade unions' objections to foreign material will probably be less acute.
The authority faces a difficult problem. On the one hand, it will have to stimulate the use of Britain's considerable programme-making resources. On the other hand, there will be in the early days a thirst for programme material that can be satisfied only by America. When I visited America, I was impressed by the endless supply of material available to cable operators. Such a supply will certainly not be available here.
Finally, I ask the Minister not only about the general role of British Telecom in cable television but about its capability as a business partner in the dozens of consortia of which it will presumably be a part. I keep meeting people who are talking to BT, but no one seems to have reached any firm agreement with it. How is BT organised to deal practically with what should be a very large part of its business? Is there a special new department devoted
740
to cable television, under a chief executive? BT should be issuing special viability studies to attract investment, but so far the traffic all seems to be going the other way.
5.58 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Boothferry (Sir P. Bryan) that the investors are all wary of controls. Surely, however, it is up to the Government to ensure that public interest is safeguarded in rapidly developing key areas. The hon. Gentleman said that he was impressed by the endless supply of material available in the United States. My limited experience there has been that, although the supply appears to be endless and the variety is great, the real choice is strictly limited because of the tawdry nature of the material. I share the concern of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) about the need for balance, regulations and clearly defined criteria.
The demand is irresistible. The problem is timing. Why is there such haste? If we do not take adequate measures now, the horse will run away with us. I welcome the changes that have been made since the publication of the Hunt committee report. The Government reacted well to the debate last December. For example, the absurdity of the electronic lock suggestion has been made clear.
I want to make only three, I hope speedy, points. The first concerns local identity. Given the speed of development of cable systems, one fears that the desire for local identity, which will become more and more strong in our country, may be threatened by some sort of soap opera saturation. I hope that the cable authority will have, as one of its criteria for franchises, the proviso that a bidding group will have a minimum local content in its programmes. I also hope that it will uphold the desirability of operators having ties with the areas that they serve, and that the criteria in paragraph 65 covering the selection of operators will bear the need for that local input very much in mind.
In particular, if an applicant says in his bid that a certain proportion of, for example, education programmes will be broadcast, what measures will be taken to ensure that that promise is kept? Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook, I must ask whether it is the Government's ultimate aim to have United Kingdom-wide cable system coverage, or whether that will be left totally to the market, with the dangers that have been described of a two-nation approach. It is a simple question: is that the ultimate aim? Will the Government seek, so far as is practicable, to ensure that that is carried out?
Secondly, I notice the Government's intention to exclude religious bodies from the ownership of systems. No doubt the Government are aware that in February this year the Synod of the Church of England voted that religious bodies should not be excluded from the ownership of cable operating systems, or, indeed, the leasing of channels. Just as in the past it would have been intolerable if churches had been excluded from the printing press, so it would be intolerable now if churches were excluded from such future television developments.
One knows the argument that sects such as the Moonies might seek to take over channels in that way, but that is not the experience in the United States of America, even though there are extremely rich sects there. Such sects need to create a dependency upon them and I do not believe that that can be achieved by television. Therefore,

741
that objection has been overstated. Before the Government return finally to the House, I must ask them to consult more fully with Christian and other religious bodies in this country and to reconsider whether it makes sense to exclude all religious bodies from participating in the use of this new technology.
Mr. Freud: What does the hon. Gentleman think would happen if a cable was given to a religious movement? Would he expect it to do religious services 24 hours a day, or would he expect it to share the services with some other body?
Mr. Anderson: Of course, such a body would accept commercial criteria, just like any other organisation. It would be absurd to expect 24 hours of hymn singing. There would be a commercial input to programme schedules and part of it would contain a religious theme. I think that that would be acceptable to the broad range of opinion in the country. I am sure that such programmes could be worked out on a practicable basis.
Finally, I should like to deal with the adequacy of the sanctions proposed against violence and pornography on the new cable television channels. My principal concern is that the Government's programme standards pertaining to taste and decency are inadequate. Sanctions will be needed against those operators who seek to debase our society with violent or pornographic material. I need not stress the effect, on young people in particular, of viewing violent and pornographic material. On Monday this week, the Central Criminal Court heard a case in which a young man at least claimed to have been incited to rape as a result of viewing such material. We should bear in mind the psychological damage that can be done to children and other viewers.
Clearly the only way to stop such material is to introduce a clear threat of severe penalties against the champions of smut and violence, who no doubt want to descend on the British cable market and who will not exercise any self-control, because they are propelled solely by the profit motive. They are quite unconcerned about the effects on their victims, and that should be a concern of Government. According to the Government's proposals, the cable authority will have powers similar to those of the BBC and IBA in relation to standards on decency. That, prima facie, is the proper approach, yet it must be spelt out clearly that there are adequate sanctions against the violation of BBC and IBA standards. The authority's sanction is limited, although I note that it is said that it can exercise the premature withdrawal of an authority's licence.
The second form of control is the Obscene Publications Act 1959. As the Government concede, there is no certainty that it applies in any event to cable systems, and that needs to be pursued. The Government will know that there is great concern about the strength of the Act. Eminent men such as Lord Denning have held that in many ways it misfires. I hope that the Government will make it clear that the cable authority is empowered to revoke the licence of any operator who violates the BBC and IBA criteria on taste and decency. That would not pose any danger to legitimate programming and would only follow a series of sanctions, which would certainly include warnings and, perhaps, fines. However, I notice that the Government reject that.
742
The Government should carefully inquire into the means of controlling direct broadcasting systems to prevent the circumvention of the cable authority's control over operators. That will involve some international agreements that are capable of checking international cable satellite conglomerates.
This is an exciting new development, and we now stand on its threshold. It will revolutionise our viewing. We have a responsibility to ensure that such technology is not perverted, that public standards are maintained and that Government assume responsibility for the helpless in our society, and for children and women who are often the victims of sexual abuse. I hope that the Government will see the challenge as real, and that they will properly meet it in the guidelines set out for the authority.
6.8 pm
Mr. Robert Key: In the year 1275, Salisbury first sent Members to Parliament. Thus, 708 years on, it is with some humility that I address the House for the first time.
It is not irrelevant that in this debate on high technology wideband cablecasting we should glance back in time for a moment. Those first Members of Parliament were, like us, concerned with communication between people. As a former schoolmaster, I might even be allowed to indulge my belief that the written word has lost some of its beauty and authority in the age of electronic communication.
During the recent general election, I dare say that many prospective hon. Members, like me, were occasionally assassinated in the press. In just a couple of sentences of election fever my personal history was rewritten on the back page of The Times. My origins were removed from Wiltshire to the home counties, by some journalistic miracle my profession changed from teacher to chartered accountant, and I was remarried to someone called Fiona. It was perhaps not surprising that the same newspaper claimed in its first list of new Members of Parliament that I had "no biography available". I know not why, but, as I learnt subsequently, the South China Morning Post carried a more accurate account of the goings on in Salisbury than The Times.
So it is with relief that I can now rely on the unerring accuracy of Hansard and my local newspapers to report my efforts on behalf of the electors of Salisbury. I thank them for their confidence, and, even though I received an absolute majority of the votes cast, I consider it my duty and a privilege to represent also the interests of the minorities who did not vote for me, or who chose, sadly, not to vote for anyone.
To my 1,100 or so active workers who on polling day turned the wheels of democracy on my behalf, I express my heartfelt thanks. I salute my immediate predecessor, Sir Michael Hamilton. A man of the greatest courtesy and sensibility, he will be hard to follow and he is much missed by his many friends here and in Salisbury.
The people of Salisbury have always been stouthearted and forward-looking. They have always understood the meaning of good communications, and taken advantage of it. The Romans focused a network of roads on Old Sarum, but the Norman bishops moved away and founded the city of New Sarum on the valley trade routes. Grateful, of course, for its episcopal innovators, Salisbury also has a long tradition of disagreement with its bishops, usually over local taxation, but more recently over the defence of the realm. But I would not wish on our current gentle

743
pastor the fate of his predecessor, who in 1450 was pursued by a mob and murdered on Salisbury plain. Nor would I wish on the gentle vet who is our mayor the fate of his predecessor, John Halle, who was committed to the Tower of London for using violent language.
That we know such facts is a tribute to the accuracy of language and records. In Salisbury, education and the enriching of our cultural life are taken very seriously indeed. Our citizens may be employed in agriculture, engineering—much of it based on high technology—and the commercial and professional services on which they depend, or in tourism, transport, the armed services, defence establishments and our over-criticised, often under-valued Civil Service, but what they all have in common is the will and the skill to seize on new technology and use it sensibly.
Salisbury is not particularly well served by local radio or television—it is peripheral to many stations. There must be many towns and cities in a similar position—dwarfed numerically by larger neighbours, but founts of unique benefit to the life of wider regions.
In supporting the introduction of cable systems, I should like to draw to the attention of the House paragraph 58 of the White Paper, which deals with franchise areas. The Government must be held to their proposal to give the cable authority the duty to take into account natural community groupings. Cable operators should do more than cream profits from limited services in densely populated areas. They should assume wider responsibilities in developing all the opportunities offered by inter-active systems, both geographically and in the variety of services offered. Local business and industry should benefit, but so should our schools, colleges, theatres, concert halls and sports facilities and last, but by no means least, our families in their homes.
In a recent survey, 71 per cent. of people said that they wanted more choice on television and 59 per cent. wanted channels for local news and local features. The demand is there and should be met. The White Paper strikes the right balance between over-regulation, which would kill the project, and a free-for-all, which would damage the high quality of much of the existing BBC and ITV output.
British television, both technically and artistically, enjoys an unrivalled international reputation for creativity and we are poised to capture a world lead in a new generation of direct broadcasting by satellite and interactive wideband cable systems. We must not miss our chance. Whatever else my constituents may or may not wish me to say on their behalf, they did not send me to this place to impede progress. Nor will I.
6.14 pm
Mr. Clement Freud: I should like to begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on his maiden speech. He read it with verve and he will be a better man for getting a maiden speech off his chest. As Julius Caesar wanted to say, "Let me have men around me who are my sort of shape." I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House. I was particularly pleased to hear him refer to the courtesy of his predecessor, Sir Michael Hamilton, who, when I was a very young Member of Parliament and spoke in Salisbury, berated me for not having telephoned him and had him invite me to dinner or to stay the night. It is such cross-party courtesies that make the House of Commons the good place that it is. I welcome the hon. Gentleman to it.
744
I do not want to involve myself in the argument between cable being a licence to print money or a place in the queue for Carey street, but I wish to remind the House that, in the United States, where I have spent some time and watched much television, cable is not watched solely by the rich or the well-heeled—on the contrary, it is watched by a broad spectrum of people from both sides of the social divide.
I am concerned about the pilot scheme, as one is rightly concerned about Parliament giving the go-ahead before the traffic lights have been built. I doubt whether any of the dozen pilots, if a dozen pilots can be found, will do much for television or cable, although they will, of course, be in an advantageous position when legislation is passed. We should be concerned about that. Programme production for a limited number of people — like 100,000 — is not commercially viable and what the Minister thought a useful indicator may turn out to be a twelve-headed deterrent albatross to those that follow. What is almost certain is that the quality of the programmes produced by the pilots will not be as good as we shall hope the quality of the programmes will be when legislation is passed.
I wish briefly to mention advertising, because there is, among many hon. Members and specifically among right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, a belief that advertising directed at a specific market is somehow wrong or bad. I should like to remind those hon. Members that this is exactly what happens in trade papers. One of the strengths of cable television is the advantage of being able to buy a slot within a programme in which none actually wants to advertise. This will bring new advertisers into the business and make for much more effective and cost-effective advertising. There is no reason why a saucepan manufacturer should not buy a slot in a cookery programme, although I would, had the Government not properly changed their mind on the Hunt recommendation, have been worried had a sex aid company been allowed to advertise in a pornographic film.
Inherent conflicts are involved in cable television which do not appear to have been recognised explicitly and which are not therefore fully worked out in the White Paper. The first conflict is between entertainment and technology. The second concerns the respective claims of commercial interest and social duty or well-being; the third is between public broadcasting and the cable service. But before expanding on that, I wish to make a few introductory comments relevant to all those central conflicts.
Is there an audience waiting for cable television? I am not sure. If there is, I wonder how new it will be, or whether it will simply be composed of viewers drawn from existing channels, cinemas, newspapers or spectator events, which will be the poorer for A. I should like to know what the Minister thinks will make them watch cable television when they already have so many other claims on their attention with so little time in which to watch. I know from the industry that about twice as much material is recorded as is actually watched. People turn on their video recorders to tape breakfast television; when they get home they cannot watch because the news, "Coronation Street", and other evening programmes are being shown.
We have witnessed the problems of Channel 4 and TV-am, but nearly everyone now has access to public broadcasting. Extra programmes via cable will face a considerable problem in supplementing the existing network, given the high quality of British television. Let

745
us not forget that one of our concerns must be to retain the quality of British television, however innovative we may become.
In the United States, cable companies have not proved beyond doubt that lots of people are waiting to be connected. On the contrary, there is a high disenchantment factor, because more than 60 per cent. of people who subscribe in the United States decide that the cable service's standard offer is inadequate to retain their support.
That brings me to the first conflict that I mentioned. The first real promise by cable is to provide good, self-selective home entertainment for those paying subscriptions to the competing cable channels. As I have said, there must be doubts about the size of the audience. The real reason for going ahead with cable is not so much that proposed by the Home Secretary as that proposed by the Minister for Information Technology. Cable can revolutionise the way we work and the way we think about work. That is the area that the Minister, who has done so much to foster debate on the cable issue, is putting forward. He is attempting to usher in this revolution somewhat on the back of entertainment technology, which is why the White Paper proposes that companies providing star systems should receive longer franchises than those using tree-and-branch layouts. That is important and must be recognised. It is the criterion not of quality, but of technology.
The paradox is that while the entertainment element may prove to be minimal, it is essential to legislate in advance of it, but legislation, while necessary to protect public broadcasting and private sensibilities, must not put technology into such a straitjacket that the other revolution is forestalled.
This leads to the second conflict between the claims of commerce and the claims of civic duty. Here again, the interests of the profit-seeking entrepreneur will be at odds with those of the community as a whole. Presumably, both require maximum access to great sporting and other events. We must legislate to ensure that these do not go to the highest commercial bidder. In this respect, the provision in the White Paper is wholly inadequate. We must balance the opportunity for enterprise with the claims of all the viewers.
Underlying these is the third area of relations between cable and public service television. People who receive only the latter must be protected, but the former must not be rendered unprofitable. Cable must supplement public television. If it fails to do so, it will fail commercially.
We must be careful not to put its commercial success above the duties of the public networks. This conflict seems to come to a head in the new regulating authority. Given what was said earlier about the slackness or absence of regulations in broadcasting entertainment at present and the local nature of the cable link-up, it seems that cable will differ from public broadcasting in respect of localness.
My doubts concern the extent to which the White Paper recognises the local element, for the authority makes inadequate provision for local representatives to grant franchises, oversee programmes or adjudicate complaints. Paragraph 68 refers to
"a duty to consider local views before awarding a franchise".
That is inadequate, as is taking account
746
"of the range and diversity of the services proposed and of the arrangements for community programmes and local access"
in paragraph 131. Something more than that is required. I should like to see regional advisory bodies for the regulatory authority. This is already the case for local radio, where such bodies determine the franchises, monitor the programme content and do it very well indeed. I pay tribute to the local ILR bodies.
Secondly, among the "criteria for selecting operators" I should like to see the inclusion in paragraph 65 of some mention of local participation. By that I do not mean that local people should be forced to take a stake, because by and large if something is profitable, they will, and if it is not profitable, they must not be made to. It is not enough to propose to ensure that what is provided matches local needs and thus supplements national public broadcasting.
Thirdly, more must be done about the amount of foreign programme content. There is a current limit of 14 per cent. on BBC and ITV. While I accept the Minister's reluctance to lay down a percentage at the very beginning, I hope that his aim will be similar to that 14 per cent., for that would ensure that we produce much of the new material ourselves. If we are to have rubbish on cable television, let it be our own rubbish.
I salute the Minister for overruling Hunt on porn—that sounds like a film advertised in Piccadilly circus. It is right that he should have overruled the absurdity of child-proof devices on pornographic films. If people are really desperate to see pornographic films, they should put on their grubby mackintoshes and go out and find them.
6.27 pm
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I declare an interest as a non-executive director of the London Weekend television holding company and unremunerated governor of the British Film Institute.
I agreed with much of what the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) said, but I do not want regional authorities advising anyone. We are moving into a whole new scene. If it were a restricted supply of cable television, as we have been used to with existing companies, I could see the need for the proliferation of guidance from appointed bodies, just as we have seen in recent decades, but this is a new scene. If I were to suggest that we should go into book publishing after years of domination by the medieval Church and the state, and that local government advisory services should be established, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would scream that it would be nonsense, yet that may well happen as we move into the era of cable. It will lead to the proliferation of channels and systems of the sort that hitherto did not apply to the more established networks. I shall develop that argument later.
As the hon. Gentleman said, cable is being introduced not because we think that the British public are burning for more television, although I suspect that the public are dissatisfied with the choice that they have. British television produces some excellent products, but it also produces its quota of good old British rubbish. The trouble with much of British television is that if one wants to watch interesting programmes, or has a minority interest in a particular form of entertainment, instruction or information, they are generally screened outside peak hours. To a large extent, that is why the British public have invested in home video recorders—to cater for the taste that they decide, rather than be subjected to the taste

747
decided for them by the programme planners of the existing broadcasting organisations. The public have voted with their money. The range of choice is extremely limited. It is high time that that was changed so that we have something more akin to the freedom that we enjoy when purchasing periodicals and books.
Basically, this argument is not about television. We are cabling Britain because, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology knows, this is one way in which we can extend information technology. If television can help provide some of the money for investment, jolly good luck.
I congratulate the Government on the White Paper. I congratulate particularly Lord Hunt, who provided the basis of the White Paper. Much of it has stood, although there are some things which the Government have changed. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology, who showed a great deal of imagination in the whole process.
The Government have moved quickly, but not recklessly, as some critics feared. Despite all the criticism that was levelled and fears that were raised some 18 months ago, it is interesting to note that the White Paper has been well received. I hope that that will encourage the Government to maintain their momentum. The Government have taken into account the reasonable reservations and criticisms that were expressed at the end of last year. They have certainly laid the foundations on which suitable legislation could and should be prepared.
I welcome particularly the decision to set up a cable authority. I recognise that there will be a freeing of the market and that there is a need for some authority unfettered by direct responsibility to other media. The rejection of the so-called adults' channel was surely right. The idea of an electronic lock was really only an infantile concept, which is one reason why the former Home Secretary was able to claim that it would not prevent his grandchildren from picking it
The Government were right also to accept that the new cable authority should give weight to the cable companies' plans for using programmes of British and European Community origin. I doubt whether they would restrict the number to as low as 14 or 15 per cent. We have seen many programmes on British television which emanated from America. If this step helps the companies to raise revenue —I think that this will be essential, because setting up cable television is a very expensive business—I do not mind. However, there should be continuous pressure to move towards British and Community products.
There is a general acceptance of the principle of the quota system without laying down a hard and fast percentage. Cable television will have strong economic implications for London Weekend, other commercial companies and radio companies. I am glad that the White Paper will permit pay-per-view cable television and sponsorship and, therefore, cable companies will be less dependent on advertising revenue, which is not a bottomless pit. In this context, I welcome the Government's affirmation that the commercial television companies will be allowed a stake in cable television.
The White Paper confirms my opinion that it should be possible to embrace the new cable and satellite technology. The two go together. However, we shall not be discussing satellites very much in this debate today. We are not necessarily destroying the standards of broadcasting which we have so successfully established. I have no
748
doubt that we shall be taking risks. There will be financial risks for those who wish to invest their money, and certainly cultural risks, because no one knows for certain what the future holds. Cable will not go away. I have no doubt that its development, supported by satellite television, can offer a stimulating challenge and exciting opportunities which should make for not just a wider variety of programmes, but programmes of minority and specialist interest during peak hours or at times chosen by the individual. I think that that is very important.
We have only recently been made aware of the potential offered by the new technology. It is interesting to see how the media have responded already. They do not take the rather Luddite, and certainly old-fashioned and unreconstructed Socialist approach, which I do not think can really be in the mind of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) who led for the Opposition, that somehow cable is an evil and should be managed by a national organisation.
The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the film industry has come to terms with the new situation. It sees the market as no longer being in the cinema. No one minds if one has to spend a bomb in the west end to watch "Octopussy" before it comes on television three years later. The public accept that there are one, two, three or four tiers of distribution. Britain may be divided in the eyes of the Socialists, but it is not in the eyes of the public. They do not think that distribution has any political or social context. It is just the way programmes are marketed which the public have accepted. Why should they not accept the new situation to which I refer? The film industry sees its market in terms of cinema, then television and now in terms of home video and cable.
In the future, it will be pay-TV, cable and satellite. I have talked to some of the most respected people in the film business like David Puttnam. None of them worry about the advent of cable. They see it, and satellite broadcasting, as a great opportunity. There are opportunities for the established theatre too. Sir Peter Hall thinks that cable provides a great opportunity for a wider distribution of the productions of the excellent National Theatre.
The BBC, however conservative it may have sounded —at times it almost sounded a bit grumpy and patrician — is coming to terms rapidly with the new circumstances. It is producing for the home video market and has done a wonderful deal with the unions. I am glad that it has been able to do so. The BBC is involved with pay-cable as a scheduler and operator for Visionhire for an experimental period of two years. The BBC has turned to a finance house with the Royal Opera house and signed up to record and sell Covent Garden productions of operas and ballets which can be seen in the United States, but not here with the same frequency. It is involved in direct broadcasting by satellite and sees itself as an important provider of news and other types of programmes, linking DBS with cable TV.
Following a rather sour reception, the IBA recognises that independent television should also be able to contribute to cable programmes as a cable programme provider terrestially and through off-air satellites.
The scene is set. We have a new Parliament, and the White Paper and all we want now is the legislative framework. The Government have already received a number of representations from interested groups. Many of them will no doubt be dealt with in Committee, but

749
before the Government's views become too stuck I should like to draw the attention of Ministers—one of whom has come to the task fairly freshly—
Mr. Kenneth Baker: It is quality that counts.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am thinking of the Home Office. I should like to draw the Home Secretary's attention to a few points upon which I hope he and his colleagues will reflect. They should continually recognise that cable is not just another broadcasting channel. I was to some extent reassured by the Home Secretary's comments when he opened the debate. I want to emphasise that this is different. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook seemed to say that it was just an extension of public service broadcasting. We know that it is not. Cable requires an entirely different approach and a large amount of money. It is not just a licence to print money. I believe that it and the Minister's plans for it could be killed if it is smothered by too many restrictions and regulations.
The White Paper stresses rightly the need for a small but well qualified cable authority which will have a light touch but remain in the background. There are a formidable number of rules, caveats and regulatory practices which could affect financial viability and investment confidence. That is the main reason why a number of people associated with cable, and to a lesser extent satellite, do not want the Home Office to be the Department to which the authority is accountable. They argue that cable is not public service broadcasting by another name and needs a Ministry which comprehends the inter-relationship of entrepreneurial skills, new technolgy and finance as does my hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology.
The Government recognise that further thought is required to avoid unnecessary overlapping by the Home Office, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Office of Telecommunications. In my opinion, the social and cultural effects of cable and satellite broadcasting are too important to be left to Ministers — however enlightened they may be — whose prime interests rest with Departments whose responsibilities are trade and technology.
For years it has been the Home Office which, insofar as any Department of State can so act, has acted as the nation's conscience. In broadcasting and other matters it has rightly interested itself in decency and standards. The Home Office is called upon to consider moral and ethical values in many areas of our national life and the extent to which they should be reflected in drafting and implementing legislation. Over the years it has acquired great expertise in this delicate area. If at times we feel that it is unnecessarily fussy, we should at least be thankful for its efforts to sustain and reinforce the more permanent values in our national life.
On paragraph 74 of the White Paper, I share the cable companies' concern about the Government's intention to make it a mandatory requirement on the cable authority to readvertise franchises at the end of the first term of 12 years. As the White Paper states, of course, no company should expect to have a prescriptive right to a franchise in perpetuity. Nevertheless, the companies face huge start-up costs and the franchises are serious risk investments. As I have said, it should not be forgotten that the franchises are not a licence to print money. I believe that it would
750
help to generate investment confidence and to encourage cable operators if they knew that operators who behaved could normally hope to have their franchise renewed. In short, let the cable authority have a permissive but not a mandatory power to cause a franchise to be readvertised.
Secondly—here I am indebted to an hon. Friend who has worked in and is very well informed on technical matters — there is some evidence that the 20-year franchise for the switched star system is not financially attractive. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would comment on that. It is argued that the payback period is too short and that companies can make a fair return on their investment only if they sell it off at the end.
Concern has been expressed to me by commercial television companies about whether the Government have considered adequately the financial implications of backing direct broadcasting by satellite in the context of an early start for cable services. If the Government hope to benefit the aerospace industry by encouraging the introduction of DBS services, they must consider whether those services can be made profitable, as there is a view that they would be pre-empted in the market place by other paid services distributed by land line or by the low-power satellites which can start much sooner. That, too, must be heeded.
The Independent Broadcasting Authority seems reluctant to allow the independent television companies to participate in the planned cable programme distribution services expected to start in 1984 because of a technicality in their contracts which permits the IBA to prohibit contractors from engaging in satellite broadcasting activities, although it could be argued that distribution is not broadcasting. The IBA position seems to be—I put it no higher than that—that it will not allow contractors to become involved in these schemes unless they guarantee that they will participate in IBA-licensed DBS services in 1986, by which time the companies feel that some of the market will have been pre-empted.
There are other objections, especially in relation to the "must carry" principle. The existing cable companies do not object to it, but it is felt that it would be unfair for the new satellite programmes to be carried as a prescriptive right of the satellite operators. I note that the brief distributed by the BBC expresses some sympathy with the cable operators' fears about the cost of implementing the "must carry" provision in relation to satellite programmes. I hope that the Government will consider that, too.
I could raise many other points, but I am conscious of the wish of other hon. Members to participate in this short debate. Those points are no doubt already well known to the Minister. I refer not least to the wish of some local authorities to have some say or to be consulted before pilot schemes are decided upon. Some of these important points will undoubtedly be made on Second Reading of the Bill. Meanwhile, I return to my original point in saying how pleased many of us are that the Government have moved on this matter with such commendable speed and in such a responsible way.
6.44 pm
Mr. John McWilliam: This is my first opportunity to say how pleased I am to speak under your chairmanship, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on his interesting maiden speech. I am sure that we shall

751
hear a great deal more from him. We always need good contributions on education and I am delighted to welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House.
The debate so far has been interesting, not least for the difficulty in working out how to refer accurately to hon. Members who have spoken, when all their constituencies seem to have changed. I especially enjoyed the speeches of the hon. Members for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) and Boothferry (Sir P. Bryan), all of whom highlighted different facets of the subject which were worthy of careful consideration but had not been considered in depth in the previous debate on this issue in December last year.
I, too, declare an interest. I am sponsored by the Post Office Engineering Union. I also declare an even greater interest, in that it is 26 years to the day since I was signed on as a civil servant to begin a two-year youth course as a telecommunications engineer. I have tried to continue that interest, although I have now been a Member of Parliament for four years, and it is in that context that most of my remarks will be made.
The proposals to expand cable television in Britain were originally made in March 1982 when the Government published a report from their information technology advisory panel. The Government were so enthusiastic about the subject that they immediately set up an inquiry under Lord Hunt to consider the broadcasting implications of cable and allowed it just six months to carry out the task. Since then, however, the initial euphoria about cable television has become rather more sober and it has taken the Government longer to respond to the Hunt recommendations than it took for the recommendations to be produced. In my view, that is no bad thing and the White Paper is a distinct improvement.
With regard to having a common carrier and the widest possible access to cable, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) highlighted the problem of the haves and the have-nots, which still transcends anything that the Government have been prepared to say in the debate on this matter. I shall return to that in due course.
The White Paper is a combination of faith and fudge. The Government's problem is that they wish to see cable as a stimulant to the economy and a promoter for interactive two-way services, but are not prepared to provide any public money or to give any mandatory role to British Telecom, which is the only organisation with the expertise, the wayleaves and the cable ducts. If the whole exercise is to be funded by private capital and carried out by private companies, the regulatory framework must be weak if it is to attract the investment and entertainment services which must dominate the interests of the people who would want that money to be available. Thus, to keep alive the Government's hope that cable will encourage interactive services, which is the element of faith, Ministers have had to make all kinds of compromises on the regulatory arrangements, which is where the element of fudge comes in.
That is clear with regard to programming. There will be no limit on the amount of foreign programming, but the cable authority will have a duty to work towards a progressive increase in the proportion of British programming. There will be no requirement to provide programmes of a
"high general standard in all respects"
752
which is the present obligation on the IBA network, but adult channels—that means pornography—should not be available. I do not want pornography coming over on cable or anything else. I agree with that. I want to be able to switch on my television set at home, irrespective of whether my daughters are in the same room. I think that all other hon. Members want the same. The fact remains that, as the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East said, we could be stuck with rubbish. I disagreed with him when he said that he would rather that the rubbish was our own than foreign. I should much prefer not to have to have rubbish.
There are more compromises on finance. Pay-per-view will be permitted, but cable operators will not be allowed to offer programmes on that basis if it entails the BBC or ITV being deprived of an event that it has normally covered. I am a Socialist. I believe that that is right. I wonder why Conservative Members are so pleased with it. I congratulate the Minister on that. However, on the Conservative analysis of how economies operate, where is the incentive? If a viewer can see something on good old Auntie, what the blazes is the point of paying to see it on cable?
Cable advertising, which is similar to that on independent television and radio, will be restricted under the IBA rules. However, classifed advertising and channels that are wholly or mainly devoted to advertising will be excluded from that limitation. Does that mean that the Minister is proposing some form of local televised Exchange and Mart? What will be the reaction of the people who produce Exchange and Mart when that market is taken away from them and their jobs disappear?
There is more fudge in the choice of technology. Cable providers will be free to provide the old tree-and-branch system or the new switched-star system, but tree systems will be licensed for only 12 years, whereas switched-star systems will obtain 20-year licences. I agree with the Minister that we need switched-star systems. I was extremely interested in what the hon. Member for Wealden said about companies' attitudes to their ability to finance such a system. The 12-year licence will not be a strong disincentive because, if the system is laid—even if it is tree-and-branch in a switched-star configuration —companies will have an automatic right to the extra eight years if they stick in the other advantage after 12 years. There does not seem to be a strong incentive to move to technology that we should examine.
Cable providers will be free to provide the old coaxial cable or the new optical fibre cable, but the Government are providing £55 million of support for the development of a fibre optics industry. We have already heard that there will not be any incentive to go fibre optic initially on any part of the new network. That is strange, as it is an area in which we have a definite world lead. It seems that there are incentives for what we cannot export, but not for what we can export.
The thickest fudge occurs in the complicated interrelationship between cable television and telecommunications. British Telecom will not be given the exclusive right to provide cable systems. It will not even he given automatic participation in each cable consortium. However, between them, BT and Mercury will have the exclusive right to link local cable systems and to provide voice telephony services on local systems.
All cable operators will be allowed to carry non-voice traffic in competition with the BT and Mercury networks,

753
but, because of the importance to BT and Mercury revenue of providing high density data services in the main business locations, for the first 12 years cable operators in the City of London, the boroughs of Westminster and Camden and the business centres of Manchester and Birmingham, who want to provide data services will be allowed to do so only in collaboration with BT or Mercury. I agree with that, but it seems strange, bearing in mind what the Minister will tell us on Second Reading of the Telecommunications Bill.
The big shortcoming of the White Paper is that it does not tell us anything about financial happenings in other countries that have developed cable services. We know why. Next to no profits have been made out of any cable developments so far. What is more, those who have been unfortunate enough to watch cable television in the United States have seen why. Despite what the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East said, tree-and-branch gives a worse picture.
We should also consider our ability to export. The Government tell us that we cannot go ahead because no switches will be available for switched-star networks and that they will not insist on them. However, Rediffusion insists that it already has a switch that is available and in production — system 8. Indeed, BT has ordered one, which it will receive next year. I am glad to see the Minister nodding. Moreover, development on the production of those switches is continuing. This is where the biggest problem with the White Paper rests. Paragraph 23 says:
"There are indications that switched systems technology would offer British industry an early opportunity for exports; so might teletext techniques. However it is generally accepted that although pilot scale switched systems could be available earlier, a fully tested and reliable star switched system using coaxial cable could not be installed on a production basis before mid 1985; an optical fibre switched system would not be available for a year or so after that."
It is now mid-1983, but Conservative Members are complaining that they do not want to wait until mid-1985 for the switch. They want to go ahead using what Lord Hunt euphemistically called "off-the-shelf" technology. In layman's language, that means obsolete technology. Conservative Members are not prepared to wait, encourage and enforce the development of systems that will continue to give us the type of lead that we have already developed in switched technology and optical fibre technology. We can support and export those technologies.
Other people want them. But no. Because it appears that a couple of bob can be made from existing cable systems, and because it appears that a few people wish to do a cheapie—for that is what we are talking about—on existing tree-and-branch networks, with no possibility of realistic reactive use, because such reactive use would be so slow that it would not be worth while, the Government are willing to sacrifice the development and export potential of British industry just for the sake of two years.
Perhaps the Government had an excuse for doing that in December last year. It was clear to all of us then that there was pressure for an election, and it was clear that the pressure was not being damped down by the Cabinet Office. It was also clear that there might be a change of Government. However, after the general election, they have no excuse. They have five clear years, with a large
754
majority, and there is no excuse for the impatience that they are showing to the House and to the country. If they were prepared to wait, they would be acting in the interests of the development of the data communication system, because a cable system cannot be profitable just on entertainment and needs the other services. But they are prepared to sacrifice the potential for export and the development of British industry. I cannot forgive them for that.
7.1 pm
Mr. Roger Gale: Today I represent for the first time the constituents of North Thanet who sent me here. I hope that during my speech I can make it clear that this debate relates directly to their needs, which I shall always seeks to advance.
The Isle of Thanet is steeped in history. It can claim to have provided the foundation of the English language, but despite that in recent years it has been largely ignored. On looking through our Library of 150,000 books I found only one volume that mentioned the Isle of Thanet, and that was written in Middle English. However, our librarians are not easily defeated. They acquired for me a copy of a book called "The Bulwark Shore". In that book I found "Margate-Kiss Me Quick!, but even that is behind the times because now we do it more slowly and enjoy it more.
North Thanet is a new constituency made up from two parts of north-east Kent. I pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr. Rees-Davies, who represented the old seat of Thanet, West. He overcame considerable physical difficulties, and for 30 years gave to the House and to his constituents the benefit of his considerable and colourful debating skills and knowledge.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who contributed the village of Herne and the seaside town of Herne Bay to my constituency. My hon. Friend has always said that it is one of his favourite places, and I understand why. I am proud to represent it in this its 150th glorious year.
In Herne Bay and Margate I am fortunate to have two of the finest seaside resorts in the country. In 1780, Margate was described as a "place of gaiety and dissipation". It was there that the discreet bathing machine was introduced. Modern Margate has other, but equally attractive, dissipations to offer the holidaymaker.
Two-thirds of my constituency is grade 1 agricultural land. North Thanet has the finest arable land in Europe, and the farmers, through hard work, grow three crops a year on it. The remaining third of my constituency is seaside towns and villages. The air is good and the people are healthy and long-lived.
For many, the North Thanet coast represents a retirement dream. For that reason, many of my constituents are elderly and have special needs. The House will know of the old lady who, in her 97th year, was asked what life was like. She replied quickly, "Very good, when you consider the alternative." However, behind that riposte lies a sad truth. Many of our old people are discarded by their families and now live in homes. I do not decry our old people's homes and hospitals—in North Thanet, they are run with affection, dedication, compassion and care—but in many other societies those old people, with their vast wealth of humour and experience, would be cared for within the family unit and revered. If in saying that I, too, am suggesting a return to some Victorian values, I see no shame in that.

755
If we are to embrace our grandparents within the family home, we must encourage our young to stay. In North Thanet that means new industries and the jobs that they will provide. In times of danger, the Isle of Thanet has always been in the front line, but since the war we have been neglected for too long. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and I look forward to the day when, under this Government, the port of Ramsgate will enjoy free port status and all the benefits that that will bring.
I look forward to the day when Margate and Herne Bay will have marinas that will attract money and visitors from the Continent. I also look forward to the day when, in North Thanet, a science park developing new technologies, and feeding on the university of Kent, will bring vitality and prosperity to my constituency. All those advances will be brought about not through handouts but through private enterprise — and so they should be. I hope to mention all those matters in the House in the coming months, but to turn those dreams into reality we must have better communications.
The road to my constituency, the Thanet way, must be improved. I shall raise that matter at the proper time and place with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker). Upon that road depends the entire economic future of the Isle of Thanet.
With your licence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and with the tolerance of the House, I have, like the rolling English drunkard, rambled round my shire, but now I come to the subject of today's debate. Communications means more than road and rail — it means the development of advanced technology. If Britain is not to be left behind, it must take boldly a great leap forward, and it must take that leap soon. As Jack Kennedy said, we must stop looking at things as they are and complaining, "Why?" We must look at things that have never been and ask, "Why not?"
The projected cable system discussed in the White Paper represents the most dramatic potential that Britain has had for many years. The opportunity that it offers, not only for the relay of leisure programmes but for the carrying of information for education and trade, is huge. I hope that at the end of the debate the House will give cable television a resounding go-ahead. However, I wish the House to consider three issues arising from the White Paper—two by omission and one by inclusion.
With regard to the "must carry" obligation placed upon franchise holders and detailed in paragraph 129, it is entirely proper that a cable operator should be required to carry the existing terrestrial broadcast channels. Those channels — BBC 1 and 2, ITV and Channel 4 — are already broadcast from earth and together make up our public service broadcasting. However, we must also consider the difference between broadcasting and what has become known as "narrowcasting", which is the true purpose of cable television. Under existing plans, a cable operator will be required to carry not only the BBC and ITV channels but a further five DBS channels.
Hon. Members in the Chamber understand cable television, but others who read the report of the debate may not. The House should imagine a pipeline containing perhaps 25 smaller pipes, each capable of carrying a single service. Four of those pipes will be taken by existing BBC and ITV services. I am not a television engineer but I
756
understand that the nature of DBS is such that to feed five of them into the cable network would take not five but nine further small pipes because of the bandwidth used.
The effect of the proposals in the White Paper would tie up more than half the channels available to franchise operators before they even start work. Paragraph 165 states:
"The Government does not believe that it should intervene in the commercial judgments which the industry itself should take."
In shackling the franchise holder to so many predetermined channels, we are in danger of contradicting that statement.
The House should consider two omissions from the White Paper. It pays scant regard, if any, to the true potential of local community programming, which is what "narrowcasting" is all about. "Narrowcasting" represents a genuine opportunity to satisfy local and minority demands. The mention of minorities immediately raises the spectre of a lunatic fringe pressure group, subversive programming and even of Big Brother. At best, community television has become synonymous with amateurism and poor quality.
The House has often—sometimes with justification—accused the media of bias. From the Opposition Benches the cry is usually against the press; from the Government Benches it is traditionally the BBC and ITV which bear the brunt of criticism. We have looked for reds behind the microphones and for jackboots in Printing House square.
My experience as a broadcaster has led me to believe that output is, more often than not, directly related to input. We should be looking not at the messenger but at the message itself. We shall not get the balance right by tampering with the electoral system or by censorship. The recent election has shown that if the message is good it will be well received; if not, it will be rightly rejected.
We should set aside our natural fears and look at the true potential for local programming in cable television. In my constituency it will provide a service for the elderly and will allow charitable and other voluntary organisations access to air time to talk directly to the community that they seek to serve. It will provide a genuinely local service, catering for small numbers, that people want, yet there is no provision for that in the White Paper. That is a serious omission.
I mentioned DBS earlier. It will be with us within two years, but what authority will control it? No suitable authority currently exists. If there is to be a relationship between cable and DBS, surely a new authority should represent both. If so, the cable authority needs to be established now. That should be a priority. With those provisions we have a wonderful opportunity.
I said earlier that I wished to see my constituents in the front line of technology. It is a catchment area entirely suited to such a bold advance. I ask that the Isle of Thanet should be one of the first areas to receive a franchise. What better than to build a new road and to lay beneath it Britain's first new cable system?
7.14 pm
Mr. Stuart Randall: I compliment the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) on his maiden speech. He obviously has a great understanding of his constituency. I am sure that he will make a magnificent contribution in the House. I say that with great humility, having been an elder statesman for only six days—I made my maiden speech last Friday.

757
The hon. Gentleman must have experienced a sense of awe on coming into the Chamber, but he delivered his speech with more confidence than I was able to do.
I wish to repeat what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, that cable is irresistible. It will provide new and exciting opportunities if we handle it correctly. It will create a new industry and new jobs, and will generate economic activity. Obviously, many technological benefits will emerge. The justification for the cable system is almost entirely the entertainment aspect. I presume that that is because the demand can be more easily understood and quantified. However, the White Paper shows that the major benefit to the economy will emerge from the interactive systems and services that will be available. It will embrace systems for both the office and the home.
The White Paper suggests demand for interactive facilities will be a long-term matter, but we could be in for a shock. I am sure that there is a large, latent demand for wideband transmission facilities in Britain. The incredible rate of technological development now taking place will create a great demand for wideband facilities. We must encourage the manufacturers and suppliers of terminal equipment and the other new products that will be needed to support the cable system. By doing so we will ensure that demand will be stimulated in that area.
The major benefit that could come from the cable system would be an improvement in the quality of life. People will be able, for example, to work from home rather than having to commute by train to such places as London. That will provide a shorter working week so that people can spend more time with their families. That improvement in the quality of life must be at the forefront of our deliberations. We must ensure that the Government take a strong lead in ensuring that the cable system furthers that aim; we cannot expect the suppliers of technology to take that into account, as their main motivation is profit.
I have had several years' experience in the information technology industry. Government intervention can cause manufacturers to bring forward development time scales, to change product programmes and to do many things that would benefit the industry. The Government can play a valuable role. However, I do not advocate armies of civil servants making the decisions centrally. We must create a sensible framework for the benefit of the system. If the Government cause the interactive systems to move ahead rapidly, there is no doubt that we shall fend off many foreign competitors who appear to be doing so well in the information technology area.
I notice also that the White Paper refers to pilot schemes. These will provide an opportunity for the Government to lead the way in the developments in the cable system. I hope that the Government will find sufficient funds and be generous in providing them, as that will enable imaginative and innovative pilot schemes to be run. When the schemes are selected, I hope that account will be taken of regional factors.
The White Paper suggests that the cable system will generate new economic activity. Where will this new activity be? Ten years hence, how will the system have developed? How many jobs will have been created and what sort of economic activity, and where will this have happened? Where will the cable providers be located? What about the cable operators and the programme
758
providers and the builders of all the new products—the terminal products, the high technology products, and so on —and where will they be located? We are talking about generating a new industry, about new companies and about new products, but where will they be located? I am worried that they will all go to the south-east. In my constituency of West Hull we have tremendous problems of economic and social deprivation and I should like to see many of these new developments and technologies being built there. Will we in the regions, particularly the north, get a slice of the cake? If all the cake goes to the south-east there will be many wasted opportunities. I hope that the Minister will be able to make a statement about what the Government intend to do for the regions with the opportunities in these new developments.
7.22 pm
Mr. Michael Shersby: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) and agree that the provision of cables and the associated materials is of vital importance to the country. I am sure that he will understand if I do not follow him in great detail on that point, as I wish to develop others.
I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) on an excellent maiden speech. It is the first time in my 10 years or so in the House that I have had the opportunity of following a Conservative maiden speech. I cannot think of a more pleasant occasion and I congratulate my hon. Friend not only on the excellence of his speech and the well-informed manner in which it was delivered, but on being able to bring to the debate his experience as a broadcaster, which is particularly helpful and brings an important dimension to our deliberations. I join him in hoping that the road from Thanet to Westminster, which has brought him here, will be improved and will carry the cables to which he referred. I am sure that the electors of his constituency will look forward to hearing much more from him on the subject in the years to come, as will his colleagues on both sides of the House.
I support in general the Government's proposals in the White Paper on the development of cable television. It is essential that we keep well ahead in this technological progress. It will provide much additional pleasure and useful information for the public, and the jobs that we need so badly. However, I have two caveats. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology replies to the debate he will be able to give me some assurances on these important points.
My first concerns the impact of cable television on feature films. In so far as cable televison provides entertainment, especially in the form of feature films, Parliament must be careful to ensure that the legitimate interests of the industries producing, distributing and exhibiting feature films in cinemas and theatres are not unfairly or unreasonably damaged. The Hunt committee report that preceded the White Paper took the view that there should be a reasonable interval between the cinema exhibition of a feature film and its showing on television, and that in the case of cable television no feature film should be shown within 12 months of its registration. The Cinematograph Exhibitors Association, I understand, considered that anything less than a 12-month interval would be disastrous to cinema exhibition.

759
The House knows that there has been a disastrous spell of poor cinema admissions in the United Kingdom over recent years. Last year, they fell by 26 per cent., and takings by 19 per cent., and more closures are threatened. Just recently, things have begun to look up. The success of "ET" and "Ghandi" pushed up last December's admissions by 27 per cent. against December 1981. The new Bond film "Octopussy" took £113,000 at the Odeon, Leicester Square in its first nine days and "The Return of the Jedi", showed in 67 different cinemas, took £1,756,977 in its first fortnight.
I mention this because the cinema industry has been threatened not only by the fall-off in demand in past years but by video piracy. I have had the honour and the opportunity to introduce a Bill designed to make video piracy illegal. That was followed up by a Bill introduced by Sir John Eden, who until recently represented Bournemouth, West. Parliament has taken important steps to protect the cinema industry, and the revenue that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should get from the menace of video piracy.
Despite all that, The Standard today reports on its front page:
"Reward offer as video pirates cash in on film.
The great Jedi rip-off.
Thousands of copies of the latest Star Wars epic Return of the Jedi are flooding the video black market despite a big security operation.
Many of the pirate videos were made from a copy of the film stolen from a cinema at Hastings. Jedi producer George Lucas has personally arranged a £5,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of the thieves."
Video piracy is an enormous problem, and the House has taken steps to try to prevent it.
I remind my hon. Friends that that is only one threat to the cinema industry. The other is that cable television, unless properly regulated, could damage an industry that not only employs many people but provides one of our most creative industries, one of which we are justly proud and which is a large earner of foreign currency. It would be tragic if this recrudescence as a result of these superb films, which can lead to new jobs and prosperity in the British film industry, were ruined by irresponsibility in the use of feature films by cable television. The value of the cinema box office revenue for films is indisputably far greater than its box office revenue from television.
Not only is this a matter of economics, exports and jobs; there is also the social impact. The cinema provides an attraction for youthful audiences in the 14 to 24-year-old group and anything that can help to keep this group attracted to harmless leisure pursuits such as cinema going and out of conflict with the police is surely to be encouraged. Every hon. Member will be able to cast his or her mind back to those days when an evening or afternoon visit to the cinema was one of the attractions of life, and one that provided endless harmless and pleasurable activity. I grew up in my constituency of Uxbridge, and as a young man I had the pleasure of enjoying three cinemas. Today, there are no cinemas in Uxbridge.
The cinemas that have closed are monuments to the loss of an entertainment that was enjoyed by many of us. However, I am happy to say that, as a result of a campaign that I have been waging, I hope that the Odeon will reopen soon and that many youngsters will be able to enjoy happy evenings at that cinema.
760
Cable television could bring with it a revival of the idea of putting films on television on a pay-as-you-view basis. The showing of a film on cable telvision could be confined to those who put the necessary coins in the slot in advance. That could be particularly damaging to the film industry and might even render the suggested 12-month delay inadequate. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology will take that into account.
In a speech to the Cable Television Association on 13 November 1979, my noble Friend, Viscount Whitelaw of Penrith, the former Home Secretary, said:
"Before any such service was authorised, however, it would be necessary to draw up adequate safeguards to guard against possible damaging effects to the existing 'off air' broadcasting services and to protect the film and cinema industry".
I hope that in implementing the White Paper and bringing forward the necessary legislation, the Government will pay full regard to the words of Viscount Whitelaw.
My second caveat about the White Paper is connected with programme standards. Paragraphs 132 and 133 refer to programme standards, taste and decency and are welcome as far as they go, but I do not believe that they go far enough. I should like to have seen a reference to balance in programmes and I want my hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology seriously to consider the establishment of a programme complaints commission to deal with cable television, in the same way that off-air broadcasts and television are covered by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission established by the Broadcasting Act 1980.
Under the 1980 Act the commission has to consider and adjudicate on complaints of
"unjust or unfair treatment in sound or television programmes actually broadcast by a broadcasting body … or … unwarranted infringement of privacy in, or in connection with the obtaining of material included in, sound or television programmes actually so broadcast."
I have seen the complaints commission in operation on several occasions. I was a successful complainant to the previous BBC complaints commission in connection with an interview that I gave on a London radio programme and a close colleague of mine successfully complained to the commission set up under the 1980 Act.
There must be protection for individuals, corporations, industries, trade unions, political parties and anyone else who could be unfairly attacked and for whom there may be no redress unless an appropriate provision is inserted in the legislation. Such is the power of radio and television that once an offending piece has been transmitted most of the damage has been done and it is difficult to get redress, even if one complains successfully to the complaints commission.
The worst that can happen is that the director, interviewer or presenter involved will get a mild rocket and his or her promotion prospects may be affected. However, that is not much of a sanction, because people move from one programme to another and a sanction applied to an individual working for the BBC probably does not have much effect when he moves to another programme company.
The time has come for the House to make it clear to the Government that there must be a programme complaints commission with strong teeth and the power to apply effective sanctions. It is not enough for the cable authority to be able to warn a company or threaten eventually to

761
withdraw its licence if it continues to transmit material that is injurious to individuals, who may be seriously harmed by what is transmitted.
The public must have confidence in the new arrangements and believe that what is transmitted on cable complies with acceptable standards of taste and decency and that if persons are injured by what is transmitted they will be able to go to a commission which could, if necessary, prevent an operator from transmitting material or take other tough sanctions to ensure that standards of decency are maintained, that there is proper balance in programmes and that those responsible for putting out programmes have regard to the enormous damage that can be done to others unless standards are properly observed.
I make my suggestions with the benefit of much experience. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology will take them on board and that, while going along with what the White Paper calls the light touch and perhaps standing back from unnecessary interference with operators, he will recognise that it is vital to establish a complaints commission.
I welcome the White Paper. We are at the beginning of an exciting new era. If we get it right, we can bring enormous pleasure to millions of people, provide work for industry and ensure that our systems are the best in the world. However, let us make sure that we do not forget the industry that made these wonderful creations possible and that we do not damage the film industry. Let us also make sure that we adopt standards that are beyond reproach and are consistent with what we believe to be fair, reasonable and decent.
7.38 pm
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Like the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), I began my cinema life with a jam jar on Saturday morning and graduated to the two-and-ninepenny seats on Saturday evening. I found there a world of excitement and escape, and it is a world which I still enjoy. The British cinema industry has brought immense pleasure to many people over the years.
If the cable system is allowed to accelerate and expand quickly, as is, perhaps, envisaged by the White Paper, the cinema industry will be at risk. I do not believe that the 12-month delay for the showing of films on cable television is long enough. In places such as my constituency, which are well away from the great cities, we often do not get films in our cinemas until 12 months after they have been screened in the major cities. If the films are to be screened on the cable vision system or on the television system, there is a disincentive to the local cinema to screen them. With the death of the local cinema, there goes from rural life one more little part that keeps the rural community together. Although I do not represent a rural community, I have lived in one, and I fully appreciate what the hon. Member for Uxbridge said.
I also agree with the hon. Gentleman on another matter, and that is the right to reply. I nearly took my courage in my hands and intervened to ask him openly whether he believed in the right to reply, because, as a practising lawyer, I know that redress through the courts is long, slow, costly and painful. It never makes good the damage, because the damage is done at the time.
Mr. Shersby: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I intervene in his speech. I believe that the right of reply should seriously be considered where the Broadcasting Complaints Commission has upheld a complaint that it has considered. At present, if one makes a complaint, and it is upheld, the best that one can expect is a paragraph in The Listener. The Listener is an excellent publication, but it does not reach as many as saw the original programme on television. It would be important if the right of reply were one of the sanctions to be exercised by the complaints commission.
Mr. Bermingham: Like the hon. Gentleman, I believe that the right to reply is a fundamental right and should perhaps be extended. I do not believe that we should have to wait until the complaint is justified before the right of reply arises. There must be a balance within the programme itself, and when someone is the subject matter of an attack at least some fair warning should be given and some consideration given to his right of reply there and then. Of course, the damage is done as soon as the programme goes out over the air.
I want to address my remarks to chapter 6 of the White Paper. During the Home Secretary's speech at the beginning of this debate, in response to an intervention by the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), I began to wonder, "How does a cable system seek to serve, for example, a minority?" The test of any commercial cable system is, of course, commercial viability, but I do not see how that test can apply to programmes destined for various ethnic groups, such as Ukranians, Latvians, Filipinos and Somalis. It was once calculated that in the city of Sheffield there were 116 or 126 different ethnic groups within one conurbation. The commercial viability of supplying programmes to a small ethnic group widely spread over the country is virtually nil. If commercial viability is to be the test of the programme, many ethnic minorities will not be served by the new cable vision system. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind when these matters are given further consideration.
Paragraph 132 of chapter 6 worries me considerably. On the subject of a
"positive obligation to ensure programmes of 'a high general standard in all respects, and in particular in respect of their content and quality' that applies to the IBA",
it says:
"To do so would blur the distinction between public service broadcasting and cable services, and involve the Authority too closely in the contractual relationship between the cable operator and his subscribers. Nor could the Authority adequately give effect to such an obligation without there being a tighter regulatory regime than the Government considers appropriate. In the Government's view cable has the potential for increasing the range of good quality services available to the public and this will best be encouraged by giving the public the opportunity to determine what he is willing to buy."
With great respect to the Government, I suggest that that is a recipe for disaster and poor taste, because unless one regulates the quality, balance and output of stations supplying through the cable system, there will be a free-for-all system that will lead by gentle and subtle persuasion down the sort of dangerous road that much of the television of the past few years in this country has gone.
It is interesting that we debate this subject here today about eight days after there appeared in The Times on 22 June what I can only describe as a critical survey report by various teachers of television for children. It described

763
Mr. Everett's programme as "Cheap smut" and Dallas as "Emotions trivialised", and so on. No doubt most hon. Members have seen that report. Again, in The Times Educational Supplement on 24 June comments of the same kind were made, saying that television companies tended to trivialise sex and failed to realise the influence that they are having upon the children of this land.
I do not seek to be a moral purist, but I am a realist, and I realise that when a child comes home from school — or any young person, or any of us — he tends to switch on the box. I am as avid an addict of television as anyone in the House. However, we are conditioned by what we see. It is just like the old Pavlovian trick. Pavlov taught his dogs to do anything that he wanted — by inducing fear and by rewards. If a child turns on the television and gets a diet of diluted smut—if I may put it that way — trivialised sex, and glorification in violence, and it is on 16 channels instead of four, there is that much more danger in our society, and it is that aspect of the matter that causes me great concern.
I am also worried when there is not a balance within the programme content itself. Unless there is a carefully controlled balance, children — who, after all, are the next generation, and who are said to be our greatest watchers of television, although I sometimes wonder, looking at some of my hon. Friends, whether some of us do not qualify in the competition occasionally — are subtly influenced. One does not have to be a great psychologist to realise that when one visits a school and talks to the children, whereas 10 or 15 years ago the subject matter was not always what was on television the previous night, it is nowadays.
It is therefore with mixed feelings that I welcome the White Paper. I welcome the spread of knnowledge and the spread of anything that makes society better and more enjoyable, but I have serious reservations about the effect on the film industry and about the control and balance of these programmes. The Government cannot abrogate their duties and responsibilities in this matter, and when the Bill comes before the House it should contain safeguards for the content and balance, the right of reply and individual liberties. Perhaps that is too strong a word, but on second thoughts I do not believe it is too strong. We have to control and balance the way in which we provide entertainment for the citizens of our land.
7.48 pm
Mr. Peter Griffiths: First, I apologise to the House for my absence during part of the debate this afternoon. There was a presentation downstairs of material which was of particular interest to my constituency, and I had to share my time between that and this debate.
I welcome the proposals and recommendations in the White Paper, not least because I have reason to believe that the area in which my constituency is based may well be one of those that would be considered commercially viable for the introduction of a cable television system.
I draw attention to that at the beginning of what I have to say because I sensed from the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and those of other Labour Members this afternoon that they believed that cable television would in some way be the prerogative of the wealthy. Research that has been carried out on behalf of those who intend to introduce cable systems if they can obtain the franchises does not
764
show that the areas that they will choose will be the wealthy suburbs. They will be looking at areas where the population is densely packed and where there is the greatest penetration of television ownership, and, even more significantly, that of video recorders. That is not in the affluent suburbs but in the outer areas of large cities.
Therefore, it would be wrong for anyone to give the impression that in some way cable television will be the prerogative of the middle class or well-to-do. Like any other form of entertainment or information, it will be selected by people of all categories. From the purely commercial point of view, it is the densely populated areas that will be chosen for early penetration. It will not necessarily be concentrated in the south of England, even though that is where my constituency happens lo be.
I add a word in support of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) about the influence of cable television on the cinema industry. We should recognise that the cinema film is a different art form from the film which is produced for transmission by television. The art of cinema film making is worth preserving for public exhibition as opposed to private viewing in the home. I accept that cinemas, by their provision of facilities, and the cinema industry, in the production of suitable films, have to be able to meet the competition of other forms of entertainment out of their own skill, ability and resources. Nevertheless, it would be undesirable if, at a time when one might see cable television being given an enthusiastic reception, the showing of films on cable television, either be fore they had been shown in the cinema or contemporaneously, were to lead to a fall in cinema audiences and revenue.
I disagree with one point that my hon. Friend made. He appeared to suggest that he objected more to films being shown on pay-as-you-view systems than he did to the basic package of cable television generally. That is wrong. The showing of a film to a restricted audience on a pay-as-you-view basis would not destroy its commercial viability. Undoubtedly, a film that has been shown on television —we are talking about cablevision being required to carry the four basic terrestrial channels — has no commercial viability whatever.
A clear establishment of a rule is necessary. There is probably the need for a 12-month period from the time when a film is shown in the cinema and its being made available on a pay-as-you-view channel. But the period between the introduction of a film in the cinema and the time at which it appears on broadly available cable television or any other broad-scale transmission should be more than one year. As I understand it, the Cinematograph Exhibitors Association has, in its representations to the Home Office, said that while the 12-month rule is acceptable in the pilot areas and for pay-as-you-view schemes, it is not acceptable for cablevision as a whole. I understand that its representation contains the phrase:
"We would wish a three-year rule to apply to general transmission."
The danger is the further closure of cinemas. While in large cities that may be sad but not necessarily tragic, in areas which have only one cinema to serve the population its loss would mean the complete unavailability of the art form of the cinema film to the people there.
We should remember that the audience that visits the cinema today is largely made up of the younger age groups and the very elderly. They will probably not be among those who will wish to watch films in their home, even if

765
they are available via cable broadcasting. It would be sad if we were to take away from the younger age groups the opportunity to find their entertainment outside their homes. We need to encourage elderly people to get out of their homes, even in these days when they are sometimes frightened by stories of the dangers of streets at night, to enjoy going to the cinema with a friend.
It is important to ensure that we do not damage the cinema production industry by reducing the revenue which accrues from the showing of cinema films. It would be a sad day for the British cinema industry if we were on the one hand to push it towards the production of films for showing on the small screen, and on the other hand to reduce the revenue that was available from the cinema.
Having talked about the cable broadcasting system as a form of entertainment, I want to dispute what was said by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr.Randall). I am sorry that he is not here to hear my strictures. I understood him to say that cable television would basically be a form of entertainment, but that is not so. It will be important as a form of entertainment but, more simply, it will provide more programmes. I welcome that. I often find that I have little enough choice in my television viewing when I have time to devote to that pastime.
What is revolutionary about cable television is its potential for interactive services. Over the next 10 or 20 years that could revolutionise most of the traditional ways in which people make their retail purchases. We shall find that the siting of many retail firms will change and the idea will return of deliveries to the home from warehouses outside city centres, from which people will be able to buy directly. We shall have opportunities for interactive relationships with banks and other commercial institutions. That will be different, whereas the provision of entertainment will be simply more of what we already have.
I welcome the Government's approach to franchising. It will help the service to be introduced as quickly as possible and for it to respond to the needs of the localities that it serves. I welcome the words "the light touch" used by my right and learned Friend this afternoon. It is important not to impose national regimentation. In that respect I disagree with the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook who made a comment which I was too shocked to note in full. I understood him to say that the history of technological development from the spinning jenny to the computer showed the need for state control and enterprise. If we had had such control we should still be decidng whether to build the prototype spinning jenny. The most successful computer firms in the world have been founded on private enterprise. It would be wrong for any new development in information technology to be shackled to a national system.
If, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was referring to national availability when he spoke of a national system, I should agree with him. I should like cablevision to be available across the country. It has taken a long time for us to try to ensure that television is available throughout the country, but some areas are still without it. A national system of cable broadcasting would stifle a new and exciting development at birth.
The White Paper, in paragraph 129, says that any cable system must carry direct broadcasting by satellite. That is
766
an odd proposal. I recognise the need for the four basic channels to be provided as widely as possible, but broadcasting by satellite, which is probably financed by advertising, will be a direct competitor of the cable television operator. There is no reason why a cable television operator should be required to carry the commercial programmes, financed by advertising or sponsorship, of his direct competitors. If the operator is required to do that, he should charge the broadcaster rather than the person who receives the cable programme.
The suggestion is that the revenue should be obtained by increasing the cost of the so-called basic package. The broadcaster by satellite will have all the advantages of the cable television company's investment without any of the risks. I do not see why we, as the nation's representatives, should show favour to one particular kind of commercial broadcasting. If commercial broadcasting by satellite is to be carried by cable, that should be a normal commercial transaction. The cable operator and the broadcaster by satellite should come to an agreement.
I bow to no one in my determination to ensure that cablevision meets the highest artistic standards and the highest standards of quality. I do not want public decency to be debased. I cannot understand why X-rated films should be broadcast on television at all. It is difficult to understand why X-rated films should be put out by cable television.
I trust that that new category of restricted films will be regarded as unsuitable for cablevision. It is important that from the beginning we establish a high standard of acceptability for cablevision if we are to seek a national coverage. I welcome the Government's decision not to have a soft porn channel. I hope that soft porn will not be allowed to spread across the other channels. It should be left to the cinemas where people can choose to go and pay. I trust that the Opposition will not continue to damn cablevision with faint praise. We are facing an exciting opportunity. Its introduction involved no political advantage to either side. Cablevision will be profitable.
I regret that the Government are not pressing more firmly that from the beginning we should use fibre optics. If we insisted on using fibre optics it would give a great boost to the manufacturers. It would also be a boost to British Telecom, which the Opposition would like to take a wider part in cable television. British Telecom has access to fibre optics cable in considerable quantities.
I am glad that British Telecom is a partner in the consortium being put together in my area. That public enterprise, which perhaps one day will be a private enterprise, is not being excluded. If we had insisted on fibre optics and a star switching system from the beginning we should have avoided the need to replace part of the cable system relatively soon.
Those who install a cablevision system will have to invest large amounts of money in a venture for which there is no guarantee of success. I hope that we shall avoid saddling them with responsibilities which discourage them. I am worried about the suggestion that, for example, the Obscene Publications Acts should apply to cablevision. They do not apply to broadcasting at present. I do not see how cable operators can be held reponsible for breaches of copyright, breaches of the criminal law or defamation if they originate in channels which the operator is forced to carry. If such offences originate there the operators should be absolved from blame.

767
If an operator produces a cable broadcast system and operates wisely and well and if there are few complaints but much praise it should be normal for the original franchise to be renewed at least once. I think that it will be very difficult to persuade operators to invest at the necessary level in those parts of the country that are less commercially attractive if there is a threat that, even if they do a satisfactory job, their franchise may not be renewed at the end of the first period simply because some other group has come along.
I welcome one of the most exciting developments in information and education for many years. I trust that we shall all wish it godspeed and will see a speedy implementation of the ideas that we are discussing.
8.11 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: This has been a most interesting debate, and the public would expect no less. Last year was Information Technology Year. That led to a great deal of public discussion, not least on cable systems. The Opposition want to encourage such public awareness, if only because, despite what the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) has just said, we are not opposed to cable television but are keen to ensure that, with a method of communication as influential as cable television will be, the public will have a say at some stage in questions of production and accountability.
I have no particular interest to declare. The House might be interested to know that before I came here just over a year ago I was employed for some time by the Scottish Council for Educational Technology, which incorporates the Scottish Film Council. The Scottish Film Council was set up in 1934 as a voluntary body, but the organisation has developed so greatly and the demands upon it have increased so much that the title has been changed to embrace educational technology. The work of that organisation involves information technology, so we have in Scotland a large organisation which has played an interesting role in the development of communications and takes a keen interest in the matters we are debating.
There have been astonishing developments in science and technology, and these are reflected in the great and complex matters that we are discussing. It is not just a question of the number of channels to be made available; it is possible to offer every viewer his or her own personal channel. Such will be the opportunities provided by the development of cable television. Cable television offers a service such as we have never known, but it also offers — and indeed demands — the acceptance of responsibilities for the way in which the service is conducted. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has said, we do not want to see a gap between the media rich and the media poor. Decisions should not be based simply on where people live or where the population is concentrated. People will be paying for the service, and therefore ability to pay must enter into our considerations of how the service should be provided and how available it should be.
Having read the White Paper and listened to the debate, I am interested in a number of the problems. We have not addressed ourselves sufficiently to the need for safeguards. I am also concerned, as are a number of hon. Members, about the film industry. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North dealt with that problem very well. We cannot simply dismiss the problem of the British film industry. We
768
cannot say that there will not be a challenge, or that we can deal with it when cable television comes. The British film industry will face a very serious problem.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge pointed out how difficult it might be to retain quality in film production when the film industry is faced with video, with development of cable television and with a challenge to its own standards which those of us who wish the British film industry well do not welcome. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook made a similar point, I thought that I noticed signs of dissent on the Treasury Bench. I found that surprising.
I understand that Mr. Iain Sproat, the former hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, who until the election was a junior Minister at the Department of Trade, was undertaking a review of the British film industry. The White Paper has been published and the Government have put forward their views to the House, but we have not yet heard the recommendations of the film review and, indeed, the Minister has not yet addressed himself to the problems that he inherited from the former junior Minister, which are described in that review. I hope that when the Minister considers the future of cable television and the review of the film industry he will take account of the representations of the various bodies involved in film production and the presentation of film, and of those interested in all aspects of film in Britain.
I am also worried about the amount of power we are giving to the cable operator. I share the concern of a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have asked whether British production will stand a chance against the multinationals who will have much greater access to British markets—to our screen and our homes. It is not ignoble to put up a defence for British film productions in that context. I am not worrying only about overseas competition. We all have a responsiblity to encourage British productions and to give people the impression that their industry is worth while, that we are with them in trying to keep their markets, and that we oppose unfair competition from the multinationals.
Several hon. Members have expressed an interest in the rights of viewers. The viewers have a right to see that the quality of programmes and presentation is preserved. They have family responsibilities which we cannot simply disregard as irrelevant to the free market.
Reference has been made to the Hunt report, which has had a substantial influence on the Government's thinking, although clearly the Government have not accepted all its recommendations. The composition of the Hunt report worried me. I did not believe that it was representative of the people we have been discussing—those involved in production and presentation, the viewers themselves, the various community groups, the ethnic minorities and so on. The Government's response also worries me. One of my most important points is that I am not convinced that the Government have seized the problem of impartiality to a degree that is reasonable within a democratic society.
The Hunt report discussed impartiality and said:
"We are satisfied that news, whether it be national or local, should be presented with accuracy and impartiality. Comment, however, is a matter that we think could well be allowed greater latitude on cable, but not to the extent that there is a political bias across a cable system as a whole. Impartiality in community access channels should mean only impartiality in allowing access. Those allowed access would be under no obligation to be impartial. Similarly, individual channels could carry programmes provided by special interest groups, for example,

769
political or religious organisations. However we think it would be wrong if the amount of programming by political parties and religious groups was solely dependent on their ability to raise money and for this reason we recommend that they should not have their own cable channels."
That may well be a reasonable conclusion, but, as has been said, even the IBA has its reservations about it. In response to that paragraph and to other aspects of the report, the IBA said:
"The regulatory body proposed by the inquiry would 'remain in the background'. For such a body we would certainly not put ourselves forward. It would be impotent in itself and damaging to those other bodies which are charged with a real task."
If the IBA takes that view, it concerns me. I say that frankly, because the IBA's interpretation of its charter and the BBC's interpretation of the demand for impartiality took a bit of a knock, to say the least, during the recent general election.
I do not seek to make party political points, because presumably the next election is a long way away —unless, of course, we can do something about it. However, it is reasonable to analyse the way in which the general election was presented. I have been left very much in a quandary as to how the IBA — and the BBC, for that matter—can justify the impartial status that the public are encouraged to believe they adopt.
I shall cite a couple of examples. The other day the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that the election had been fought or presented not so much on issues as on what was happening in the various opinion polls. There is much to be said for that view. I cannot understand how the various broadcasting organisations can justify, for example, the taking of the one poll by The Sun. It was a telephone poll of women voters. I cannot understand how that could be presented and exaggerated out of all proportion to imply that it showed that the alliance had a 0·5 per cent. lead over Labour. No doubt that may have been factually correct. Nobody can challenge the fact that it was a poll. No doubt it was admitted that it was a poll of women and of those with telephones. However, it was not made clear that voters are not all women and do not all have telephones.
The clear message was given that there were patterns to be seen. Throughout the campaign people were given the impression that the Conservatives would win, it was a matter of trying to manoeuvre the alliance into second place. That may be thought of as an exaggeration but as a mere taxpayer and as someone who pays a licence, may I say that I took grave exception to the fact that on, I think, the Sunday before the election, cameras were sitting outside a certain home in the Borders for several hours because the candidate there happened to be having a meeting on strategy. No doubt all hon. Members had meetings on strategy that day, but none of us felt it right to call on television and on the expensive resources of ITN and the BBC. If those responsible for the existing broadcasting networks think that that was an impartial presentation of important events, it makes me all the more worried that some sections of the House are prepared to give even greater "freedom" and "latitude" to those responsible for cable television.
It is not just a question of presenting news. People are entitled to have facts presented to them in a way that they can study and consider. They are entitled to a more in-depth consideration of important and controversial issues
770
than some of the broadcasting systems adopt. That must be said now, instead of waiting until the arrival of cable television, when any complaints will be seen as influencing those responsible for licensing and so on.
There will be a great transformation by the year 2000. Therefore, we must look well beyond the 1980s and into the distant future. So far, the discussion has understandably centred on job losses and, perhaps, on the number of channels. However, future quality is of the utmost importance. The growth of technology coincides, as we know, with a crisis in broadcasting. Although all those cameras were made available for non-events during the election campaign, we have been told that the BBC's revenue is falling further behind the amount needed to retain existing services at a time of rapidly rising production costs. We are also told that commercial companies are under pressure.
In broadcasting generally, and particularly in cable television, there should be a link between innovation and culture. I am not sure that that is reflected in the White Paper as firmly as I should have liked. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) said, we shall be dealing with new social groups and with their views and aspirations, and their rights to express them. The ecology group, the women's movement, the various ethnic groups and so on, are perfectly entitled—as are the individual communities that will receive cable television—to feel that they have a part to play not only in the reception of cable television but in the sort of programmes broadcast.
We should address ourselves not only to the new electronic techniques but to the human and social implications of their use. Cable television should not add, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said, to division and fragmentation within our society. Two-way communications should involve all the people and should not be used to extend the privilege of expression.
I do not wish to see urban areas against rural areas; I do not wish to see the battle that we saw in Committee on the Telecommunications Bill repeated in our attitudes to cable television. Those who can afford information technology should not be pitched against those who cannot. I do not wish to see the greater extension of social divisions. Of course, it is true that communication means power. That is self-evident, but it should be a power responsibly influenced and responsive to the views of the great mass of the people.
Cable television is not only an interesting technological development; it has an important and essential social responsibility. Aneurin Bevan, who was quoted several times during the debate on the Gracious Speech, said that we should have an interest over the commanding heights of the economy. My fear is that we do not have even what democrats would regard as a reasonable amount of influence over the commanding heights of communications. I believe that the White Paper represents a setback even for those aspirations. As I believe that cable is vital for our future, and as democracy is so fragile, I regret that those principles were omitted from the White Paper.
8.31 pm
Mr. Tim Brinton: I have said before in debates on cable that I still bitterly regret the fact that the word "television" or even "vision" must enter into our calculations. I see cable and the introduction of this new technology as totally different from the broadcast

771
television that we watch today. I hope in the next few minutes to comfort the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), who was annoyed that a camera crew waited all day to take pictures of a certain eminently newsworthy item during the election. Because we have only four channels today, that event of itself was news on all four channels. If we develop cable—I shall try to avoid the words "vision" or "television" as much as I can—in the way in which I should like to see it developed and we have multiple channels feeding into each household, which might of course have one or two screens, the people of this country will have so much choice that they will not be faced on four limited channels by that one news conference, which so much irritated the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Orme: I have followed the hon. Gentleman's argument closely. In the United States and Canada, where there are 10 or 11 channels, the main news items are concentrated in two or three channels. Those channels are watched consistently.
Mr. Brinton: But there is always the choice of the other channels. The national news on the main popular channels will inevitably carry the same stories. What we are not sure of, once cable has been introduced, is how many people will watch the national news. Today, the national news programmes at 9 o'clock on BBC and 10 o'clock on ITV are in the top 10 viewing figures. Once we have multiple channels, I believe that there will be dramatic changes. Obviously the popular programme—the "Dallas" of the day — will have a large viewing figure. The "home box office" with the popular feature film will have a large viewing figure. Provided that we get it right, the increased opportunities will allow for opinions of all sorts to be radiated on those multiple channels. Inevitably, some channels will be more popular than others.
I, too, welcome the approach in general of the White Paper and look forward to the legislation. Like several of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) who made an excellent maiden speech, I enter a caveat about the effect of the "must carry" rule on direct broadcasting by satellite. If one looks at the figures mentioned by my hon. Friend, one sees that my argument about multiple channels comes under considerable threat. I am told that relaying the four terrestrial channels takes up 16 per cent. of the 25-channel network. When one relays five direct broadcast satellite channels, going to C-MAC varied to A-MAC form for cable, one takes up 10 more channels. For many years it will also be necessary to relay direct broadcasting services in a transcoded-to-Pal form, absorbing a further five channels.
On that calculation, six channels will be left to provide the multiple choice which I am so anxious to achieve. A genuine worry is whether it is right or wrong—I say wrong—to compel the programme operators on cable to take direct broadcasts by satellite. It is correct that they should take the terrestrial channels, but we should seriously reconsider this other point, otherwise much of the purpose of this cable exercise will go down the drain.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West and many others are worried about the future of the film industry.
Mr. Peter Griffiths: Assuming that we have the requirement to carry these programmes, does my hon. Friend agree that this is a key argument for the use of fibre
772
optics rather than coaxial cable? With fibre optics there are virtually unlimited opportunities, whereas with coaxial the number of potential channels is strictly limited.
Mr. Brinton: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I shall perhaps say something about the encouragement of fibre optics later. It is a road that I would go down.
Many hon. Members have expressed anxiety about the future of the film industry as a result of the introduction of cable. I accept the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) about the problems faced by the cinema exhibitors. I do not to the same extent take the point about the future of British film production. In fact, I take the opposite view, that if cable is introduced properly it will be the salvation of the British film producing industry.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) rightly said, the feature film is a different animal from the "quickie" film made for television. It is a painstaking operation from conception to birth, and sometimes takes three or four years. That is something for which television operation is not at present geared.
There is undoubtedly a slow merging between the independent television film producer, who makes film for television over a longer time than the big companies, and the film originally made for the cinema. I believe that in a few more years we shall see the end, perhaps sadly for some, of the celluloid frame-by-frame and that instead we shall be working almost entirely in video tape principles, even to the extent of making feature films of the care and artistic value that we all agree is necessary.
I foresee other changes, in the sense that the feature film will be specially made with that loving care for the benefit of the home screen, because that will become worth while with pay-as-you-view, subscription television and all the other things that have been mentioned today.
I do not want to see the cinemas go. Other hon. Members have referred to their social value and importance in getting the young and elderly out of their homes to meet in a darkened room to look at a large screen and have the experience of being together. I believe that the cinema competitors have to move ahead with the times. They have an answer in their own hands through, oddly enough, the introduction of cable. Why can they not think of using the cable in their cinemas? They could have massive events up and down the country. People would gladly pay to see the big films which could be radiated through the wire to their cinemas. Those who do not want to go would be able to stay at home and have a multiple choice of programmes.
The various representations that have been made to us cover many subjects. However, we have not heard today about the problems of copyright. The music industry and many others are concerned about the coming of cable. When my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge introduced his first Bill covering video piracy, many of us made the point that this was only a first stage. In concert with the bringing to birth of cable, there must be a review of the British film industry. There must be a complete overhaul of copyright to cover satellites and cable. We must look again at the Obscene Publications Act 1964. If the Act is to apply to cable, what about broadcasting television, to which it does not apply? We must work very hard on this subject and get it right.
The BBC and the IBA are understandably anxious about their future when faced with competition. I

773
remember that in the mid-1950s the BBC faced competition with very much — dare I say this in the politest terms to my former employers? — the same script as it is now, except that the names have been changed to face cablevision. When that competition arrived, the BBC became more efficient and productive, and its programmes became better. I believe that that is what cable can do now to the existing programme broadcasters.
It all depends on the authority which we hope to create in a few months' time. If that authority is independent and separate from the Government and other interests and manages the light touch that is talked about, but which could quickly become heavy in legislation, the cable experiment will work and in 10 years we shall have a new system of communications.
8.43 pm
Mr. Tim Rathbone: I want to pick up the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) was making and to allay some of the fears expressed from the Opposition Benches. I believe that too much has been made of the conflict of interests between cinema and cable and between cinema and television. The two media are linked. The people who are producing spectacular films are dependent upon their being a success in the cinema and then a success on television. I believe that too much worry has been expressed on both sides of the House about the way that cablevision will exacerbate a problem which does not really exist.
Many of the comments from the Opposition Benches are almost identical to those made in the debates which took place before the advent of independent television some years ago. The same fears were expressed then about what commercial television was to do to the people. There was complete abdication then of all responsibility for the viewing habits within the home by those who have control in the home—the parents. There were claims that it would be a medium for the benefit of the rich and that the poor were not going to be able to enjoy it; that it would pander to bad taste and would not enhance good taste. However, we have all seen how, since its launch, independent television has been the most enormous success and, in many instances, has taken over leadership from the already excellent BBC.
I have a word of praise for my hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology. Without his thrust, vitality and encouragement, we should not be debating the advent of cable today. He has raised the threshold of awareness of what cable can do to bring enjoyment into the home and provide eventually interactive services which can change the home in a way that none of us at the beginning of the last Parliament would have considered possible. I pay tribute also—I do not believe that anyone has so far—to Lord Whitelaw for the way in which as Home Secretary he contributed to the successful pushing through —sometimes, it is said, against the wishes of some of his own best advisers—of the cable television Bill and the White Paper that we have been considering. My right hon. and learned Friend the new Home Secretary has picked up the reins excellently this afternoon.
I must raise with the Minister an anxiety that I expressed when the White Paper was published some months ago—the size of the control areas which are
774
being allowed in the 12 or so regions that will be on test. It is difficult to see how, on the basis of an area of 100,000 homes—not connections—commercial viability can be measured, particularly with regard to the attraction of advertising to, and its placing in, those areas and because of the lack of pay television during the test period. It may also be difficult to assess the attractions of different forms of programming on so small a number of viewers as will be inevitable in 100,000 homes.
Contrary to the argument that has been put forward by every Opposition speaker, it seems to me that this country has missed out over and over again by delaying putting our inventions into practical operation. We feel always that the time is not right or that the development has not been honed to a perfect point. Therefore, our developments and inventions are often whipped off, developed and turned into going concerns abroad while we lose the advantage of such developments and of the financial returns that developing and marketing offer.
Running through all the speeches has been the importance—rightly expressed—of the need to maintain the present values and the ability of people to enjoy those values to the same degree after the advent of cablevision.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that cable should not lessen the requirements and obligations of local broadcasting, any other contractual obligations or those which have been built up in commitments made by the existing television stations when submitting for licences to broadcast. The Hunt report warned of this, and it is especially important in rural areas where cable is unlikely to be economically viable in the short term and indeed may never become truly viable.
I was greatly reassured by the Home Secretary's assurance that the same kind of argument would be applied to the withdrawal of the present cable feed of BBC and ITV programming by those who now provide those services without an absolute assurance that those who now receive their BBC and ITV programmes in that way would not receive them on a direct feed basis unless reception was as good as that which they now enjoy. Acceptance of the necessity for good reception is important because one of the motives for having a cable feed of present programming into the home is the fact that reception would otherwise be poor.
Contrary to the contentions of some of my hon. Friends, I believe that there is no difficulty about the requirement for the carriage of direct broadcasting from satellites in the same way as the requirement for the carriage of BBC and ITV programmes. It is not a contradiction for there to be such a requirement and for the operation to be commercially based. Of course it must be commercially based. There is no lack of market guidelines on which to base such a commercial price list, as it were. Innumerable market guidelines are available for anyone in the television or film industry to determine the prices to be charged to third parties and third countries for programming made or bought for the home market and then sold off. That is not an unaccustomed aptitude and many have made a good living from it.
The local programming element in broadcasting today must be watched to ensure that it is not hurt by cable. The independent television companies and the BBC are too prone to regard local broadcasting as regional broadcasting. To take an example from my own area, the people of western east Sussex and eastern west Sussex are in the

775
middle of a long, slim television area with two broadcasting points, one in Kent, which serves my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) very well and one in Hampshire which serves the people to the west of me very' well, but those in the central area are not well served by either the BBC or the ITV in terms of local programming, local news coverage or, in the case of ITV, local advertising which may be the meat of an independent commercial station.
Mr. Anderson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that local considerations are not among the criteria for the granting of franchises?
Mr. Rathbone: That is precisely my concern, for without that and with the propensity of the existing broadcasting companies to go regional, localisation would not be a thrust of the programming provided by the new cable systems.
The other main instrument for the control of quality and the provision of the kind of programming that people in a given area want is the control mechanism itself. I endorse the Government's decision to establish a cable authority but, as others have said, I believe that to be effective such an authority must be like the IBA, at least at a long arm's distance from the Home Office but, unlike some of the IBA companies, also at a long arm's distance from the IBA. It is crucial that members of tie cable authority should have a commitment to cable. That cannot possibly be achieved if there is too close a link with the Home Office or with existing authorities.
As I mentioned in an intervention, it is because of rather too close links between the operations of Channel 4 and the Independent Television Companies Association that Channel 4 has not been as commercially viable as many of us had hoped and continue to hope that it will be. The rules as they are applied by the IBA to programme content and, through the ITCA, on advertising content are well drawn as guidelines for the type of rules that are needed for cable feed. I emphasise that because some people believe that the rules are too narrowly drawn and that they will too closely circumscribe the programme and advertising content of cable programming. We must be careful about stepping too far away from the codes of practice and standards as drawn up by the ITCA.
We have managed to establish the best television broadcasting in the world through the BBC and have built on that by establishing the best commercial television broadcasting through the independent television companies. Through the instrument of this White Paper and its eventual execution, we shall once again be able to lead the world in cablevision and the high technology services that can be provided by it once it has been developed. I wish the Government well in their endeavours.
8.56 pm
Mr. Hugh Dykes: As I am one of the last hon. Members to speak in this debate, it is inevitable that I shall touch on some subjects that have already been dealt with. I do not wish to be repetitive, but several important elements have emerged in the debate and my hon. Friend the Minister will no doubt refer to them in his winding-up speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) referred to the work that our hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology has done. Without hesitation, the
776
House pays tribute to him for the marvellous lead that he has given, through his departmental efforts, to industry and all aspects of commercial endeavour, both this year and last, for the development of cable television.
The House appreciates the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary opened the debate. That symbolises the primary importance of the subject and the fact that the Home Office will take the lead in the formation of cable television, especially at the beginning of this complicated exercise. As the technology takes over from some of the statutory and social requirements of the structure, perhaps the Department of Trade and Industry will later assume the leading role in practical terms.
We have the type of leadership from the Home Office that all pragmatic observers of the scene appreciate. I also welcome the Government's alert approach and the speed with which they have acted, notwithstanding the complexities of the subject. It is praiseworthy that matters have been tackled with a feeling, not of undue haste, but of the need to get on with it. I welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend said about setting up a timetable for the submission of interim franchise applications and the eventual granting of those franchises. Time is short, but that will help to concentrate minds constructively and healthily. I hope that the right decisions are produced.
I am sure that the House welcomes the White Paper, especially some parts of it. We look forward to the Brill and the guidance notes that will be issued to applicants. It is a pity that the response of Opposition Members has been so grudging and ungracious. Once again the Opposition have missed the point. With such an extremely risky new venture, we must provide the necessary encouragement to the commercial interests to produce strong applications and the best results.
I welcome the introduction of cable television, for a reason that has not been mentioned in the debate. I am still keen on the ideas of Keynes, which can link easily and felicitously with the Conservative view of political and economic life. There will be much fiscal and investment activity during the cable-laying effort and the multiplier effects that will flow from it. The unfolding of the franchises is bound to have a beneficial effect on the economy, other things being equal.
The debate was enhanced by maiden speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and for Salisbury (Mr. Key). Both contributions were excellent.
There are three aspects to the new venture — the cable-laying effort, how the operators and franchise holders will perform, and the nature of the cable authority. Much has been said about the latter two areas especially and I shall not go over the ground at length again. The second aspect will also come logically to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury and will involve the fiscal and financial inducements accorded to the franchise holders and those involved in cable laying for the long-term depreciation of the massive amounts of equipment that will be necessary to get the service off the ground.
Will expenditure on those risky and pioneering activities be offsettable against any revenues, or simply against the revenue accruing directly from cable activity? The nature of the risk and the danger of a low return mean that the main applicants will probably be a series of well spread consortia. I declare a tangential interest in that I may be involved in advising one consortium, but nothing has yet been decided. The spread of interests and the

777
danger of a marginal return mean that we shall not get the necessary results unless we give the necessary encouragement.
With broad support for the White Paper, and special support for some aspects, I must refer to several matters that are in danger of being a deterrent to applicants. The paradox is the reverse of what the Labour party suggested through its official spokesman, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He expressed the fear — we all share the view — of poor quality programmes and referred to the United States of America. The Labour party wishes the new system to be simply a public agency, but that has no chance of getting off the ground. We must make the exercise sufficiently profitable for the operators and franchise holders to encourage the development of high quality programmes. If we do not, the same thing will happen here as happened so visibly in the United States, where the public agencies impinged on the organisation of the effort. Public decision-making had a depressive effect on profitability, and there was a sharp decline in the quality of programmmes because the operators had to try to scrape some profit out of the great jungle of restrictions imposed on them.
It may be of interest to my hon. Friend the Minister if I quote from a recent edition of the magazine New Media Markets. It refers to an Amendment Bill, which has been presented by Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, which seeks to reduce the onerous conditions imposed on cable operators in America by local agencies. The local configuration does not apply to our much more unitary economic and political society, but I shall quote item 4 of the main provisions of the amendment, which is trying to make life a little easier for the operators who may make no profits at all. That is why I am worried that the franchise will fall automatically after 12 years instead of permissively, which perhaps the Government will reconsider.
Item 4 states:
"Cable operators should not live under the threat of the loss of a franchise when due for renewal, simply by virtue of new applicants offering"—
I here add the word "apparently"—
"more attractive terms or a better service. Specific guidelines for franchise renewal would oblige a city council"—
that is the United States pattern, not ours—
"to renew unless the current incumbent has committed a felony or grossly abused the privilege of providing the service. The threat of non-renewal has become the best (but over-used) weapon of control by cities over cable operators, and has been a substantial discouragement to investment."
I hope that the Government will re-examine the matter.
I share the anxieties expressed by a number of hon. Members about paragraph 129. The more I read and reread that paragraph, the more I think it is a bit of a muddle. It is not clear who should pay whom. The BBC, in its briefing material for the debate, rightly emphasised not only that it is not against the development of cable, but that it is quite happy to make what it calls commission payments to the cable television operators in recognition of the carrying of its services.
The same considerations apply to any of the DBS configurations that will be run through the cable television providers. I hope that paragraph 129 will be reconsidered by the Government. It is intolerable that those faced with the danger of a marginal return on their investment, even
778
over a long period, should carry the services free. The DBS operators could find that their total advertising revenue rises and that their area of visibility doubles, for example, but with no additional payment accruing to the cable franchise. That would be most unfair.
A number of important conclusions have arisen in the debate and will undoubtedly be aired again when the subject is debated in another place and when the Bill is presented to the House. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Lewes and for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) that Britain has the best television service in the world. It is interesting how the service has developed in a way that is difficult to describe. Even the experts are nonplussed, although glad and gratified. We have a unique combination of a high public service content and sense of responsibility with a successful and variety-laden independent service, the two providing the competitive edge one to another.
In recent years, ITV has often overtaken BBC in the quality of its public service-oriented programmes. But, at the same time, each helps the other to improve. That can have a beneficial effect on the nature of cable television. I do not envisage it being similar to that in the United States, for a whole host of complicated and interrelated reasons. I hope that the Government will have the courage to give the necessary commercial inducement without it being a licence to spend money in the crude aggressive sense, and without the public responsibility being overlooked and forgotten. The operators should be allowed at least a reasonable rate of return and enough money to amortise their investment and expand their physical capital investment over a sufficiently long period.
I remember the arbitrary ITA contract changes, such as Television Wales and West being replaced by Harlech. It was an arbitrary move that did not go down well with those involved, or do much to help the quality of the industry. We must avoid that when the franchises are renewed or changed after 12 years. There is a good example of experience and historical practice in what we have developed in two or three decades.
I hope that my hon. Friend will have time to deal with some of my points. As has been said in the debate, the type of person serving on the cable authority will be important. I can see the great and the good forming the overwhelming majority of the cable authority. If the authority is to have the light touch referred to in the White Paper—rightly, Conservative Members welcome that — and the pragmatic, sensible but nonetheless publicly responsible attitude — that special combination that we have developed in British television—we must have people who are commercially oriented but who also have a sense of public responsibility. There are plenty of such people around who can be found without bringing out those rather tired old professorial figures from various professions and dusting them down. Such people have been used before on public agencies, and they would run a stuffy and over-interventionist authority.
I wish the Government well in the development of the cable authority and I congratulate them on their sense of enterprise and initiative. I hope, too, that in the final development of the control of advertising, both in quality and nature, we tend, if we can, to shy away from sponsorship through the public mechanism. That brings problems, and I hope that we stick to our old traditional British way of advertising on the new channels.
9.11 pm
Mr. Stanley Orme: This has been an important and interesting debate. Before turning to the subject of the debate itself, it is my pleasure to congratulate two new hon. Members who made excellent maiden speeches this afternoon. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) made an amusing and effective speech, as did the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). They were both allowed a great deal of latitude in their maiden speeches, and no doubt they will not find it as easy in the future to say some of the controversial things that they did today. We await what they have to say in future debates. They are both obviously knowledgeable in this subject and made an important contribution to our debate.
I wish to make it clear at the outset that the Labour party is not against technological developments such as cable, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said. The new era is with us and we must be part of it. In many instances we are in the forefront, not least in production. I assume that the Minister for Information Technology will deal with this in some detail.
I agree with those hon. Members who say that, while the television side of cable is important, it is only part of the picture. There are industrial, educational and information sides of the technology, which in many instances are far more important than the development of television, which will give us many more channels, but not much new technology. We shall see the development of information technology, with computers going into the home so that one can transmit as well as receive information. An entirely different world is being created. Interesting experiments are now taking place in towns such as Milton Keynes.
The Government rushed into publication with the White Paper. It seems that they need to be seen to be promoting technology; in reality, they are doing little. Decisions taken now will reverberate through industry for decades. Therefore, it is vital that decisions are reached sensibly and with regard to the national interest and not hastily with a view only to quick profits.
According to the White Paper, fibre optic technology could be used on a wide scale after 1985 and the most advanced star-switched systems, using fibre optics, could come into general use after 1986–87. Therefore, if the introduction of cabling were delayed until 1986, it could be launched in Britain in a planned way, using fibre optics — indeed, based on fibre optics — the technology in which, as the White Paper says, Britain is prominent. As I said in my intervention in the Home Secretary's speech, the time scale is important, but the development of new technology is even more important.
Thanks to the research and development work of British Telecom, the United Kingdom is pre-eminent in that area. If the cabling of Britain were to be planned and organised with the national interest as the paramount concern, we would have an orderly launch and the introduction of an advanced star-switched system and we would be among the first countries to have that. We are not dragging our feet or lagging behind other advanced countries.
We could plan an assault on the world markets for equipment and start to regain our place as a supplier of information technology equipment. That will not happen if we move in the piecemeal manner proposed by the
780
Government. Indeed, if we miss the opportunity the result will, as foreseen by the recent NEDC report, be a balance of payments deficit in information technology equipment of £1 billion by 1990. That is most likely if the development of cable in Britain is left to commercial and market forces, as outlined in paragraph 24 of the White Paper.
Another reason for a standardised national and planned fibre optic, star-switched system is that it is similar to the system used for telecommunications networks and, before long, most telecom systems in Britain will be fibre optic.
The main potential of cabling is for new advances in telecommunications. The fact that it is beginning with entertainment must not be allowed to obscure its long-term potential.
The sensible course is to install a system that can be developed and not tied to the limited needs of entertainment. The Government propose that the underground ducts should be capable of taking a star layout, but that implies heavy conversion costs at some time in the future. Suppose the tree method were installed in the ducts and the star system subsequently proved itself to be greatly superior. What would it cost to transfer the systems? We could go for the new system now. The tree system is used in the United States, but it will want that replaced by more modern technology. If we came in with more modern technology at the start we would be in the forefront of new developments.
In July 1982 the Government set up a technical working group on standards for wideband cable systems, under the chairmanship of Dr. Tony Eden. The only published results of that working group is the one-page report in the White Paper. The availability of standards is vital for the construction of cable systems. How can we go ahead without them?
I hope that the Minister will respond to my questions. If he cannot do so this evening, I know that he will write to me later. What draft standards have been sent to the British Standards Institution? That is an important question to which we are entitled to have an answer. When will draft standards be sent to the BSI covering two-way data services and direct broadcasting by satellite? What is the present stage of the BSI consultative procedures on those draft standards that are now available? When will all the standards be finalised and agreed? Those are important questions, and I hope that the Minister will reply at the earliest opportunity.
The Government should stop and think carefully about our national objectives before plunging into piecemeal cabling on the lines proposed in the White Paper, because the economics of cable are very uncertain. As we have seen from Channel 4 and commercial breakfast television, new television stations are no longer a licence to print money. In the United States cable companies are having great financial difficulties, and in Britain we have the highest penetration in the world of video recorders —almost all imported at the moment. That has had an impact on viewing, on the cinema, and on the entertainment industry generally.
It is worth noting that by 1985 there will be 50 per cent. market penetration of video recorders in this country. Moreover, by 1985, satellite television broadcasting on at least two channels in Britain will provide even more competition for cable. Our market can take only so many hours of viewing per day. As I said in an earlier intervention, the fact that there are more channels does not

781
necessarily mean widening the viewing. In the United States, viewing still tends to concentrate on the major networks, as opposed to smaller presentations. So in some instances cable companies may be hard-put to make money. The Government may reply that it is all private money, put up by entrepreneurs who know the vistas, but such a free-for-all may not be in the national interest. Some companies may prosper, but others will go to the wall. When they do, we shall be left with patchy coverage and added difficulty in building a national network for uses other than entertainment.
The cable companies seem to be in a rush to enter the free-for-all. Once direct broadcasting by satellite is in operation, it will be more difficult for new cable systems to be established. They also want to cash in now to use off-the-shelf, mainly imported technology that will be fast outdated. As with the negligible attention to standards in the White Paper, so only one page is devoted to manpower, and that is very vague. There is little evidence that there will be a growth in real and lasting jobs. The White Paper's only reference to possible job losses as a result of cable expansion is the sentence that
"as in all cases of technological change, short term problems could occur, adversely affecting jobs in particular sectors, places and types of work".
Yet the Greater London council, in its report "The cabling of London", forecast that job losses in the entertainment sector and in consumer goods production could total 25,000 by 1990. Once again, this hastily produced White Paper takes no account of the long-term consequence of cabling. The Government must produce a detailed study of job creation and losses before they go ahead with their proposals.
The previous Secretary of State for Industry set objectives for his Department. Although they have largely been overlooked, they included the aims of gearing research and development to the United Kingdom's needs and developing awareness and rapid adoption of key technologies. Is the Minister ready to reaffirm that policy for his Department? From those aims, one would imagine that the Government's intention would be to construct a broadband national network as the basis for a coherent broadcasting, telecommunications and information technology strategy. Provided initially for television entertainment, the network could be developed to sustain future communications services using the latest British technology. Will the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry abandon the aims established by his predecessor, or will he merely continue to ignore them at the expense of the national interest?
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry should look at the example set by France. That country has not rushed in for a quick return but has looked to the future and to its needs and interests. One city is to be cabled using optic fibre cable, a star system and every available type of terminal. It will all be provided for by the French national telephone company. After a trial period of three years, France will assess the results and decide on a standard system to be applied throughout the country. That is what we are asking the British Government to do.
British Telecom's role in the provision of cable is crucial. We have always advocated that BT should be the universal provider of cable—the common carrier. BT already has the ducts, cabinets and wayleaves. It has the
782
experienced installation and maintenance staff. It leads the world in the best technology and fibre optics and has the experience of cabling for entertainment, as witnessed by the Milton Keynes experiment. It could cope with the investment programme required for a rolling national programme of cable installation. The installation cost, about £3 billion over 10 years, would represent only one tenth of BT's investment programme.
BT's purchasing policy would mean that United Kingdom manufactured equipment would be installed. Some private companies would almost certainly want to buy obsolete American equipment off the shelf. If BT is not to be designated the common carrier, it would be in the national interest if it were the cable provider for each franchise area. We favour mandatory participation for BT in every cable consortium. Some proposed consortia, for example Merseyside Cablevision, include BT as the cable provider and that will make sense to others because BT will carry the cost of physically cabling the franchise area and the roads will not have to be dug up and relaid.
Mercury may also be a partner in some franchises as a cable provider. As the House knows, the Labour party is opposed to the creation of Mercury and it is our policy to bring it into public ownership. We note that links between local cable systems will be provided by Mercury or BT. The Government recognise the importance of business traffic by cable in some areas; that is, the transmission of data and information from business to business. That traffic is crucial to BT. A cable company could cream off all that business and severely damage BT's commercial prospects.
The Government have recognised that problem by giving limited protection to BT and Mercury in certain areas—in the city of London, the boroughs of Camden and Westminster and the business centres of Manchester and Birmingham.
If the new cable system is to be seen as the communications network for the next century, the decision that BT is not involved implies the inevitable demise of BT. It may take 15 years or 75 years, but BT will inevitably become tomorrow the equivalent of British waterways today. That is the risk in the Government's proposals. They will wreck the most important element in Britain's information technology strategy.
The Financial Times summed up the White Paper's proposals in the headline:
"Backing for quick action, private finance and light controls."
That is the formula for throwing away Britain's place in a very important industrial development. I therefore ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the White Paper.
9.30 pm
The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Kenneth Baker): This is the third debate that we have had on cable in little over a year. One of the pleasures this time is that we have been able to listen to many new voices. I welcome, first, the newest voice—that of the Home Secretary. The two previous debates were initiated by his predecessor, my right hon. and noble Friend Viscount Whitelaw. I pay tribute to his energy and enthusiasm for the cable revolution. My right hon. and noble Friend is not a natural watcher of TV. The only television programme about which I heard him comment was the Miss World show. However, he recognised the great opportunity for

783
British industry and British programme creation and therefore spurred the Home Office into action and managed to put it into a trot.
My right hon. and learned Friend the present Home Secretary was in those days the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I am glad to say that he did not take a strong view one way or another when I put the cable proposals to him in the last Parliament because I was not asking for a penny of public money. The Chief Secretary was, therefore, neutral. That is a gain in the manoeuvring of Governments. He was neither benign nor malign, but neutral. I am glad to see his conversion from neutrality to enthusiasm.
I congratulate two of my hon. Friends on their maiden speeches. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) made a witty and good speech. He told us that in the potted biography that appeared in The Times he was married to the wrong woman and instead of being called a teacher he was called a chartered accountant. It is possible to correct the first error, but it is difficult to overcome the stigma at the beginning of a political career of being called a chartered accountant. He put forward a strong case for Salisbury to be a cable area. He called it a natural franchise area. I am sure that his constituents will be well pleased with his advocacy.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), who spoke movingly about his constituency and about the problems of the lonely and elderly people there. He also mentioned the new industries and the science park that he would like to be established on the Isle of Thanet. He told the House that he had been in broadcasting and was a professional. I sometimes think that the House is composed of a small number of people who have been in TV and a large number who want to be on TV. My hon. Friend's professionalism and interest will enliven our debates on cable and broadcasting.
This is our third debate on cable in little over a year. The House and the Government have moved at considerable speed in trying to make the cable revolution a reality. I made the first speech on cable in October 1981. The Prime Minister's information technology advisory panel's report on cable appeared in March 1982. Since then, there has been a significant and welcome public debate on the implications of cable. I pay tribute again to the Prime Minister's six IT advisers. They produced a report in a short space of time, and the Opposition criticised them for that. What choice do the Government have when they want to move ahead quickly into an important and complicated area? I could have advised the Prime Minister to establish a Royal Commission. It would have sat for a year, deliberated for another year, and reexamined its proposals for another year. It would have become bogged down. We in Britain have a talent bordering on genius for smothering good ideas and institutionalising torpor.
I therefore chose the route that I thought would get things moving, and they have certainly done so. We have kept up the pace. We have also given ample time for public debate. On 20 April last year we had a debate on direct broadcasting by satellite and cable. On 2 December last year we had a debate to discuss the findings of the Hunt report. There was a discussion following the oral statement accompanying the White Paper on 27 April. Since then we have had the election. After today's debate here and discussion in another place, we will be able to approve the setting up of the first 12 pilot systems.
784
We have moved at this pace because there are benefits for the consumer, the economy and industry. For the consumer, cable will not just mean more entertainment. It will not mean another 30 or 40 channels of entertainment. It will mean greater choice, and a real chance for minority interests to air their views and for local community groups to produce their own programmes. It will mean a wide range of educational programming not yet really available on television. It will mean interactive services such as home shopping and home banking. The television set will no longer be simply a rather passive electronic receiver in the sitting room. It will enable the viewer to communicate.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) mentioned developments in the area of sport. The right hon. Gentleman is known to be interested in cricket. Live coverage of the NatWest Trophy cricket match between North Hampshire and Wiltshire appeared on cable television in Swindon yesterday. I doubt whether the cricketers of Wiltshire will ever aspire to see BBC or ITV cameras at their ground. Cable makes it possible for the local team to be seen on television in the local area. Yesterday's relay went out to 10,000 homes in Swindon. As cable expands, many other towns will have an opportunity of genuine local television programming. As a strong supporter of Yorkshire county, the right hon. Gentleman will welcome that opportunity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The right hon. Gentleman has some friends. I believe that before the right hon. Gentleman aspired to lead his party, his boyhood ambition was to be captain of Yorkshire cricket team. As Yorkshire now lies fifteenth out of 17 in the county cricket table, I do not know which would be the worst job.
There would of course be opportunities for channels for ethnic minorities. It has been suggested that in certain towns cable television will enable ethnic minorities to receive religious programmes, or films and entertainment. Cable is a way of bringing the individuals in an audience together as a mass, and I would also expect that aspect to be developed.
Mr. Bermingham: The point to be made in relation to the commercial test is that if a small minority is widespread the cost of supplying it will be relatively prohibitive. The commercial companies would not put on the programmes because there would be no commercial gain.
Mr. Baker: The reverse is true. If an ethnic minority is widespread throughout the country and there is compatibility between the systems— as there will be, because of national standards — a national programme can address that geographically diverse audience through cable. That is, of course, one of the advantages of cable. Several of my hon. Friends asked me about the "must carry" rule. My hon. Friends the Members for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton), for Boothferry (Sir P. Bryan), for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and for Thanet, North asked about the implications for cable operators of the "must carry" rule, as described in paragraphs 126 to 129 of the White Paper. The effect of the requirement is that cable operators will be obliged to make provision on their systems for the four existing broadcasting services and for all five of the DBS channels allocated to this country by international agreement. Conservative Members have argued strongly against that.

785
The Government recognise that, in developing their policy in this area, a careful balance will have to be struck between the interests of the cable operators, individual DBS operators, the electronics industry and consumers. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has already said, we shall be holding discussions with interested parties, with a view to agreeing an arrangement which, while maintaining the integrity of the "must carry" principle, is consistent with the expansion of DBS and yet does not impose unreasonable burdens on the cable industry. So that the House is not misled as to the scale of these difficulties, it may be helpful if I make two further points of clarification on the problems that have been identified in the course of the debate.
So far as the commercial difficulties are concerned, paragraph 129 makes it clear that in the case of any DBS service that is financed by means of a subscription fee appropriate financial arrangements will need to be negotiated between the broadcaster and the cable operator. By that, we mean financial arrangements that are acceptable to both sides. Where agreement cannot be reached, provision will be made for arbitration, so that the cable operator can be assured that he will receive a fair recompense.
It is therefore not the case that cable operators are being asked to carry all DBS services without receiving any financial remuneration from the DBS operator. Several of my hon. Friends mentioned the complexity of the two methods of transmission that would use the cable band width. On the technical side, it is important to appreciate that, although paragraph 129 requires cable operators to make available DBS services over their systems, it does not specify the transmission standard that should be used for this purpose. The Government have already decided on MAC as the vision standard for transmitting DBS services, but the form in which it is to be relayed on cable systems has not yet been stated.
The suggestion that the cable operator will have to transmit DBS signals in both PAL and MAC form is only one of a number of options that the Government will be exploring with the interested parties that I have identified.
Mr. McWilliam: Has the Minister taken care to ensure that there will be sufficient British-manufactured MAC sets when that innovation becomes available, or will we have to rely on Japanese imports yet again?
Mr. Baker: The former Home Secretary made the decision on the transmission standard of MAC last year in order to give silicon chip manufacturers in Britain the chance to design chips to go into MAC sets.
I was asked a wide variety of questions during the debate and I shall try to deal with as many as I can. The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) asked about the standards in the Eden committee. The Eden technical working group has already completed draft standards for three out of the four main services which we know are within the potential capability of wide-band cable systems. We expect further draft standards to be completed by the end of September. As each draft standard is completed, it will be passed to BSI which, in accordance with normal practice, will issue it for public comment. I do not expect this process of drafting standards to inhibit progress of cable pilot projects. If the right hon.
786
Gentleman feels that I have not answered the other points that he raised, he should let me know and I will answer them in correspondence with him.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) asked about religious programming and religious channels on cable. The development of cable will provide new opportunities for religious programming. The Government have no wish to inhibit that. Channels devoted to religious matters will be allowed. What the White Paper says is that particular channels ought not to be controlled by individual religious groups or, indeed, by individual political groups.
Mr. Anderson: Is it correct that participation is possible but not control?
Mr. Baker: That is a possibility, but, if I am wrong, I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
My hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Sir P. Bryan) asked about ITV participation. Although the White Paper stresses the undesirability of an ITV contractor also being the cable franchise holder in the same area, it does not rule out participation in a cable operating company by the local ITV contractor and leaves it to the cable authority to decide what scale of participation will be acceptable. In different areas, the White Paper makes it clear that the objection to an ITV contractor being a cable operator would not apply.
I was also asked about pay-per-view for pilot projects. As the House knows, we have decided to reverse the recommendation of the Hunt committee against pay-per-view. I was asked when this could come into operation for the pilot projects. I should like to make it clear that the pilot projects will be able to have pay-per-view once the cable authority has been set up and assumes control. Although we shall be licensing the pilot projects this year, it is bound to be some time before operators are ready to start providing services over the new systems. In practice, the absence of pay-per-view, while my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary retains responsibility for licensing, is unlikely to constitute a significant restriction on operators' activities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) referred to the need for a programme complaints commission for cable. I remind him that the cable authority will be there to deal with complaints about inadequate programme standards; for example, in the area of good taste and decency. The White Paper also says that in preparing legislation the Government will consider whether the Broadcast Complaints Commission's powers to investigate unjust or unfair treatment or an infringement of privacy should be extended to cable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) touched on the size of the cable areas and suggested that 100,000 was too small and not viable. That is not the view expressed to us by various people interested in investing in cable. In fact, some have made proposals for areas of less than 100,000. By relaxing the controls on the existing cable operators we will be creating a market for programming, not just for an audience of 1,200,000 but for a very much wider audience.
One of the reasons why I have been such a strong enthusiast for cable is that there are clear industrial advantages. Cable consortia are already being formed to bid for franchises in many parts of the country, from Scotland to the Solent. Only a few weeks ago, the formation of Cablevision Scotland was announced— a

787
consortium including the British Linen Bank, Ferranti, Grampian Television and Press Construction. Cablevision Scotland joins a long list of consortia and companies that are actively interested in bidding for cable franchises—Clyde Cablevision, Solent Cablevision, Merseyside Cablevision, Rediffusion, Pearson Longman and many others. These companies are truly the pioneers of cable television and I pay tribute to their courage and foresight.
There has also been great stimulation to the programme makers and distributors. Goldcrest recently announced the formation of a joint company to distribute feature films to cable systems via low power satellite. The involvement of a company that has done so much to revitalise the British film industry encourages hope that much of what we will see on cable will be high quality British material. Several Members have asked about the film industry, including my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths). As a result of the changes of responsibilities between the Departments of Trade and Industry, I have assumed responsibility for the film industry and the review that my former hon. Friend, Mr. Iain Sproat, started.
From the views that have been expressed to me by the film industry, it is already quite clear that it looks on pay TV in America as an enormous source of creating better and more films. That is one of the things that cable television will bring. After all, we are very good at making films and television programmes, and cable will create the opportunities.
Mr. Michael Marshall: My hon. Friend is painting an encouraging picture, but will he assure House that he sees the way ahead, bearing in mind the activities of the Post Office Engineering Union? It must be said that, with regard to competition for British Telecom in the case of Mercury, actions that have been taken to hold that back have been somewhat worrying. Is there any parallel in cable development?
Mr. Baker: Perhaps I can touch upon that in a moment, as I should like to deal with the argument of the right hon. Member for Salford, East that British Telecom should be the sole provider of cable. However, paragraph 186 of the White Paper refers specifically to what my hon. Friend has said. It states:
"But in deciding which cable operators to franchise … it will be necessary to take particular account of the need to ensure that business services offer a high standard of reliability and are not liable to disruption and also that proposed arrangements for interconnection with national networks will be fully implemented".
I am sure that both British Telecom and the POEU will take those words to heart.
I am sure that the equipment side of the industry is gearing itself up. Racal has done a deal with Oak Industries of California to make sophisticated decoding equipment and to provide cable systems. Cabletime, an American company, has developed its switched system here and will be producing it here. It is also working with the Water Research Council to see whether cable can be laid in water systems.
Rediffusion has drawn on its long experience of narrow band cables and, as several hon. Members have said, has invested in a switched system which will be in production in 1984 and in full production in 1985.
As to the United Kingdom manufacturers of cable, this is an industry in which we have a world lead. Fibre optics was invented in Britain in 1966—[HoN. MEMBERS: "By BT".} It was not invented by BT. In fact, it was invented
788
by two mathematicians working in a private laboratory in Middlesex. I am glad to say that we still have a world lead in this technology, which is why we have spent £55 million in support of the British fibre optics industry.
GEC's subsidiary Telephone Cables Limited has started production of fibre optics cable and plans to expand its operations. STC, the world leader in submarine cables, is developing major production facilities. Only two weeks ago, Optical Fibres Limited, a subsidiary of BICC and Corning of Canada, opened a new plant at Deeside in north Wales. More than £15 million has been invested in that plant.
Mr. John Gorst: Does my hon. Friend anticipate, and, if so, will he welcome, any infusion and help from the United States in respect of technology or any other cable services?
Mr. Kenneth Baker: Yes, most certainly. We encourage overseas investment in cable companies provided that they do not take controlling interests. Industry was geared to this. Before the White Paper was published I spoke to nearly all the companies in Great Britain involved in cable, equipment manufacture, distribution or programming. The clear message to me was, "Don't let the momentum run down. The momentum has been generated. Don't take it so slowly that we put our plans on to the back burner and don't develop the equipment and the factories." That is why the Government have taken this matter at speed.
We could have followed the advice of the Opposition and delayed taking any further action until the cable authority had been established in autumn next year. We could have had another winter of debate, a spring of reflection and a summer of reappraisal, but the opportunities would have been lost. These opportunities do not exist in great new industries for ever. They have to be seized quickly. The opportunities for new jobs and greater investment will come, broadly, from newer industries. That is the lesson that we are learning. We are having to learn it quickly. We must learn to apply new technologies to the older industries.
In the movement to begin cabling we have created a whole new area of opportunity. I do not believe that the Labour party would have seized this opportunity. The Opposition believe that the Government's role should be one of intervention. We are utterly opposed to that. The Government's free hand, in contrast to the rigid controls proposed by the Opposition, would do more for choice and allow private sector companies to make the investment.
I believe that cable will flourish in this country only if it is funded and driven by the private sector. It is not for Government to invest in cable and to dictate the pace at which it can be received. That is the argument of the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), reinforced by the shadow spokesman on trade and industry, the right hon. Member for Salford, East. What I have said tonight shows clearly that British industry is well prepared for the advent of cable. There is no doubt that it is up to British companies to make the most of these opportunities. The Government's role is to create the right atmosphere for British companies to seize these opportunities. The Government allow a free hand. Opposition Members should welcome these developments, but their support tonight has been lukewarm and suspicious. Today's

789
Labour party seems unable to comprehend the opportunities that the future holds for British industry. Time and time again, when faced with the march of technology, the Opposition seek refuge in the old dogmas. They should welcome the challenge of the future. Instead, they want to delay to regulate and, above all, to nationalise. In their manifesto they planned to
"Promote the development and use of new information and communication services to support a wider democracy."
However, the small print shows that they wanted to extend nationalisation into electronics and to make cable a state monopoly of British Telecom. That is the policy on which the Opposition fought the election and it was rejected. Does anyone other than the Labour party still believe after nearly 40 years of nationalisation that state control is the way to increase popular choice or make an industry more accountable to its customers? A state monopoly in the new cable industry would be a disaster. This is an international market—if British companies are not making equipment and programmes first then French, German and American companies will—and to beat the competition we must encourage innovation and enterprise. If cable is nationalised now, it will be strangled at birth.
Great Britain has enormous strength in this area. Our research is second to none. Our television programmes are the best in the world and our film industry is enjoying a boom. The Government are determined to maintain and build on our achievements. Cable is in its infancy. The consumer is ready: all the signs are that he wants the new services that cable will offer. British industry cannot afford to spurn the opportunity that we have created. We have shown that we have the talent, technical ability and finance to succeed. If the House seeks now to shackle us and put obstacles in the way of this great opportunity, there will be fewer jobs. There are jobs in cabling, in the manufacture of equipment and in the making of programmes. I hope that the House will support this White Paper.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 182, Noes 59.

Division No. 6]

[10 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

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

Amess, David

Clark, Michael (Rochford)

Arnold, Tom

Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Ashby, David

Clegg, Sir Walter

Atkins Robert (South Ribble)

Colvin, Michael

Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)

Conway, Derek

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Coombs, Simon

Baldry, Anthony

Cope, John

Batiste, Spencer

Couchman, James

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Cranbourne, Viscount

Bellingham, Henry

Currie, Mrs. Edwina

Blackburn, John

Dicks, T.

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Dorrell, Stephen

Bottomley, Peter

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Dunn, Robert

Bright, Graham

Dykes, Hugh

Brinton, Tim

Evennett, David

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Eyre, Reginald

Brooke, Hon Peter

Fallon, Michael

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Favell, Anthony

Bruinvels, Peter

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Bryan, Sir Paul

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Fookes, Miss Janet

Buck, Sir Antony

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Forth, Eric

Carttiss, Michael

Franks, Cecil

790

Freeman, Roger

Neubert, Michael

Freud, Clement

Newton, Tony

Gale, Roger

Nicholls, Patrick

Galley, Roy

Norris, Steven

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Onslow, Cranley

Glyn, Dr. Alan

Oppenheim, Philip

Goodlad, Alastair

Ottaway, Richard

Gorst, John

Page, Richard (Herts, SW)

Greenway, Harry

Pattie, Geoffrey

Gregory, Conal

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Powell, William (Corby)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Powley, John

Hanley, Jeremy

Price, Sir David

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Proctor, K. Harvey

Harris, David

Raffan, Keith

Harvey, Robert

Rathbone, Tim

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Hayes, J.

Roe, Mrs Marion

Hayward, Robert

Rowe, Andrew

Hickmet, Richard

Ryder, Richard

Howard, Michael

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Howells, Geraint

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Sims, Roger

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Hunter, Andrew

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Spence, John

Jackson, Robert

Spencer, D.

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Stanbrook, Ivor

Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Stern, Michael

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Jones, Robert (Herts W)

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Key, Robert

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Sumberg, David

Knowles, Michael

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Lang, Ian

Terlezki, Stefan

Lawler, Geoffrey

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich, N)

Lee, John (Pendle)

Thorne, Neil (Ilford, S)

Lilley, Peter

Thurnham, Peter

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Lord, Michael

Twinn, Dr Ian

Luce, Richard

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Macfarlane, Neil

Viggers, Peter

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Waddington, David

Major, John

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Mallins, Humphrey

Walden, George

Malone, Gerald

Wall, Sir Patrick

Maples, John

Wallace, James

Marland, Paul

Waller, Gary

Mates, Michael

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Mather, Carol

Watson, John

Maude, Francis

Watts, John

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Meadowcroft, Michael

Wheeler, John

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Wolfson, Mark

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Wood, Timothy

Mitchell, David (Hants, NW)

Woodcock, Michael

Moore, John

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Morris, M. (N'hampton, S.)

Moynihan, Hon C.

Tellers for the Ayes:

Murphy, Christopher

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

Neale, Gerrard

Mr. Douglas Hogg.

NOES

Anderson, Donald

Corbyn, Jeremy

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Cowans, Harry

Barron, Kevin

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Beckett, Mrs. Margaret

Dixon, Donald

Bermingham, Gerald

Dormand, Jack

Boyes, Roland

Fatchett, Derek

Caborn, Richard

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Clarke, Thomas

Gould, Bryan

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

Cohen, Harry

Harman, Ms Harriet

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

791

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Pike, Peter

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore,

Home Robertson, John

Randall, Stuart

Hoyle, Douglas

Redmond, M.

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Robinson, G. (Coventry AM)

Lloyd, Anthony (Stretford)

Rogers, Allan

McCartney, Hugh

Skinner, Dennis

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Spearing, Nigel

McKelvey, William

Straw, Jack

McWilliam, John

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Madden, Max

Tinn, James

Marek, John

Welsh, Michael

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Winnick, David

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Miller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbride)

Nellist, David

Tellers for the Noes:

O'Neill, Martin

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.

Patchett, Terry

Resolved,
That this House approves the White Paper on the Development of Cable Systems and Services (Cmnd. 8866).

Local Loans
10.11 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Moore): I beg to move,
That the draft Local Loans (Increase of Limit) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved.
This is the first such order under a provision of the Finance Act 1982. The procedure is well-established. Any regular attender of the debates—I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Blackbourn (Mr. Straw) is present—will know that the House is asked periodically to raise the limit on lending by the Public Works Loan Commissioners to local authorities. The procedure laid down by last year's and previous Finance Acts is that a sum is set—in this case £16,000 million— of which Parliament may approve the release in tranches of specified sums. The first of four tranches of £4,000 million was provided in last year's Finance Act. Tonight, we are dealing with the second tranche under the Finance Act 1982.
I should like to emphasise to my hon. Friends that we are talking only about making sure that the Public Works Loan Board has funds to lend. We are not authorising any increase in the capital expenditure of local authorities. That is subject to quite distinct control. The order does not affect public expenditure in the slightest. Whether local authorities meet their borrowing needs from the commissioners or from the private lending market, the public sector borrowing requirement remains the same. The order does not affect the amount that local authorities can borrow from the commissioners, as that is subject to regulation by quotas set by the commissioners on the advice of the Treasury. The order simply makes it possible for the commissioners to carry on lending.
The commissioners still have about £1,380 million in hand. That is one third of the tranche approved last year and may at first sight appear to be a substantial sum to have left but under quota entitlements already set by the Treasury local authorities may draw some £1,600 million more from 1 July than they were able to do up to the end of this month. In addition, authorities can convert their variable rate loans to fixed rate loans, and a contingency of some £1,000 million must be set aside for that purpose. Of course, authorities may take up much less of their allowances than they are entitled to. The point is simply that the Public Works Loan Board must be able to fulfil its existing commitments, so it is prudent for the Government to seek an additional tranche tonight.
I think that the whole House will join me in thanking the Public Works Loan Commissioners for the service that they render with skill and dedication entirely voluntarily, and the staff of the Public Works Loan Board who support their work.
10.14 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: This is the first occasion on which the hon. Gentleman has spoken as Economic Secretary to the Treasury, and I offer him the congratulations of the Opposition on his appointment.
Mr. George Foulkes: I second that.
Mr. Straw: Many of my colleagues held the Economic Secretary in great esteem during his time at the

793
Department of Energy, and we shall hold him in similar esteem in future if we do not disagree on too many occasions.
The sums mentioned in the order are extremely large, and at first sight it might appear controversial that a Conservative Government should make an order to double borrowing from the Public Works Loan Board from £4,000 million to £8,000 million. However, as the Economic Secretary explained, the order does not lead to an authorisation of double the capital lending, but simply authorises the board to lend money subject to ministerial approval and approval by the House. In view of that, and in view of the courtesy extended to me by the Economic Secretary when he answered my questions about this matter outside the House, I need not detain the House further, especially as we had extensive discussions on the general principles in a debate on 11 May 1981, and again in Committee on 17 June 1982.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Local Loans (Increase of Limit) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved.

Tobacco Industry (Sports Sponsorship)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now Adjourn.—[Mr. Thompson.]
10.16 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: There could be few better times than today to discuss this matter as we approach the climax of the lawn tennis championships at Wimbledon. On Tuesday this week, the 1982 Wimbledon ladies' champion, Martina Navratilova, recognised that she had been party to a flagrant breach of the Government's agreement with the tobacco industry on sponsorship of sports events and, thankfully, she abandoned the dress that had made her look like a dancing cigarette packet.
At this time last year, Kim, the new cancer drug for women, made its Wimbledon debut. Every time that Navratilova appeared, millions of television viewers saw her sporting yellow, brown, orange and red wavy stip stripes on a white background, and the Kim logo. That was the sort of abuse of the voluntary agreement that prompted a letter from a lady to the chairman of British American Tobacco, of which I understand the Minister has a copy, which stated:
"Having a mother who died at 59 from lung cancer and a father who is awaiting surgery for removal of a cancerous lung it is appalling that I cannot watch the Ladies' Wimbledon Final without having a cigarette carton moving around the tennis court. Such a link between sport and cigarettes is obscene."
The chairman of British American Tobacco tried to say that it was pure coincidence, but after the Minister's intervention the company apologised and
"gave an assurance of their total commitment to both the spirit and the letter of the voluntary agreement."
However, that assurance was shown to be worthless when the human cigarette carton returned this year. She disappeared only after a further storm of protest from the British Medical Association and others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt), who spoke about this in the House on Monday. I hope that the Minister will assure us this evening that he will be in touch with British American Tobacco to ensure that such a breach does not recur.
Each of those breaches of the agreement shows what some hon. Members and others have said for some time —that the agreement is so weak and so open to abuse as to be worthless. Wimbledon is only the current example of how the agreement has been broken, but there are many more instances. One of the most scandalous aspects of the sports promotion by tobacco companies is that much of their effort is aimed at hooking the young on the smoking habit.
One smoker in every three is thought to start before the age of 13, and it was for that reason that doctors welcomed the clause in the voluntary agreement that stipulated that tobacco companies should not sponsor sporting activities in which the majority of the participants were under 18.
Yet in spite of that, I can produce detailed photographic evidence that, despite repeated complaints and the empty assurances of the Tobacco Advisory Council, Carreras Rothman was again this year in flagrant breach of the agreement during its Peter Stuyvesant snow fun week at Glenshee.
I know that in previous years Action on Smoking and Health has made representations to the Department of Health about that event, complaining about the heavy level

795
of cigarette promotion — involving banners, posters, ashtrays, book matches, free cigarettes in the Glenshee canteen, and young people in Peter Stuyvesant colours active on the ski slopes—all in an event clearly billed as "skiing and fun for all the family", in which most of the competitions are open to children as well as adults.
Following the new voluntary agreement on sponsorship, the brochure wording and layout was changed. Examination of the brochures shows that the changes made between 1982 and 1983 were minimal. Children's events this year were billed separately for a special children's day — though children could still take part in events on other days.
The photographic evidence collected by ASH observers shows the extent of cigarette promotion during the whole week—and the extensive advertising promotion was not removed on children's day. I hope that the Minister will give the House an assurance that he will take up that breach with the company to stop such flagrant breaches again next year.
An even more recent example involves Silk Cut cigarettes, which were advertised on the track side at the Bislett athletics meeting in Oslo on 28 June, posing as Silk Cut Master Class Holidays. The manufacturers knew that because Sebastian Coe and Steve Ovett were competing in Norway, the event would be shown on British television. Thankfully, due to a protest following reports from Britain, the case was investigated by a law professor in Norway. He concluded that the advertisements were in conflict with the Norwegian Tobacco Act. Following that, the National Council on Smoking and Health informed the Ministry of Health, which supported the professor's view that the advertisements were illegal. The message will be conveyed to the organisers of the games.
In today's edition of the Norwegian daily newspaper Dagbladet, there is already a report of the incident. The newspaper quotes the chairman of the Bislett alliance as saying:
"The organisers did not know that Silk Cut also represented a cigarette brand. I can however promise that the Silk Cut advertisement will be removed before our next athletics meeting on 9th July".
The Chairman of the National Council on Smoking and Health said:
"We at the National Council on Smoking and Health do not blame the organisers because this brand is not marketed in Norway and they were unaware that Silk Cut was a cigarette. However, we do not want any export of advertisements for Silk Cut or any other cigarette brand. We want a total cut of advertisements of these deadly products."
The case is a good example of how successfully a total ban on tobacco promotion works due to alert monitoring and a Government who, unlike our own, are willing to enforce a public health measure. It is an example of how Silk Cut tried to get round the regulations.
The list of tobacco-sponsored sporting events is almost endless, such as Embassy snooker, Marlboro motor racing and Embassy darts. Sixty-six sports are now sponsored by tobacco companies, from bob-sleighing to dog trials and from shove-halfpenny to hang gliding. There were 265 hours of television coverage of cigarette-sponsored sport last year—all, of course, designed to circumvent the ban on tobacco advertising on television.
The companies, of course, value the extra dimension of the link between the fatally dangerous habit of cigarette smoking and healthy sporting activity. One Marlboro executive said:
796
"We are the number one brand in the world. What we wanted was to promote a particular image of adventure, of courage, of virility"—
an image, of course, quite different from the coughing, wheezing, cancer-ridden reality.
The reasons why so many organisations connected with health want stronger action on cigarette advertising is not because they are killjoys or have an obsessive dislike of smokers — quite the reverse. Smoking is by far the largest preventable cause of illness, disability and death in the United Kingdom. It accounts for more than four times as many premature deaths each year as road accidents, alcohol, fires, murder, suicide, poisoning and every other cause of accidental death all put together, and for more deaths than environmental pollution, which is also something which the Government must do something about. On average, those who die from smoking lose 10 to 15 years of life compared with their expectancy if they had been non-smokers.
That is why organisations including the Royal College of Physicians, the British Medical Association, the Health Education Council and many others have called for a ban on the promotion of all tobacco goods. They object to tobacco promotion and in particular to sports sponsorship by tobacco companies, first, for ethical reasons; secondly, because it helps to promote an image of smoking that is contrary to the realities of the habit; thirdly, because it undermines the effectiveness of serious health messages; fourthly and particularly, because of the unfortunate and misleading link created between smoking and physical fitness, which is particularly regrettable in its effect on young people.
It is not easy for us to get current smokers to kick the habit, but we have a special responsibility to prevent young people from starting smoking. The methods used by the tobacco companies to hook the young are well illustrated in a letter that I received from Dr. Frank Ledwith, research fellow in the department of community medicine at Edinburgh university:
"In the light of the surveys reported last week that children watch so much TV, often for longer than they spend in school, I am concerned about sponsored sport on TV. I did a survey in January this year, round about the time of the very exciting Embassy Darts World Championship, of 11-year-olds in the Lothian Region. I asked the 102 children to write down all the tobacco brands they could remember. The results are quite startling. The number of times brands were mentioned (which are virtually straight percentages) were: Embassy Regal 78, Benson & Hedges 53,"—
this is like the sports results—
"John Player 49. The next most frequent was Marlboro 16 and no other brand got as many as 10 mentions. Thus the three most widely publicised brands on TV sports sponsorship got though most to the children, out of all proportion to the amounts spent on advertising generally.
Of course knowledge is not necessarily linked to actual smoking. However, a large scale survey in Australia asked teenagers which brands they smoked. There were four popular brands, accounting for some 80 per cent. of consumption, which were the four most commonly linked with TV sports sponsorship. They were not the most popular brands among adults.
I am a psychologist, so am concerned at how advertising works. Simple conditions of emotional responses are produced by repeatedly associating something which arouses emotion with something initially neutral like a brand name or symbol. One of the most widely quoted experiments in psychology was done by James Watson who took a child called Albert who was not afraid of furry objects and conditioned fear of furry things in him by giving him a furry object a few times and then frightening him with a loud noise. Afterwards the child was terrified of all furry animals. All emotional conditioning whether of pleasant or unpleasant emotions seems to work in the same way. Thus TV

797
sports advertising may very well condition children emotionally since the commentators mention the brand name which is also carefully arranged to be in picture whilst the excitement of the sport is being portrayed. Thus children may be conditioned to associate the cigarette brands with excitement and sporting prowess".
That is why they use certain brands.
I call on the Minister at the very least to give a pledge to tighten up his agreement with the tobacco companies to ensure that the agreement is not flouted—not only in the three examples that I have quoted, but in all cases—as it has been over the past year.
I make no pretence about the fact that I should prefer to see legislation to stop tobacco sponsorship of sporting events and, as the presidents of the eight royal colleges suggested and as the medical profession wants, the ending of all promotion of tobacco products. That need not mean a halt to sports sponsorship. If we put an extra 1p on tobacco duty, we could raise £50 million-10 times the money given by tobacco companies in sports sponsorship — and the Government could use the money for sponsorship.
My plea is not a militant or outrageous demand. It was made to the Minister in the letter from the presidents of the eight royal medical colleges and other leading doctors on 14 December 1981, which, I regret to say, the Minister has ignored. I conclude with a quotation from the British Medical Journal. I want to leave it ringing in the Minister's ears and not engraved on his tombstone:
"When the history of medicine in the twentieth century comes to be written, the members of the Government who allowed such an agreement will stand indicted as the guilty men of public health."
I hope that the Minister will show us that he does not want to be one of those guilty men.
10.31 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) for raising an important subject which causes much anxiety in this country, and I do not intend to cross swords with him over the balance of sport shown on television, the impact and importance of sport, or the amount that sport owes to sponsoring companies that make a wide range of products. He will accept that many of our constituents benefit from sport and it is not possible in a brief debate to get into a detailed argument of how sports sponsorship was obtained.
I welcome the opportunity to comment on the voluntary agreement between the Government and the Tobacco Advisory Council, on behalf of the tobacco manufacturers in the United Kingdom and the Imported Tobacco Products Advisory Council.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of topics and, with apologies to him, I wish to give some of the background for those who will read his words in Hansard and will want to see a balanced argument presented. I undertake to respond fully to all the points made by the hon. Gentleman, even if I cannot do so tonight.
The hon. Gentleman has expressed anxiety about what he believes to be abuses of the voluntary agreement and their effects on younger sports followers. He referred to a wide variety of sports, especially snooker, darts and motor racing, and he mentioned particularly the Peter Stuyvesant snow fun week in Glenshee in Scotland.
798
In renegotiating the agreement on sponsorship in sport, the tobacco companies reaffirmed their policy of conducting their businesses in a reasonable manner and, in particular, of exercising special care to ensure that their financial support of sport did not attach to activities in which the majority of participants are under the age of 18.
As commercial enterprises, requiring public awareness of their financial involvement in the sponsorship of sporting events, the companies agreed to accept specific controls on the level of that involvement, particularly when events are shown on television. They also agreed to use their best endeavours to keep expenditure on media advertising and promotion for sponsored activities within a reasonable proportion of their total expenditure on sports sponsorship. I believe that the companies have adhered to that part of the voluntary agreement.
The event at Glenshee caused some concern in 1982 when the Scottish committee for Action on Smoking and Health made representations to the Tobacco Advisory Council and, latterly, to me. This is the first complaint I have received about the 1983 event. I do not say that complaints did not exist, but this was the first time that one was brought to my attention. In 1982, I noted that following the complaint made then, the company in question assured the Scottish branch of ASH that it would—
"Continue to act in accordance with voluntary Agreements between the Industry and HMG."
I can tell the House that I am satisfied that the company has met this assurance.
At this point, as promised, let me give the history of this voluntary agreement.
Mr. Foulkes: I do not understand how the Minister can say that when I have evidence here — picture after picture taken by ASH observers on a day that was reserved for children—showing Peter Stuyvesant advertisements again and again. That is a clear breach of the spirit and letter of the agreement. How can the Minister say that there has not been a breach when I have the evidence here?
Mr. Macfarlane: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not let me see the information that he has. The first information that I heard—or criticisms or complaints—has come from the hon. Gentleman is this debate.
The first voluntary agreement was negotiated in 1977. I understand that the background to this agreement was the increasing pressure then being exerted for legal controls on tobacco advertising and promotion. I shall come back to some of the matters that the hon. Gentleman raised in a moment.
Some countries had introduced a complete ban on tobacco advertising. The United Kingdom response to the pressure for controls was a voluntary agreement. In March 1977, a three year agreement was concluded between the then Government and the tobacco interests covering a range of measures intended to discourage smoking. These measures included tar groups, labelling, taxation, non-smoking areas, cinema advertising, and so on.
Tobacco advertisements had already been banned on television, and the tobacco interests had then turned to sport as a means of promoting their products. Sports events had been retitled to include sponsors' names. Advertising hoardings were placed around events at points likely to be caught by TV cameras. The resultant association in the public mind of sporting excellence, exemplifying youth and healthy living with smoking, was felt by many to be

799
offensive. The 1977 voluntary agreement covering specifically the sponsorship of sport was thus an attempt to provide some regulation in this area.
The agreement provided a quantitative control on the amount of money a tobacco interest could spend. It prevented the total amount of money spent by any tobacco company on sports sponsorship from rising, in real terms, above the level of that company's spending in 1976. There were also qualitative restraints on what tobacco companies could spend money on, through the provisions of the general agreement I have already mentioned and by a code of practice. The agreement on sports sponsorship thus sought to provide a voluntary control which, first, identified those sports that could be sponsored, with a special proviso that tobacco companies must consult the Government before extending their sponsorship arrangements into new sports; and which, second, restricted the size and number of hoardings used for advertising at sporting events, as well as the display of sponsors' names on the shirts, cars, and so on, of competitors and participants.
That, in brief, was the voluntary agreement inherited by my predecessor as Minister with responsibility for Sport in the incoming Conservative Government in May 1979. At that time, there had already been clear breaches of the agreement—largely based on differing interpretations of some ambiguous wording—and we soon came to the view that the sports sponsorship voluntary agreement should be renegotiated on its expiry in 1980, and not simply renewed. I must say that at that time my ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Security were also in the process of renegotiating the general voluntary agreement on smoking.
The sports sponsorship agreement must relate to this general voluntary agreement on smoking. The two voluntary agreements must be consistent — a point recognised by both the Government and the tobacco interests. Therefore, simply to put straight any likely misunderstanding, my predecessor extended, at the beginning of 1981, the existing voluntary agreement on sports sponsorship for a further year to allow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to conclude the main content of his negotiations on the general voluntary agreement. This is an important point, as I do not wish to leave the House with the misunderstanding that we had no voluntary agreement during 1981.
What, then, about that renegotiated agreement? We thus began some protracted negotiations in which I became involved on moving to the Department of the Environment in September 1981. Our aim was to ensure that sport continued to enjoy the sponsorship of tobacco companies, which had been so important to some particular sports, while preventing excessive advertising. That aim was ultimately achieved in a new voluntary agreement which secured tighter controls than its predecessor.
First, it required that the existing expenditure ceiling —the actual expenditure in 1976 adjusted for inflation —be maintained. The tobacco interests were keen to see a revision of this particular formula, but the Government were not prepared to accede.
Secondly, the new agreement stipulated that Government health warnings, similar to those appearing on cigarette packs, should appear on press and poster advertising for sponsored sporting activities and on static promotional signs at those events.
800
Thirdly, under the new voluntary agreement companies would continue to sponsor non-televised, minor and amateur activities.
Fourthly, companies would use their best endeavours to keep expenditure on media advertising and promotional activities within a reasonable proportion of total sports sponsorship expenditure. Those were the key features of the new agreement, which hon. Members should know is scheduled to remain in force until at least 31 December 1985.
When I announcced this important development to the House, on 3 March 1982, I acknowledged that some minor practical details had to be finalised. Those details amounted to the inclusion, for the first time, of the imported tobacco products advisory council. This council became party to my agreement — a most important additional feature which ensured that foreign brands, promoted in this country, could no longer escape our voluntary agreement. That is an important step.
That is, briefly, the background of this Government's voluntary agreement on sports sponsorship with the tobacco interests. I hope that helps to put into perspective the complaint that the hon. Gentleman has raised about the sponsorship of the Glenshee snow fun week. As I said earlier, this is the first suggestion of a complaint that I have received about this particular event which was held last March. If the hon. Gentleman has further evidence that suggests that the sponsoring company breached the voluntary agreement or, indeed, if any hon. Member feels that he has such evidence of a breach for any sporting event, I urge him to write to me forthwith.
I understand that the Glenshee snow week attracted low profile sponsorship from the tobacco company involved. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may differ from me about the interpretation of the words "low profile", but, allowing for the fact that it was the main sponsor, I understand that it restricted all promotional events to evening functions on licensed premises, thus automatically restricting admission to those over 18 years of age. Activity during the day involved press and poster advertising strictly in accord with the voluntary agreement. I therefore assume from this that no breach occurred of the agreement that this Government negotiated so thoroughly, and with the full co-operation of the tobacco interests.
I have always insisted, and will continue to do so, that careful and immediate checks are made should a suspected breach occur. It is also a requirement, as I have said, of the voluntary agreement that I am notified by the tobacco interests of all the sporting events that they intend to sponsor in advance. I am happy to confirm that, so far, that operates successfully.
Mr. K. Harvey Proctor rose—
Mr. Macfarlane: May I continue? I have only a few minutes left.
There are also sporting events that, although not directly sponsored by the tobacco interests, do see them represented in one form or another. Those too are closely monitored.
Wimbledon is an event which comes to mind and upon which the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley touched. It is uppermost in everybody's mind at present. Some hon. Members are concerned about what may apear to be advertising of a particular cigarette brand.

801
In the 1982 Wimbledon championships I received a quite justifiable complaint that a breach had occurred. I immediately, as is my duty to this House, asked my officials to investigate this alleged breach with the company concerned. That company immediately recognised that a breach had occurred and instigated its own inquiries. For this year's tournament the company has ensured that no breach of the voluntary agreement should occur. I am satisfied that the agreements that it has undertaken have been successful. The co-operation, which I receive from all the tobacco interests, helps to ensure that both the letter and spirit of this Government's voluntary agreement is upheld.
I have referred to Wimbledon to show the type of co-operation and depth of discussion that my Department and the tobacco interests enter into to ensure that no breach occurs. Before I close I should answer more specifically the question of what the hon. Gentleman believes to be advertising of a particular cigarette brand at Wimbledon. I have drawn hon. Members' attention to what took place in 1982, namely, an admitted breach of the voluntary agreement. What happened was that a German subsidiary company which markets Kim cigarettes had, under licence, negotiated a contract with an Italian leisurewear company trading under the title of "Top Line" to produce outfits carrying the name "Kim Top Line" and using the Kim logo colour scheme.
The company concerned in the United Kingdom, which is, incidentally, British American Tobacco, told its
802
German subsidiary and the players concerned that the word "Kim" must be omitted from any logo on outfits to be worn in the United Kingdom. It was agreed that the words "Top Line" could be used with the Kim house colours. That is entirely consistent with the voluntary agreement. Those changes have been made and I am satisfied that no breaches of that agreement have taken place at Wimbledon so far.
I hope that the House will consider that my comments should satisfy the hon. Gentleman. He is anxious to ensure that no breaches occur— so am I. Everybody should understand that we believe in the effectiveness of the Government's voluntary agreement with the tobacco interests which sponsor sporting events.
It is my firm understanding that no breaches have occurred, but I stress that, if the hon. Member or any other hon. Member believes that he has evidence to the contrary, he should write to me immediately. I, of course, undertake to ensure that prompt and careful investigations are carried out. The Government's aim and policy remain to maintain a balance betweem the vital sponsorship that our sport today needs whilst ensuring that the voluntary agreement is kept and there is thus no excessive advertising of tobacco in the sensitive environment of sporting events.
I am deeply anxious to ensure that all tobacco companies and their representatives ensure that breaches do not occur. If they do occur, I need to be told immediately and I guarantee that they will not occur again.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Eleven o' clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  District Land Registry
  District Land Registry
  Rossminster Group
  Rossminster Group
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Postal Votes
  Postal Votes
  General Election (Postal and Proxy Votes)
  General Election (Postal and Proxy Votes)
  Public Disorder
  Public Disorder
  Parkhurst Prison (Repairs)
  Parkhurst Prison (Repairs)
  Albany Prison
  Albany Prison
  Prison Places (Costs)
  Prison Places (Costs)
  Prison Expenditure
  Prison Expenditure
  Prison Rules
  Prison Rules
  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Harmondsworth Detention Centre
  Harmondsworth Detention Centre
  Electoral Law
  Electoral Law
  Attendance Centres
  Attendance Centres
  Refugees (Custodial Sentences)
  Refugees (Custodial Sentences)
  Non-British Subjects (Custodial Sentences)
  Non-British Subjects (Custodial Sentences)
  Serious Crimes (Computers)
  Serious Crimes (Computers)
  Murder Statistics
  Murder Statistics
  Immigration Act 1971 (Statistics)
  Immigration Act 1971 (Statistics)
  Police (Establishments)
  Police (Establishments)
  Capital Punishment
  Capital Punishment
  Offensive Video Material
  Offensive Video Material
  Heavy Goods and Public Service Vehicles
  Heavy Goods and Public Service Vehicles
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Greater London
  Greater London
  University Entrants
  University Entrants
  Ely
  Ely
  Dinnington Village
  Dinnington Village
  Capital Punishment
  Capital Punishment
  Hillhead
  Hillhead
  European Community (Budget Contribution)
  European Community (Budget Contribution)
  Theatre Nuclear Weapons
  Theatre Nuclear Weapons
  Bishop's Stortford
  Bishop's Stortford
  Rates
  Rates
EMPLOYMENT
  Trainees (Anti-discrimination Legislation)
  Trainees (Anti-discrimination Legislation)
  National Computerised Job Availability Scheme
  National Computerised Job Availability Scheme
  Local Authorities (Revenue)
  Local Authorities (Revenue)
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Workington Jobcentre
  Workington Jobcentre
  Redundancies (Workington)
  Redundancies (Workington)
  Short-time Working (Workington)
  Short-time Working (Workington)
  Index of Retail Food Prices
  Index of Retail Food Prices
  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
WALES
  Local Authority Building Projects
  Local Authority Building Projects
  Sewerage (Maes Gerddi Estate)
  Sewerage (Maes Gerddi Estate)
  Rates
  Rates
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Kenya
  Kenya
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Capital Gains Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
  Expenditure, Production and Income (Indices)
  Expenditure, Production and Income (Indices)
  Married Man's Tax Allowance
  Married Man's Tax Allowance
  Civil Service (Salaries)
  Civil Service (Salaries)
  Members of Parliament (Salaries)
  Members of Parliament (Salaries)
  Ministers (Salaries)
  Ministers (Salaries)
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Rates
  Rates
  Manufacturing Investment (International Comparisons)
  Manufacturing Investment (International Comparisons)
TRANSPORT
  Aircraft Noise
  Aircraft Noise
  A326 (Dual Carriageway)
  A326 (Dual Carriageway)
  Okehampton Bypass
  Okehampton Bypass
  Tachographs
  Tachographs
  Public Service Vehicles
  Public Service Vehicles
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Lebanon
  Lebanon
  Arab League Countries
  Arab League Countries
  Israel (Access to Holy Places)
  Israel (Access to Holy Places)
  British Subjects (Custodial Sentences)
  British Subjects (Custodial Sentences)
ENVIRONMENT
  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Compensation Payments)
  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Compensation Payments)
  Commission for the New Towns
  Commission for the New Towns
  Flats (Service Charges)
  Flats (Service Charges)
  Water Supply (Asbestos)
  Water Supply (Asbestos)
  Assured Tenancies
  Assured Tenancies
  Stansted Airport (Inquiry)
  Stansted Airport (Inquiry)
  Mansion Blocks (Report)
  Mansion Blocks (Report)
  Children's Play
  Children's Play
  Council House Sales (Leicester)
  Council House Sales (Leicester)
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Ministers
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
SOCIAL SERVICES
  National Health Service
  National Health Service
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Single Payments
  Single Payments
  Social Security Appeals
  Social Security Appeals
  Social Security Commissioners
  Social Security Commissioners
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
  Housing Costs
  Housing Costs
  Housing Benefit Scheme
  Housing Benefit Scheme
  Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital
  Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
SCOTLAND
  Scottish Exhibition Centre
  Scottish Exhibition Centre
  Housing Corporation
  Housing Corporation
  Rates
  Rates
  Glasgow District Council
  Glasgow District Council
  Housing Improvement Grant
  Housing Improvement Grant
  Urban Programme (Expenditure)
  Urban Programme (Expenditure)
  Pigeons
  Pigeons
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Local Authorities (Staff)
  Local Authorities (Staff)
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Boundary Commission for Scotland
  Boundary Commission for Scotland
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Standards
  Standards
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Rolls-Royce Limited
  Rolls-Royce Limited
  Exports (United States)
  Exports (United States)
  Steering Location Inquiries
  Steering Location Inquiries
  Regional Assistance
  Regional Assistance
  Microelectronics Education
  Microelectronics Education
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Post Office Engineering Union (Dispute)
  Post Office Engineering Union (Dispute)
  Manufacturing (Balance of Trade)
  Manufacturing (Balance of Trade)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Rates
  Rates
  Households (Statistics)
  Households (Statistics)
  Plastic Bullets
  Plastic Bullets
  Emergency Powers Acts
  Emergency Powers Acts
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Select Committees
  Select Committees
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Surplus Products
  Surplus Products
  Anadromous Fish
  Anadromous Fish
  Poultry (Battery Production)
  Poultry (Battery Production)
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Young Farmers
  Young Farmers
  Marginal Land
  Marginal Land
  Farm Wardens
  Farm Wardens
  Farmers
  Farmers
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Pig Industry
  Pig Industry
  Fishing Nets (Mesh Sizes)
  Fishing Nets (Mesh Sizes)
  Agricultural Guarantee Expenditure
  Agricultural Guarantee Expenditure
  Agriculture Industry
  Agriculture Industry
  Pigeons
  Pigeons
  River Lune (Conservation)
  River Lune (Conservation)
  Agricultural Land
  Agricultural Land
  Fishing Fleet
  Fishing Fleet
  Beef
  Beef
  Marginal Land
  Marginal Land
  Food Subsidies
  Food Subsidies
  European Community (Expenditure)
  European Community (Expenditure)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Norwich): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Several Lords—Took the Oath or Affirmed.

Consumer Affairs: Ministerial Responsibility
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their intention to appoint a Minister for Consumer Affairs and, if not, with which Minister the responsibility will lie.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, the Minister responsible for consumer affairs is now Mr. Alex Fletcher. He will report direct on these matters to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry within the new department of that name.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I never expected the Leader of the House to answer this Question, and in spite of the honour he has done us might I ask him if he is aware that those of us interested in consumer affairs and in the consumer organisations will find his Answer disappointing? Does the noble Viscount not realise that, without meaning any discourtesy to Mr. Fletcher, we feel the demoting of consumer affairs from being the responsibility of the Minister of State to a Parliamentary Under-Secretary, however able, may reflect the attitude of the Government towards this important area? Can the matter be reconsidered?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that there is no question of downgrading the position, as she fears. Mr. Fletcher has considerable responsibilities in a new and much bigger department. The Government feel that to have a Minister in a much bigger department, responsible to a Secretary of State with wider responsibilities, does give consumer affairs and competition policy the position that they ought to have.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House who is to answer for consumer affairs in your Lordships' House?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. My noble friend Lord Belstead will be taking the lead on trade matters, assisted by my noble friend Lord Lyell. Questions on consumer matters will normally be dealt with by one of them in the same way as other trade matters.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, listening to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, it might
362
appear that the Government feel that consumer affairs will be better dealt with under this reorganisation. However, that is not the view of the general public, who feel constantly that this Government have taken less interest in consumer affairs. Is the noble Viscount willing to accept that the Government's role in consumer affairs and consumer protection has now been taken over by television? All TV channels now run consumer programmes which are seen by thousands and thousands of people in this country. Does the noble Viscount not agree that these programmes show quite clearly that the consumer has to be considered seriously? Is the noble Viscount aware that these programmes clearly expose abuses of consumers, which need remedying?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I do not accept the view that because a television company or various television channels take an interest in a particular matter it means that the Government are not doing so. That would surely be a very curious doctrine for us to adopt in Parliament as a whole. I maintain that the Government take considerable responsibilities so far as consumer affairs are concerned and consider them to be very important. If the work of the Government and of the Minister for consumer affairs in the Department of Trade and Industry is helped by these television channels, and abuses are brought forward, then that enables him to do his job more effectively.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, are we to take it from the noble Viscount's original Answer that the junior Minister to whom he referred will now be responsible for important matters such as the funding of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I do not think that I shall be drawn into that argument all over again. The Minister will be responsible for all consumer affairs; but he will be responsible directly to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—and that means that the Secretary of State himself will take a personal interest in these matters.
Lord Morris: My Lords, does my noble friend the Leader of the House not agree that the department of state which has overall responsibility for the manufacturers of goods should also be the department responsible for the consumers of those goods?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I believe that is a very sound point of view.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, might I revert to the point I raised before? Does the noble Viscount not realise the feelings that some of us have? Does he not appreciate that when Mr. Parkinson outlined the duties of the three Ministers of State in his department, we were very worried that consumer affairs were not included in those responsibilities? While, once again, I am not criticising Mr. Fletcher, it does seem to us that this is a dangerous demoting of consumer affairs.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that it is not intended to be so. I will of course

363
have a word with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to ensure that the consumer interests concerned fully appreciate that position, and that he himself makes it clear to them.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are obliged to the noble Viscount for all the information that he has given; but will he be good enough to tell the House what Mr. Fletcher's precise remit is and what Civil Service back-up he will have?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, he will have other responsibilities as well as consumer policies. He will also be responsible for some of the radio regulation and radio frequency policies which were previously dealt with through the Home Office.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, as most consumers are also taxpayers, will my noble friend remember that the bigger this department becomes the higher the taxes are likely to be?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, my noble friend has, as always, put his finger on a very important point.

Manufactured Goods: Balance of Trade
3.10 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what were the figures of Britain's balance of trade in manufactured goods in the first four months of 1983.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, in the first four months of 1983 the United Kingdom's balance of trade in manufactured goods is estimated to be in deficit by £1 billion.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister himself not shocked at having to reveal this figure? Is it not the case that this country depends for its vital imports of food and raw materials on exports of manufactures—which at one time, as recently as 1977, had risen to a figure of £5 billion? What has happened to the Government's claim that British productivity has risen so rapidly over the past year, if we now find that the increase in retail sales is being met by foreign manufacturers?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am not shocked by the Answer I have given the noble Lord. Growth of imports is evidence of increased industrial activity and of rising consumer demand, both of which offer increased opportunities to British industry. It is very heartening (as was said by my noble friend Lord Cockfield in yesterday's debate) that the CBI's industrial trends inquiry showed an increase in output and improved order books for the fifth month in succession.
364
The noble Lord mentioned productivity and the year 1977. It might be of interest to the House to know that every day £120 million-worth of manufactured goods are exported from this country. That means that over the 12 months to the end of May this year we exported £10 billion-worth more of manufactured goods than in the last year of the Labour Government.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the term "manufactured goods" includes the sale of arms to other countries, and to what extent they have been paid for?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I cannot answer that question; but, yes, of course, arms sales are included.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, are the figures the noble Lord gives in real terms or in cash terms? Would he be good enough on every occasion in future, as we have had this difficulty with him in the past, to make it clear to the House what information he is giving to your Lordships, lest the House be misled by his answers?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, unless I say to the contrary, the figures I give are in cash terms.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in spite of the answers given by the noble Lord the Minister, I should still like to suggest that this is a very disturbing trend. May I ask the noble Lord what measures the Government propose to take, either through the British Overseas Trade Board or in other ways, to reverse this trend?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think it is fair to say that in the Budgets of the past two years incentives have been given to both new and expanding businesses. Of course, through the work of the British Overseas Trade Board and other agencies I believe that, with output continuing to rise, so jobs will begin to come back.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that in terms of manufactured goods an increase in manufacturing will not merely be good for the country as a whole but, what is perhaps most important, will make a real contribution to bringing down the scourge this country suffers from at the moment—extremely high unemployment?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in case there is any misunderstanding I must make it clear that manufacturing output in the first four months of this year—the only months for which I have figures—is most definitely up.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that over the past year manufacturing production has been down? Would he answer my previous question as to whether it is not still necessary for this country to have a surplus in manufacturing trade in order to obtain our essential imports of food and raw materials? Could he say what Government policy is going to be when they find the buffer of North Sea oil is beginning to run out?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Government do not agree with the noble Lord that it is necessary, or even desirable, to have a surplus in trade on every single

365
commodity. We are in surplus on oil and services, and we are in a strong overall position—a £3,050 million surplus last year.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am asking the noble Lord about manufactured goods. What is his answer on manufactured goods?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my answer to the noble Lord remains the same as it was in my answer to his original supplementary question; that is, that growth in imports is evidence of increased industrial activity and of rising consumer demand. There is evidence, whether or not the noble Lord agrees, that British industry is now beginning to take advantage of those opportunities, in contradistinction to other countries in the OECD, which, as my noble friend Lord Gowrie pointed out in the debate yesterday, were on a downward trend at the beginning of this year so far as manufacturing output is concerned, while this country, despite all our difficulties, was on an upward curve.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, notwithstanding what the noble Lord has said, is it not a distressing fact that we are for the first time in a century importing more manufactured goods than we are exporting? Is that not the problem which the Government have to solve, especially taking into account the fact that oil is part of our exports?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, is habitually fair, and I am sure the noble Lord would recognise the force of the information which my noble friend Lord Gowrie gave in the debate yesterday. I repeat that at a time when the countries of the OECD, including our leading industrial competitors, were on a downward curve in manufacturing output, this country was at the beginning of an upward curve. When the noble Lord asks what the Government are going to do, we are going to try to keep prices stable, we are going to try to keep interest rates down, and we are going to continue to give adequate incentives to industry.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, if we are so much more competitive, why is it that our figure for unemployment was only half a point more than the OECD figure in 1979 and is now 5½ per cent. more? That surely takes some explaining.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, like all other countries, during the recession it has been difficult to increase manufacturing output. We are now beginning to do so. If we can continue to do so then it is possible that the jobs will follow.

Agile Combat Aircraft
3.19 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the carbon fibre raw material for the Agile Combat
366
Aircraft will be from British, Japanese or other sources.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the Agile Combat Aircraft is a private venture project by industry, led by British Aerospace, in collaboration with European partners. I understand that the three collaborative partners have chosen a Japanese source of carbon fibre.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Would he agree that if the Japanese carbon fibre is used for the production of the demonstrator it will be extremely unlikely that it will be possible for the British carbon fibre to be used in the production line? This is a material which has such a great future, and it is one in respect of which we held the lead 10 years ago. That whole lead will disappear and will be transferred to the Orient.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am advised that there would be no technical difficulty in changing to British manufactured material of comparable quality, but the decisions in this matter must be taken by the companies themselves. The noble Lord may be interested to know that for some years we have been financing a demonstrator programme at British Aerospace, Warton. For that work it was agreed at the outset that on technical grounds carbon fibre of United Kingdom origin would be used.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, does the Minister recognise the seriousness of the point made by his noble friend, especially as regards the British position? Will the Minister say what the criteria were in relation to the alternative sources of material? Further, can he say what aspects were taken into account in reaching this decision, which set a very difficult precedent for British interests?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid these were matters for the commercial judgment of British Aerospace and not for the Government.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, would it not be possible to say that suitability and price were the main considerations? Would it not also be possible for the noble Lord and others to pay tribute to the manufacturers for their progressive application of this new material in the new aircraft?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is referring to the aircraft manufacturers, and certainly I can confirm that the availability of this new material opens the way for some exciting developments.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is it not particularly important that all high technology equipment, where conceivably possible, should be incorporated and embodied in this aircraft and should come from either Britain or her partners? Is it not sad that carbon fibre, which was invented at the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough, should be one of the high technology composite materials which we now have to buy from Japan—one hopes that this is only temporary—rather than from sources in the United Kingdom, the place it was invented?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I certainly hope that it may be possible to use a British source for this material in the future, but I must say that in this initial experimental programme it would not have been right to impose conditions of that kind on the manufacturer.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, will my noble friend express the concern of the House to British Aerospace over this matter, particularly as the United Kingdom manufacturers say that they can meet all the specifications that are required and can match the particular fineness, I think it is, that the Japanese can achieve?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am certain that British Aerospace will take careful note of the exchanges in your Lordships' House this afternoon.
Lord Morris: My Lords, while I accept my noble friend's point that this matter is for the commercial judgment of the company concerned, what plans do Her Majesty's Government have for persuading or encouraging the company to buy British rather than Japanese?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I have said, it would not be right for the Government to impose conditions on the manufacturer of the kind the noble Lord has in mind. We are always anxious that British sources of materials or components are used when the technical specification is right, when the price is right and when the other conditions, such as delivery, are right.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether there are applications for carbon fibre outside the defence field and British Aerospace? Will the Government give priority to this growth industry, which is clearly one of the industries of the future?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I imagine there are other applications for this material, but as is so often the case it is the aerospace industry that is leading the way.

The Schools Council
3.25 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what their intentions are regarding the Schools Council, and how they plan to implement their proposals.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the present Schools Council is to be replaced by the Secondary Examinations Council, which was incorporated on 23rd May, and a school curriculum development body. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is discussing with the local authority associations detailed arrangements for the latter body.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he not think that the Schools
368
Council has had to go on for a very long time since it was first announced in April 1982 that the Schools Council was to be abolished? That has been a very unsatisfactory and miserable situation for the staff who have been waiting to know what will happen.
May I put a few further questions about the curriculum body which is to follow? Has the chairman been appointed? Will it be Professor Blin-Stoyle, as was rumoured in the newspapers last week? When will the members and the staff be appointed? When will it be able to commission work? Will the new body or the Secondary Examinations Council be framing the curriculum? There was a recent article by Sir James Hamilton, an ex-Permanent Secretary, which suggested that the examination council would establish the framework for the curriculum. Ministers have certainly said that the curriculum would be more important than the examination.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, a number of questions have been asked by the noble Baroness, and I hope I can remember them as I proceed. I agree that there has been a delay. I do not think it is any secret that there have been negotiations with the local education authority associations which have not been altogether speedy.
As regards the staff, I know that they have suffered difficulties and I am sorry about it. However, some have already received provisional offers of appointment to the Secondary Examinations Council. It is hoped that the school curriculum development body will take advantage of the experience and expertise of the present Schools Council staff in making appointments. Others have already been accepted for voluntary redundancy.
As regards the chairman of the school curriculum development body, I wish to state absolutely categorically that no approach has been made to any individual to chair the new body. It is to be regretted that the article appeared in last Friday's Times Educational Supplement. It is hoped that the work of the curriculum development body will start in the autumn, but there are a few problems and negotiations are continuing, and it may be somewhat delayed.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, can the noble Lord say anything about the various projects and plans for publication now being considered by the Schools Council? Will they be taken on by the curriculum body and brought to fruition? What will happen to the considerable income from royalties that now accrues to the Schools, Council for those publications?
The Earl of Swinton: In the main that will be for the new body to consider, but the Government will ask it to take over the few contractual commitments of the Schools Council which will still be in existence: that is, seven projects out of the current total of 24. I shall have to write to the noble Lord about the royalties but I imagine the position will probably be the same for the new body.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, in view of the controversies about the curricula for British school examinations, may we take it that the new body which has been formed will look at the international

369
baccalauréat examination and curriculum which has had extraordinary success in being adopted by international colleges all over the world?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, for mentioning that. As he is aware, he and I sit on the council of Atlantic College, which uses that. I am not altogether sure whether this will come under the heading of schools examination, but I am sure it is a point that my right honourable friend will consider.
Baroness David: My Lords, following up the Minister's answer to my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham, has the Minister considered the educational and financial case for continuing certain activities of the Schools Council that it has already embarked upon and letting them go on until March 1984? There is still uncertainty about this. If not, there will be a good deal of educational and financial loss, as a considerable amount of money has been put into the council. The extra money to continue there until March would, I understand be in the region of £80,000.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I have nothing to add to what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham. My understanding is that the few contractual commitments of the Schools Council which will still be in existence will be continued—that is, seven projects out of a current total of 24. I understand that the other commitments will have been completed by then.

British Museum Act 1963 (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the British Museum Act 1963 so as to extend the powers of the trustees of the British Museum in order that international resolutions and obligations may be complied with. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Jenkins of Putney.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Prohibition of Female Circumcision Bill [H.L.]
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to prohibit female circumcision. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Associated British Ports Bill (formerly British Transport Docks Bill)
Read a third time with the amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Pwllheli Harbour Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Privileges: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, in accordance with Standing Order 72, a Select Committee for Privileges be appointed; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords, together with the Chairman of Committees and any four Lords of Appeal, be named of the Committee:

Adeane, L.

Aylestone, L.

Beswick, L.

Byers, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Denham, L.

Ferrers, E.

Glenamara, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Shackleton, L.

Whitelaw, V. (L. President)

Wigoder, L. —(Lord Aberdare.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Statutory Instruments: Select Committee
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee of seven Lords be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Commons to consider—
(1) Every instrument which is laid before each House of Parliament and upon which proceedings may be or might have been taken in either House of Parliament, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament; being

(a) a statutory instrument, or a draft of a statutory instrument;

(b) a scheme, or an amendment of a scheme, or draft thereof, requiring approval by statutory instrument;

(c) any other instrument (whether or not in draft), where the proceedings in pursuance of an Act of Parliament are proceedings by way of an affirmative resolution; or

(d) an order subject to special parliamentary procedure;

but excluding any Order in Council or draft Order in Council made or proposed to be made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
(2) Every general statutory instrument not within the foregoing classes, and not required to be laid

371
before or to be subject to proceedings in the Commons only, but not including Measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made under such Measures;
with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the following grounds—

(i) that it imposes a charge on the public revenues or contains provisions requiring payments to be made to the Exchequer or any government department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent or of any services to be rendered, or prescribes the amount of any such charge or payments;

(ii) that it is made in pursuance of any enactment containing specific provisions excluding it from challenge in the courts, either at all times or after the expiration of a specific period;

(iii) that it purports to have retrospective effect where the parent statute confers no express authority so to provide;

(iv) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the publication or in the laying of it before Parliament;

(v) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in sending a notification under the proviso to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, where an Instrument has come into operation before it has been laid before Parliament;

(vi) that there appears to be a doubt whether it is intra vires or that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the statute under which it is made;

(vii) that for any special reasons its form or purport call for elucidation;

(viii) that its drafting appears to be defective; or on any other ground which does not impinge on its merits or on the policy behind it, and to report their decision with the reasons thereof in any particular case.

That the Lords following, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, be named of the Committee:

Airedale, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Denington, B.

Dilhorne, V.

Henley, L.

Spens, L.

That two be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.
That the Committee have power to appoint one or more Sub-Committees severally to join with any Sub-Committee or Sub-Committees appointed by the Committee appointed by the Commons: and to refer to such Sub-Committee or Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee.
That it be an instruction to the Committee that they do not consider any instrument which is directed by
372
Act of Parliament to be laid before and to be subject to proceedings in the Commons only; and that the Committee do not join with the Committee appointed by the Commons in considering any such instrument.
That it be a further instruction to the Committee that, before reporting that the special attention of the House be drawn to any instrument, the Committee do afford to any Government department concerned therewith an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing to them or to any Sub-Committee or the Committee such explanations as the department think fit.
That the Joint Committee have leave to report from time to time.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be appointed the panel of Lords to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this session:—

Airedale, L.

Ampthill, L.

Aylestone, L.

Cathcart, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Derwent, L.

Hayter, L.

Jacques, L.

Listowel, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Renton, L.

Simon, V.

Wells-Pestell, L.

White, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Parochial Charities (Neighbourhood Trusts) Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
Baroness Faithful: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. A Second Reading of this Bill took place on 6th May of this year. With the Dissolution of Parliament the Bill fell. The then Government, while not wholly in sympathy with the Bill, nevertheless agreed to a Second Reading, accepting the recommendation that a Select Committee of the House of Lords be set up to look into the position with regard to parochial charities for the poor in England and Wales. I am given to understand that this position is unchanged. In the circumstances, my instinct is to say very little. On the other hand, there are in your Lordships' House today those who were

373
not present on 6th May. I therefore crave the indulgence of those noble Lords who have heard this speech before.
I have altered the shading of some of my statements in my last speech due, first, to the publication of the report of the Charity Commissioners of 1982; secondly, to the publication of a consultative document by the National Council of Voluntary Organisations; and, thirdly, to a one-day seminar for trustees organised by the Charities Aid Foundation. Indeed, I was heartened when in answer to a question at that seminar the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, supported the Bill which is before your Lordships' House today.
Parochial charities present a complicated legal and social problem. I am grateful for the help that I have received from the Oxfordshire Rural Community Council, and in particular Sir Charles Kimber; from the Humberside County Council, through the good offices of Mr. Frank Courtney; and from those interested in parochial charities in Wales. Indeed, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will speak for those charities in Wales. I am also grateful to the West Yorkshire Charities Information Bureau, the Community Council of Humberside and the South Yorkshire Information Service and the many individuals up and down the country, from Cornwall to Cambridge, who have written to me.
There are in this country 140,000 registered charities. Of course, parish charities for the poor comprise approximately between a quarter and a third. Their endowments bring in millions of pounds; yet at present, with a few notable exceptions, they are largely a wasted asset. This Bill recommends the formation of neighbourhood trusts, whereby a number of trusts in a specified area group together and join their resources to be allocated according to the wishes of the original donor.
It is strange that this was first recommended by the Nathan Report in 1952 and agreed by the then Charity Commission. Again the same recommendation was made in a Select Committee Report on the account ability of the Charity Commission in 1975; and yet again in the Goodman Report of 1976. Yet still no effective action has been taken to deal with the chaotic position with regard to parochial charities in England and Wales.
Far be it for me to outline a social history of this country, but account must be taken of certain events long ago. After Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries, where, in the main, the poor were assisted, the first Queen Elizabeth instigated the Poor Law Act 1601, whereby parishes were made responsible, through overseers, to assist the poor. Alongside this administration, the religious and humane practice grew up for donors who wanted to leave money to the poor to use the parish for the purposes of administration, as was the practice in those days. Except in a few instances, the money was not left to the parish.
With the passing of the centuries came the development of the poor law Acts, social security Acts, national insurance and pension Acts, national health Acts and education Acts; so that in this present age the relief of the poor falls mainly to central and local government. At the same time gradually donors tended to leave money for the poor to national and
374
international organisations. Only a few continued to use the parish to administer their bequests.
The Charities Act 1960, based on the recommendations of the Nathan Report, was intended to render outdated charities effective in the new situation created by welfare provisions of the modern state, while ensuring that the money continued to go to the same general purpose which the donor intended. To this end the Charities Act 1960 provided for reviews of parochial charities to be carried out in every county and for review organisers, where possible, to persuade trustees to amalgamate their charities on a voluntary basis, thus rendering them more effective.
In May 1982, in answer to a Written Question, it was stated in Hansard that reviews of parochial charities had been carried out in part or the whole of every county in England and Wales. These reviews were usually carried out by rural community councils, charity information bureaux and a few local authorities. Research has been carried out on eight of these reviews. What did the research reveal? It revealed a generally chaotic position. First, there were the demographic changes in parishes. In the last two centuries there have been great shifts of population. For instance, there is a new estate with a population of 13,000, which was built only since the last war, and this area has only two charities, bringing in £8 a year. In the adjoining parish there are only 800 people, few of whom are in need, and the charity has an income of £3,000 to £4,000 a year, which it is unable to spend in accordance with the donors' wishes. In Dunwich, in Suffolk, once a borough with a Royal Charter, and now with a population of 155 and an income from parochial charity of £1,600 a year, there is a balance sitting in the bank of £11,000.
The research pointed out the number of outdated purposes. For instance, there is one charity where centuries ago a man suffered grievously from a wart on his nose. He left money to anyone suffering a similar disfigurement. This money has rarely been spent. In these days the National Health Service would take care of such a case. This money could more profitably be used for allied medical problems. In the North there is a parish where bread was left for the poor. The vicar distributes a loaf of bread once a month to his parishioners, be they poor or not. I ask: is this what the donor intended? In another parish, the vicar can claim £2 for preaching a sermon, and the church warden 50 pence for listening, and very little of the money goes to the poor—unless of course the right reverend Prelate thinks that the vicar is poor.
The reviews also showed a lamentable neglect of accounts. Of the eight reviews in which research was carried out one-third of the parochial charities had no accounts, and another quarter had kept no accounts for 10 years. The money of a proportion of the parochial charities had not been properly husbanded. Money had not been properly invested, and some trustees of land-owning charities had not revised the rents in accordance with modern standards. In some charities only £12 per week rent was being obtained when the average rent per week should have been £30. Thus, in some instances farmers who rent charity land are the largest beneficiaries of parish charities for the poor. Again, that is surely not in accordance with the donors' wishes.

375
I have taken a long time to set the scene. In order to meet the welfare conditions of our modern state, and to concur with the wishes of the donors who left the money for the poor, the Bill recommends that the Charity Commissioners should study the reviews of parochial charities. The commissioners should contact local authorities, which in turn may, as they have done in the past, allocate to voluntary organisations such as community councils the task of grouping parochial charities into neighbourhood trusts with trustees, some of whom will be from the original trusts. The neighbourhood trusts will still be administered by voluntary trustees and will continue to give—and to be—a voluntary service, as hitherto. This will be of inestimable value to those needing to apply. The task of offering advice, help and supervision to the neighbourhood trusts by the Charity Commission will then be a practical proposition.
I am fully aware that there are parishes which resent having to share their parochial charity resources with others, even if they cannot use them in accordance with the donors' wishes. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich may have something to say on this matter. When, due to changing social conditions, it was necessary for the Church to unite three or four parishes under one vicar, the position was accepted. Why, I wonder, do trustees feel unable to amalgamate into neighbourhood trusts?
Another contention is that the county councils would need extra money to allocate to voluntary organisations to carry out the reorganisation. This exercise has been costed, and we reckon that it would cost only £2,000 a year for two years per local authority.
I am grateful to the Home Office for writing to me to let me know its objections to the Bill. I understand that the objections are as follws:
"The reluctance of Trustees to co-operate with local reviews in modernising their Trusts: that Trustees should retain the right to decide what happens to the Trusts they administer and that such Trusts should be allowed to retain their identities".
I do not accept that argument when it means that the money left by donors is not being used as was intended, has been badly husbanded, or is not in some cases being used at all.
I hope that I have shown how unsatisfactory is the overall position in England and Wales. I am bound to ask: for whom are the trusts run? If they are run for the poor, which was the intention of the donors, why cannot this be made possible? I am the first to admit that there are some sound, well-administered parochial charities, but research has shown that they are in the minority. Thus, the Bill makes mandatory the reorganisation into neighbourhood trusts simply because while under the Charity Act 1960 it has been, and is, possible for trustees voluntarily to organise, into neighbourhood trusts, this has not been done except in very few instances.
In my speech of 6th May, I stated that the Home Office was the mouthpiece of the commission. The annual report of the Charity Commissioners (which is in your Lordships' Library) corrects me and points out that the commission, as a quasi-judicial department, is in effect an extension of the High Court, free from day-to-day political intervention. I accept that
376
statement. However, I am bound to say that the position is peculiar and strange. If the commission is independent of the Home Office, then with what knowledge does the Home Office speak in your Lordships' House and in another place, and who is responsible for initiating improvements, changes and reforms?
I should like to quote from the consultation document of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which has just been published. The document states:
"We have already mentioned the changing landscape of voluntary social action, in response to unprecedented social and economic change. We hold that there are a number of areas where the law is out of touch with modern social conditions".
The consultation document was drawn up by a committee which was established by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations to look into charity law in this country.
Furthermore, whose responsibility is it to see that the work of the commission can be carried out? Last year 4,000 new charities were registered. There are already on the register 143,000 charities which should be looked at every year, and 70,000 are exempted or excepted in regard to regulation. Six hundred letters are received by the Charity Commission every day. Is the Charity Commission adequately and appropriately staffed for this work? If neighbourhood trusts were set up, that would reduce the number of trusts the accounts of which should be seen each year by the Charity Commissioners. At present the Charity Commission seems to have more to do than it can possibly manage.
I end by quoting again from the National Council for Voluntary Organisations working party. The report states:
"The Commission's approach to the modernisation of charities whose purpose has become irrelevant to contemporary social needs has been the object of considerable criticism. Views differ on what is needed: some favour the establishment of neighbourhood trusts; others, the winding up of small out-moded charities; still others a relaxation of the cy-pres doctrine. We believe that a public enquiry is needed into this important area and would welcome the recently proposed House of Lords Select Committee".
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Faithfull.)
3.51 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, not for the first time do I look with envy upon the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful She delivered a speech in regard to this Bill on 6th May this year. It was a very good speech, if I may be allowed to say so. She appears before this House again saying, as she was entitled to forecast, that those who heard that speech would be more than prepared to hear it again. Those of your Lordships, including myself, who heard that speech largely made again heard it with pleasure. I do not have any illusions that your Lordships are prepared to extend the same tolerance to me. I followed the noble Baroness on that occasion, and I said certain things in the course of what I believe was a 15-minute speech which I intend, if I may, to summarise but not to reproduce. Then, if your Lordships will allow this latitude, I should like to say a few words on behalf of those on the Benches upon

377
which I have the honour to sit as to the general law of charity and the possible need for change.
On the previous occasion I said that I hoped your Lordships would very definitely give the Bill a Second Reading, that it would be referred to the Select Committee and that there were problems within the problems to which the noble Baroness had rightly drawn our attention. There was the question of whether a perfectly well administered small trust, run by loyal, careful trustees, should be mandated to give up the trust that had been reposed in them by some settlor in the past and made to amalgamate the trust in a neighbourhood trust. We do not often exercise mandatory powers where we find that they are not completely necessary.
Secondly, I ventured to say that this was possibly an administrative task, if we are dealing with mandatory matters, both in regard to the Charity Commission and local authorities, which might be rather heavier than had been suggested in the noble Baroness's Second Reading speech. I drew for my reasoning in that connection from the very committee whose findings the noble Baroness found were sympathetic to the Bill that she has presented to your Lordships. I referred to that committee's report in this connection, and read to your Lordships from page 146 of it. This stated:
"we have considered whether it would be practicable to place an obligation on county and county borough councils to review the parochial charities in their areas and to submit proposals to the Commissioners who would then, if they thought proper, make schemes. The formidable number of these charities makes us hesitate to suggest this. It is, we think, too difficult at the present moment to estimate what would be the extent of the task, what other and perhaps more urgent tasks may be imposed on local authorities or whether it would be found practicable to give the Commissioners the staff necessary to deal with the work at the centre".
One wonders whether 1952 was a more prosperous time in regard to the funds of local authorities, their ability to spend and the staff they had available, and also whether it was a better year than 1983 for the Charity Commissioners. One has reservations; one has doubts. The real point is that it is so sensible for a Select Committee to examine these matters, to decide upon them and to make recommendations after hearing whatever evidence can be afforded to them.
If this is to be called the Faithfull Bill, noble Lords will be aware that there is another Bill that deserves the title of the Renton Bill. That was, I know, the inspiration of a very much respected Member of Parliament in another place. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, took the burden of that Bill on his shoulders. In the last Session it was called the Small Charities Bill. I have no doubt that it will have the same name now.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it was in the last Parliament called the Charities Bill. I have taken it upon myself to alter the Short Title and to call it the Small Charities Bill. I like to think of it essentially as Sir Angus Maude's Bill.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lord has spoken with his usual modesty in two directions. First, he has ascribed the Bill to Sir Angus Maude, as I hope I also did. Secondly, with his usual modesty he has made the Bill a Small Charities Bill and not just a Charities Bill. I recognise that at once. I know that your Lordships will listen to the Second Reading
378
debate on that Bill with great interest. It deals with the ending of small trusts, and not with the consolidation and continuance of them. That is again an interesting proposition because it makes the ending of them permissive. That, too, is something that the Select Committee will no doubt be examining in due course.
I turn speedily, if I may, to a feeling that your Lordships may share. It is a great pity that we are dealing with an issue by small bites when it is very necessary that it should be considered as a whole. I refer to the present law on charity. I noticed with pleasure that the noble Baroness referred to a very up-to-date document called, "Charity Law—a case for change?", which was the result of very hard work by the Charity Law Working Group. It has just been issued, and it contains many interesting findings and recommendations.
One notices the call in that document for evidence to be given, observations to be made and representations to be put by September of this year. One hopes that those submissions will be made to the working group and so will enable a more weighty series of findings and recommendations to be considered. But the Government, over a period of some four years, have seemed to be saying, in answer to all the criticisms, that charity law is in a fairly satisfactory state. One was glad, therefore, that in the closing moments of the last Government the learned Attorney-General, in answer to a question in another place on 18th April 1983, at column 17, said:
"Charity law is not in chaos. Charity law is of long standing. Many judicial decisions upon which the charities commissioners act are rather old. The law has not, perhaps, kept up with the change in the nature of trusts seeking charitable status. Originally the law was designed to deal with rogues and crooks and the misuse of charitable funds. The law is probably necessary. Perhaps we shall see a way forward after the final decision is taken on the Moonies. It may then be necessary to reconsider the whole of charity law."
It seems that when we are considering aspects of the law relating to small charities, the bad administration of some charities and how we should deal with it and how we should look after the poor in regard to community trusts and neighbourhood trusts that might be set up if the Bill is passed, we should also have a general look, especially at a time when there is no doubt that voluntary effort and voluntary funds coming in to so many worthy objects are a need of the times. There is no doubt about that. One finds that the present state of our charity law and the findings of the Charity Commissioners is that if there is a fund set up to deal with trying to find employment for the unemployed, it is not charitable.
One finds also—and this is as a result of a decision which took place before we were a multi-racial society—that the promotion of racial harmony is not a charitable object. I see doubt creeping upon the face of at least one noble Lord, but I am quoting from an actual decision which has not, in fact, been altered. One finds that the pursuit of the objects of a charity in order to try and change the law which it finds harmful to its charitable object may be questioned by the Charity Commissioners as a proper use of its funds. And here I am not referring in any way to the pursuit of purely political objects which all of us would agree do not and should not come within the charitable arena, but it may be that on some occasions it is very difficult to draw a correct line of demarcation.

379
Those are matters that ought to be considered, whether it be by a working party or by another Royal Commission. Perhaps, with the advantage of a continuation of progressive Ministers at the Home Office, one can hope that inspiration and initiative can come from that direction. Whatever it be, there is, first, no question in your Lordships' minds that you would want to give the Bill a Second Reading; secondly, that it ought to go to a Select Committee before your Lordships consider it further so that you may have the recommendations of the Select Committee before you; but, thirdly, ought we not to grapple with this issue and see whether we cannot find it within ourselves to reform the whole law of charity and make it a matter of the 20th century and not a matter of Queen Elizabeth I?
4.3 p.m.
Lord Foot: My Lords, on the last occasion when we debated this matter on 6th May I spoke briefly from these Benches giving all the support I could to the noble Baroness and her Bill. I certainly do not intend on this occasion to try and repeat what little I said on that other occasion. However, I should like to thank her—as I did originally—not only for her initiative in producing this Bill, but now for her perseverance in promoting it again in this new Parliament; and again, as I did previously, I wish the Bill well.
I am quite sure that the whole question of charities is a matter so esoteric and so complicated that one steps on to the ground with some caution and care. It is pre-eminently the type of subject which can be best considered by a Select Committee of this House. It is reassuring to know that although the Government do not approve of the Bill in all its aspects, they are, as I understand it, going to adhere to what they said previously: that is, they are going to support the Bill being sent to a Select Committee. That is the place where these matters can be properly investigated.
I was looking back at the record of the previous debate this morning and I noticed that there were 11 speakers other than the Minister. It is noteworthy that except for a few words of caution from some of the speakers, the 10 speakers who followed the noble Baroness were all in support of the Bill. We had to wait until the Minister rose to his feet to hear the arguments against it. As I understood them, the arguments against the Bill fell into two categories. There was the argument that this measure, by taking mandatory powers to compel our small trusts to join together in neighbourhood trusts, was not in keeping with the spirit and principles of the law of charities. The practical argument was that to impose the burden upon the Charity Commissioners in the first place and upon local authorities in the next place, to produce schemes of neighbourhood trusts of this kind, would be imposing too heavy a burden upon them. Re-reading the debate, as I did this morning, I am hound to say that I am reinforced in my support of the Bill because I think that there is very little of merit in either of those arguments. However, they are supremely arguments that could be properly examined by a Select Committee.
I concluded by making two observations upon two of the matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon,
380
referred. He spoke of his hesitation and doubts about the propriety of using mandatory powers to compel a small, useful, well-administered trust to combine with other trusts, with other charities. I appreciate that, and superficially it is a matter of objection. But the history of this matter over the past 30 years—certainly since the passing of the 1960 Act—has only illustrated beyond peradventure that we are not going to get anywhere by purely voluntary efforts. In the 1960 Act, machinery was created by the authors of the Act with the intention that trustees of small charities like these would be able to produce schemes for amalgamation and getting together. The authors of the Act foresaw that that might be the right road to proceed along. In fact the machinery which was created at that time has proved not only ineffective, but wholly ineffective. On the last occasion we debated this matter I asked whether, if this is not put upon some mandatory basis, we will be in any better condition in 30 years' time than we are today.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made a general comment upon the law of charities. I of course agree with him that a review of the whole of charity law is long overdue. But I think that the noble Baroness is justified in presenting this little measure in advance of any general reform of charities, and I take that view for two reasons. The first reason is that it is, as I see it, a self-contained measure. It will not inhibit any future action that may be taken by anybody to reform the general law of charities. If she had waited for a general review of the law, then of course she might have waited forever. Therefore, again—as before—I wish the noble Baroness's Bill a fair wind.
4.10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I believe that we all stand in debt to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for her persistence in bringing this very important matter before us. I particularly take up the phrase just used by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, who said that this is a small matter even though it is detailed and full of various problems. But it is just the sort of matter which I believe a Select Committee of your Lordships' House can examine with a fine tooth-comb, which is what this demands.
I am delighted to take part in this debate and to underline and summarise one or two of the matters which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London raised from these Benches on 6th May. But I do so with a sense of history, seeing one or two noble Lords from Norfolk and Suffolk present, such as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I was delighted to hear that the Dunwich charity is still going so well. I am only the 69th Bishop of Norwich, but I am the 104th Bishop of East Anglia and I trace my pedigree right back to St. Felix of Dunwich. I know that Dunwich is all under the sea now and that you cannot hear the bells out to sea, but he is our saintly predecessor. Of course, your Lordships know that the name "Felix" means happy, and we have sought to keep a happy diocese running all those years. However, I have a slight feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who stands firmly for the rights of the individual, may have some sort of a noble spanner, which we shall hear about later, to throw in the works. We can but tell. However, I am delighted to know that Dunwich was mentioned.

381
I was a little distressed when the noble Baroness said that Henry VIII dissolved all the monasteries which cared for the poor, because I am actually still the Abbot of St. Benet's. I am the only "undissolved" abbot since the days of the Reformation, and on the first Sunday in August every year, at three o' clock in the afternoon, I go down-river to the ruins of St Benet's Abbey, which was founded by King Canute, and there we hold a great service to which, once again, all your Lordships are warmly welcome if you should happen to be sailing on our Norfolk Broads on the first Sunday in August. That is my commercial; I now get on with the work.
I, too, read carefully the speeches made by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Foot, on 6th May, and I am delighted to find that the two key words of those two weighty speeches still appear to be "their mind". At column 285 of the Official Report on 6th May the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said:
"There is a waste. Let us see what the Select Committee of your Lordships' House has to say."
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, said:
"the present state of these charities, with their multiplicity of sizes … is wholly unsatifactory".
I take comfort from that because I appreciate that the Government, who have a right and I think a continuing responsiblity to care for the freedom of the individual, may look with some nervousness here.
Your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord the Minister entered that careful caveat that we should take particular care to safeguard these charitable trusts and their original purposes as far as practicable. When the purpose of a charity is altered according to the cy-prés doctrine, the new object must of course remain within the spirit of the original donation. I am quite sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has that in her mind in pressing this Bill upon us, because there is no sense in which we desire to overthrow the mind of the donors of years gone by. But I think that the answer to the particular point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, last time is that, in fact, the original plans have meant these charities really are not now able to be used and, if anything, the freedom to use them has been inhibited by time and changing social conditions.
Therefore, there is a sense in which this Bill is a liberalising Bill rather than a restraining Bill. I believe that the mandatory aspect needs to be seen within that context. I think that we must take note of the historical fact that the Charities Act 1960 provided a voluntary form of such neighbourhood trusts; but in the 23 years since the passing of the Charities Act, as far as I know (although I stand to be corrected on this) no neighbourhood trusts have in fact been set up on a voluntary basis.
This may mean, of course, that the pressure against a mandatory plan will surface, but I take some comfort from the fact that the principles of seeking to find a mandatory way forward are suitable when all people who are concerned in these areas are willing to agree to the importance of the greater good coming from the lesser deprivation of liberty. I read carefully the speech made by my noble friend and brother from this Bench, the Bishop of London. At column 287 of our proceedings on 6th May he said:
"I believe that the Bill has the general support of those who sit on these Benches. I might add that the representatives of the main
382
denominations who sit on the Churches Main Committee, of which I am chairman,…expressed support in principle for the general objective."
As your Lordships know, the Churches Main Committee is an important forum where main general issues of religion are discussed with all the major denominations. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London himself welcomed the setting up of a Select Committee.
I should like to summarise two of his points, which I think are worth remembering, and two of the excellent reasons why he felt that we should go forward in the direction of this Bill with the safeguard of a Select Committee. The first is that the English tradition of adaptation is an important tradition, rather than of abolition. I believe that we are moving towards an adaptation here. The present situation in regard to parochial charities does not really encourage voluntary care at local level. Therefore, it is not surprising that people are now much more disposed to help wide national charities rather than small local ones; and that is the difficulty of these small charities falling into desuetude.
However, the right reverend Prelate made the second point—and I summarise it very shortly—that the Bill is based on the principle of partnership and sharing. He used the analogy of the formation of the Church Commissioners to explain what he meant. Your Lordships will remember that before 1948 there was the Queen Anne's Bounty and there were the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. From 1948 the two bodies were amalgamated into our present Church Commissioners.
The Church Commissioners have always sought to try to deal with parochial-type matters, not in isolation—which, of course, is the present way in which, alone, we can deal with these charitable trusts—but in partnership and in consultation, so that the wider good can be shared. In fact, we contained the Endowment and Glebe Measure 1975 (which I hasten to mention in case your Lordships, with your knowledge of that measure, think that my argument is not sound) within the boundary of the diocese. I think we were right to do so. Within a Church situation a diocese is a major family area, and they are large areas. The Endowment and Glebe Measure is the sharing of glebe and endowment matters within the diocese. I only use that example to show that in the Select Committee which I hope your Lordships will set up we may have to find that there are certain restrictions which will come naturally to the surface in our detailed discussion, but the principle of partnership and sharing is, I believe, a true one here. Therefore, this would not be any new departure in practice if we sought to set up neighbourhood trusts.
The noble Baroness asked if I would refer to the Sheffield Report, in which we are trying to share the clergy of the Church of England more equitably across the whole area of the two provinces of Canterbury and York. Those more favoured dioceses with more clergy should share their clergy. They seem to go down into the bottomless pit of the back streets of Manchester. What happens to the clergy when they get to the back streets of Manchester is still another of those mysterious secrets of the Church of England to which we do not draw attention, but we are trying to share the clergy round better.

383
The noble Baroness asked whether the various parishes were happy when they had to amalgamate under a bishop. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, knows very well that they are not always, except for the loving, persistent, tactful and caring approach of the Lord Bishop for those particular parishes day after day after day until, like it or not, they do come to agree. In fact, they are always happy as long as you put the clergyman in charge of more parishes in your parish. They do not mind then, but it is not easy.
It is sense to rationalise our resources of manpower, of money, and in this case. I believe, of charities. I shall not, therefore, weary your Lordships with further argument on that except to say that in general terms we from these Benches feel that this is a proper way of approaching this matter; that with 140,000 small charities there is waste, there is inefficiency, and there is therefore a strangulation of charity which is there that could be used if, through neighbourhood trusts, we brought this up to date and found a new way forward. I would therefore feel that this is a good Bill, and I hope that we may feel that on these Benches we are solidly in support of it.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, your Lordships will have taken careful note of what the right reverend Prelate has said with his immense experience, especially in his own diocese. I shall have reason to express some misgivings about the Bill. Before I do so there is one thing I should say with which perhaps the right reverend Prelate would agree, and that is that an open confession is good for the soul, and perhaps for the mind. I should also say that when defending criminals I always used to say to them that it is better to confess before they are found out. Therefore, let me confess before we go any further that I was one of the authors of the 1960 Act.
Indeed, I had to play some part in its preparation, and I had the responsibility of piloting it on my own but with the assistance of the then Solicitor-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, through its Committee and Report stages in another place. However, that does not mean that my mind is closed to its improvement. Indeed, I think that after these many years it is time that we had the kind of general look at the 1960 Act which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has suggested.
We should be grateful to my noble friend Lady Faithfull for, if I may say so, the able and persuasive way in which she has tried to convince us that her Bill should have a Second Reading. Although I have misgivings about her Bill, and she has misgivings about the Small Charities Bill, we have "a knock-for-knock agreement". We have agreed that we will not oppose the Second Reading of either Bill, and that we will support the suggestion that each of the Bills should be considered by the same Select Committee of your Lordships' House. I very much hope that when both of these Bills go before a Select Committee they may be prepared to have a broad look, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has suggested, at those parts of the Charities Act which perhaps could be improved.
384
But I give this warning: there was a long period of gestation between the recommendations of the Nathan Committee in, I think, 1952 and the passing of the Charities Act in 1960. A large part of that time was taken up not merely by consideration in the Home Office and behind the scenes of the Government in the Ministry of Education, as it was then called, which had a responsibility, and other departments too, but the Home Office were meticulous—and the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, can take some credit for this perhaps—in consultation with the charities and the representatives of the many small charities. May I say in passing that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, is chairman of one of our great charities of which I happen to he president, and so we would have an interest in any general look at the law of charity as well as the interest that arises on this Bill.
I should give notice to your Lordships, those who have not noticed it on the Order Paper, that the Small Charities Bill which, as has been mentioned earlier in the debate, was piloted through all its stages in another place by Sir Angus Maude, will come up for Second Reading on Tuesday week, 12th July. I have not yet placed a Motion on the Order Paper that it should be referred to a Select Committee, but I have every intention of doing so.
Just for the sake of the record may I, with due humility of course, express some misgivings about the Bill before us. The first thing about it is that it is confined to the relief of poverty, directly or indirectly confined to it, and that arises under the definitions in Clause 1 of the Bill. The right reverend Prelate's remarks to your Lordships have to be regarded in the light of the fact that this Bill does not apply at all to ecclesiastical charities, and that may be of some disappointment to him and a matter which may require some detailed attention by a Select Committee. It would seem to be absurd that so many neighbourhood charities which touch upon ecclesiastical matters should not be included when other charities within a parish, within a neighbourhood, are to be specially scrutinised.
Of course, there is a partial bridging operation attempted by my noble friend Lady Faithfull when she says that if it is for the education of the poor, then it is all right; it can be brought within the purview of the review. But so many educational charities, as my noble friend Lord Elton knows well from his long experience in education, are not merely for the education of the poor. Indeed, the definition of "poor" has become one which is now rather difficult in our reasonably well provided modern society. Therefore, I start with that misgiving, that the application of the Bill needs careful consideration.
I was surprised to hear my noble friend Lady Faithfull saying that the cost would be only £2,000 a year for two years for each county council. I should be grateful if my noble friend Lord Elton could say whether that is right or wrong, but I must confess that I have doubts about it. Two thousand pounds a year is about half the cost of a typist. When one realises how paper accumulates and what a lot of coming and going and travelling expenses, negotiation and the employment of specialist officials will be required, that figure seems to me, with the deepest respect to my noble friend, a patent underestimate. There will be a

385
manpower burden placed on local authorities. Some burden will be placed on the charities themselves, who will have to incur expenses, perhaps employing expert advice; bearing in mind that there will be compulsion. There will sometimes be doubts about whether the scheme that is proposed for a neighbourhood trust is consistent with the terms of the testator's or settlor's original trust deed. Let us not delude ourselves: there will be a burden.
The burden upon the Charity Commission has been mentioned. I must confess that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Foot, also referred to it—that the Charity Commission would appear to be under-staffed. Besides the Royal Society for the Mentally Handicapped, which I was mentioning obliquely earlier, I have had experience in dealing with the commission over other charities. One receives wonderful help eventually. However, very often there are inevitable delays. One noble Lord mentioned to me only today—I am sure he will not mind my repeating this and might well be grateful, though I do not think it would be right to mention his name—that with the charitable trust with which he is concerned he experienced a delay of three weeks for the Charity Commission, which for some reason had to be consulted, to agree to the alteration of some investments, and the market was missed accordingly. The stockbrokers had agreed to a change, had agreed that then was the right moment to do it, but the market was missed.
Quite apart from any reform that may be needed in the law, my right honourable friend the new Home Secretary—who is a lawyer of immense ability; although like me is mainly a common lawyer, my right honourable friend and I have to apply our minds in our practices and in ministerial work to Chancery matters—would do well to take a close look at the Charity Commission. It is possible that some unnecessary burdens are already being placed upon the commission and in some ways it might be able, quite freely, to dispense with the responsibility it is given and allow the charity trustees to get on with the job.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me, but it may be of help on the point he is making to get this on to the record. Is he aware that it takes months, not weeks, for an application for registration of a charity to be sanctioned by the Charity Commissioners, or even indeed for them to look at it?
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am very sorry to hear about that. My experience has been that it has taken weeks rather than months, but I found that weeks were too long.
One could go on talking about the detail of this matter for some time. I invite the attention, in anticipation of things to come on 12th July, of my noble friend Lady Faithfull and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to Clause 6 of the Bill because that envisages, as does the Charities Act 1960, the possibility of particular charities being wound up. Indeed, I do not see how one can make progress in this matter unless one is prepared for charities to be wound up. As the Small Charities Bill inevitably involves that
386
in many cases, I hope we shall agree with each other that this is a necessary condition that we have to accept and that it is a waste of time saying that it is a terrible thing, as my noble friend Lady Faithfull said on 11th May, that the funds of a charity should be "dissipated".
If the funds are very small and cannot fulfil their purpose something must happen to them. It should be justifiable to wind the charity up in order to fulfil its purposes and to spend the money, because one might not be able to spend it if one relied merely upon income. Thus, let us understand each other on both of these Bills, that sometimes charities will have to be wound up.
In spite of having expressed these misgivings, which I trust are constructive because we have to consider these matters, I hope that your Lordships will not oppose a Second Reading of my noble friend's Bill.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we are again grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for her continuing contributions in this field. In response to her initiative it is good to return to this difficult subject, albeit a small subject. In the debate on 6th May I ventured to express the view that the status quo was no longer an option and that the Bill presented by the noble Baroness at least offered a new, practical and relevant approach to the subject.
Re-reading the record of the debate it is clear that there were differences, as one would expect; but I believe that in the main they were differences of emphasis. I have taken careful note of the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Then—and I think the same is true of today—we were all seeking to serve the same aims and the same objects. The noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Mishcon have identified at least two of the most critical problems: trusts whose assets are so small that they are almost useless, and lack of efficient administration by trustees.
There is so much widespread neglect, ineffectiveness and had administration. However, I recognise that there are two difficulties within the problem. There is the parish loyalty, and there is the unique legal status of charities. I have always accepted that there are intense loyalties within a parish and to parish institutions which draw on voluntary principles and which have drawn on the voluntary principle for centuries. Indeed my roots are in a small village in the county of Gwynedd—although parishes no longer exist in the Principality, where, by today, they have been merged to form communities. But the tradition of the parish is very much alive. In my own home, my father had at all times fostered and protected the identity and independence of his parish and wrote a book on its history. Therefore, being my father's son, I fully appreciate the significance and strength of parish loyalties. They are not to be underestimated.
I also acknowledge that charities have a unique legal status, and that for centuries the Crown, through the courts, has undertaken to enforce for ever, so far as practicable, the intentions of the donor's property given for charitable purposes. The courts are not there to kill charities; but charities, it appears, acquired their special status because it was in the public interest that

387
provision should be made for the needs of those who were unable to help themselves. But it is also in the public interest in the 20th century that we should get the machinery of the parochial charities right. We acknowledge that the main pieces of the jigsaw were set out centuries ago. But there are other pieces which have been determined and moulded by our own age and day. Inflation and the change in the value of charitable endowments have had inescapable repercussions and, where parishes exist, their boundaries, determined centuries ago, may no longer make sense. However, what does make sense is that the role of the parochial trusts for the poor should be reviewed, and the machinery, where necessary, reformed so that we can try to ensure that resources are concentrated wherever possible in order to produce maximum benefit yet in keeping with the spirit of the donor's intentions.
In the course of the debate on 6th May, reference was made to the power residing in Section 18 of the Charities Act 1960, and in reply to a question the House was told by the noble Lord the Minister that this power had not as yet been exercised. We should not underestimate the significance of this information and it is evident (is it not?) that the commissioners have been reluctant to take a lead. In the course of the May debate I drew attention to the particular needs of Wales which are not met by the Bill; and those needs remain. I mentioned that a steering committee had been established to review the role of the ancient charities in the Principality, and that the steering committee sees the need to restore some of the educational charitable trusts to more effective use. They will be disappointed that the educational trusts are not included in this Bill. They also consider that the time has come to establish in Wales an office of the Charity Commissioners. But I do not propose this afternoon to go over that ground.
I am in support of the principle of the Bill. I consider that the noble Baroness is right in believing that the time is ripe to combine the parochial trusts to form neighbourhood trusts, that a fresh initiative along these lines is called for and that that initiative is required because there is very little evidence that anything has been done voluntarily, notwithstanding the Charities Act 1960, to improve, matters. I see the Bill as the natural place to continue the work of the philanthropists of history and with this kind of initiative, the initiative which this Bill offers, we could be carving out a new base for the parochial charities to build for the future. I am grateful that there are indications that the Government agree that this Bill be submitted to a Select Committee of your Lordships' House.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, like others of your Lordships, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Faithfull for introducing this compact and attractive Bill. There seem to me to be, among others, two reasons why no time should be lost in tackling the present, perplexingly, obsolete situation. One that there can never have been a time when more heartrending appeals for funds professionally launched are pressed on the public. The majority of
388
the causes are excellent but the sums of money required are an increasing burden on the more generous, not necessarily the most wealthy, sections of the public. When I was launched into the world of appeal, a subtle and conscientious uncle insisted that I take meticulous care in the expenditure of money raised in this way since often it represented a sacrifice.
He prescribed particularly that money given in this way should not be spent on objects for which other funds were available. Parochial trusts, made in such generous spirit years ago and no longer relevant to present lifestyle, can I think be likened to the age of candlelight with that of electricity. The end product of the charitable cause and the end product of light are still the same but the methods of use have changed. There are so many rural and community calls for help. As adviser to a disbursing charity, I am well aware of the wide variety of these causes of poverty, from self-help groups, voluntary care organisations, children's groups, et cetera, that simply cannot afford that there be left in their midst pockets of money sitting idly by. Clearly trusts must be well protected from greedy eyes and hands; but, given that protection. it must be likely that the good people who set up the old trusts in many cases would be the very ones today wanting to support, for instance, schemes designed to alleviate poverty and need. One cannot be sure, but at least it seems logical.
My second reason for gladness that we may get movement on this front is that this may bring into sharper focus the work of the Charity Commissioners. Information about the charities concerned seems to be buried very deep. Delays are experienced—and I agree with other noble Lords who have mentioned this aspect—in finding out information. Getting answers to applications for registration takes a very long time and requests for the right just to set up funds to help as well as to obtain the up-to-date information from the records held by the charities can take an age. Small, new charities, I find, when they are successfully registered. use this status to lend weight and authority to their appeal—which seems, in a way, out of step with the influence that the Charity Commissioners bring to bear on their operations. From an outsider's point of view, now is the time for the files and the records to he shaken free of dust and cobwebs and to be brought, surely, into the era of information technology. With more up-to-date methods, it will surely be possible to get from the commissioners—fairly quickly, can we hope?—more information to get useful, good causes and to feel more certain that they could spot and quash the less salubrious organisations be they cults, crafts. or charlatans. It would appear, however excellent their intention, that the Charity Commission can have the effect of thwarting good initiatives and giving encouragement to the more dubious ventures. Even though discussion of the 1968 Act may not fall within the remit of the proposed Select Committee its work must highlight facts to which I have referred. Therefore, I beg to support the Bill.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I should like to express my sympathy for the purposes at which this Bill is aimed and to support the proposal that it should be referred to a Select Committee, although, as on a

389
previous occasion, I have taken some slight alarm at the width of the remit which some who have spoken seem to contemplate for the committee.
As we have been reminded, the last major legislation on charities was in 1960. The Act which was passed in that year achieved a great deal and I should not like to let this opportunity pass without saying just a word of appreciation for the work of Christopher Hill, who died quite recently and who, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will agree, gave great help to Ministers in preparing and piloting the Bill. He was then the first head of the reconstituted Charity Commission. But, as the noble Baroness made clear when introducing the Bill, there are some aspects relevant to today's discussions of the 1960 Act which have fallen some way short of the high hopes that were placed in it. Local reviews have not resulted in voluntary mergers and trustees have not exactly been falling over each other to take advantage of the revised cy-prés provisions in the Act. Also, despite the decision of Parliament that a central register could be set up, there remain considerable gaps in our knowledge of the facts.
All the same, we do know there are a lot of parochial charities with such tiny incomes that they cannot do very much on their own, although they might be able to do something worth while if they clubbed together. We also know there are a number of parochial charities which have substantial funds, thanks to what has happened to land values, and they might have even greater funds if only they charged economic rents to the farmers. We know that for some of these, at any rate, the income is not being usefully applied and indeed cannot be usefully applied without some change in the powers of the trustees. It is this sort of problem that the neighbourhood trusts envisaged by the Bill—and as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful, explained, this is not a novel idea—are designed to cope with.
Last time we debated this subject, objection was taken that the proposals would involve departing from the original purpose of the individual charity and would mean overriding the wishes of the donors. This argument, it seems to me, is central to the Bill and I should like to try my own hand at explaining the justification for the Bill, as I see it. It is, I suggest, that the donors intended their charity to be used for the relief of the poor, and it is only by enlarging the area of operation that it is now possible to ensure that the money is so used, in a sensible way and in ways not covered by the Welfare State. For the reasons which have been explained, it was natural at the time for the parish to be taken as the unit; but now, the argument goes, it is more in keeping with the intention of the donors to use the money for the relief of the poor over a wider area than to continue, on the one hand, to dribble small amounts away in useless doles or, on the other hand, to divert the income of the more prosperous charities to other purposes within the parish.
It seems to me that there is force in the contention that to use the money for amenities within the parish would indeed be to override the wishes of the donors, who could have left the money for such purposes if they had so wished, and that to ensure that the money
390
can be sensibly used for the poor is better calculated to safeguard the original purposes of the donors so far as is practicable and to be perfectly consistent with the cy-pres doctrine, as extended in the 1960 Act.
Objection was also taken to the element of compulsion in the Bill, but I think there is really very little need for me to add much to what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has already said on this point. I am well aware of the almost complete absence of compulsory powers in the 1960 Act but, without some such provision now, what are the prospects of achieving anything worth while? We have had 23 years of voluntary effort and have precious little to show for it. Also, the Charity Commission, which as we have heard, is not over-generously supplied with resources, cannot be expected to find staff on the scale that would he needed if it were to embark on the task of persuading large numbers of trustees up and down the country to take some initiative.
It was also suggested last time that the Bill would discourage potential donors to charity. I am currently concerned, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, knows very well, with a charitable appeal and I am only too conscious of the many reasons which are advanced for showing a lack of enthusiasm in responding to an appeal for contributions. But I cannot see why this Bill should be an additional reason for discouragement if it is known that these are sensible moves, designed to ensure that the intentions of the original donors are carried out so far as possible. I must say that at first sight it seems to me a rather more attractive prospect than the prospect in the Small Charities Bill that after 40 years the trustees would be able to wind up the charity altogether. No doubt these are matters we can discuss further on a later occasion.
Speaking of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, if I may so describe it, leads me to say that no one supposes that neighbourhood trusts would mop up every single tiny charity. There would undoubtedly remain some small charities which ought to be wound up, as Clause 6 of the Bill contemplates. Whether the figure of an income off £10 per year in that clause is the right figure is something that we could discuss at a later stage; and there are also one or two other points where I have some doubts about the Bill, which again may be more suitable for discussion later. They are indeed points subsidiary to the main issues raised by the Bill, and I go along with those who think that the noble Baroness has made out her case and that her proposals well merit further scrutiny.
There is just one other point that I should like to raise. On 6th May, at col. 306 of the Official Report, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred to a local charity review in Lancashire. The gestation of this review has been, prolonged and, now it has started, I gather that it is likely to go on for some years. I am not quite sure, I confess, what its relevance is to the issues that we are debating today and which ought to be settled within a matter of months rather than years, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Elton, could enlighten us on this aspect when he comes to wind up. That is all I want to say in support of the Bill. I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading and will then remit it to a Select Committee.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I should like to take the opportunity of a charities Bill to make some uncharitable remarks. Shortly after the general election was called, each of us present received a personal Writ of Summons to attend this House. We did not have to wait for the suffrages of the electorate. Noble Lords, opposite remain with their numbers undiminished and, some believe, shortly even to be increased. This should lead one to the reflection that this is a continuing body. We are who we were on 6th May. One might have thought, therefore, that the procedures of the House would allow business to be continued.
But let us suppose—and there is good historical precedent for this—that Parliaments, even the Upper House in Parliament, should each be regarded as starting afresh. Then one would have thought that it would still be possible to look back and say, "We had got to this or that point in our work". Obviously, I am talking not of matters of great party controversy, but of matters such as the one that occupies us this afternoon, and one would have expected that there would be a purely formal Second Reading of the Bill of my noble friend Lady Faithfull and a formal moving of the appointment of a Select Committee. We could then have gone ahead as we would have done if Parliament had not been dissolved.
Instead of that, we have had to have a second debate rehearsing the arguments which we heard on the initial occasion. I am not complaining at the joy of hearing the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon or Lord Allen of Abbeydale, which is exceeded only by the joy of hearing my noble friend Lady Faithful! herself. But I think there is a serious point in this, because we would not in fact be having this debate, nor would we be now assured that a Select Committee would be appointed, had not my noble friend Lady Faithfull in the interval been able to carry on rather difficult negotiations with the Home Office to assure herself, and to assure the House, that there was no change in their intentions.
I say that because the original replies which she received from the Home Office—and the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has mentioned in particular the reference to the Lancashire inquiry—suggested that all the objections which had been raised in the past, which had been, in the view. I think, of most of us here, satisfactorily dealt with in the course of our debate on 6th May, were going to be rehearsed all over again. One wonders, indeed, whether the reading of the House of Lords Hansard should be made compulsory upon officials who have to advise Ministers, particularly Ministers newly taking office, before they launch into the business of this House.
That is a serious constitutional point and a serious practical point, because, after all, we are only one House of a two-House legislature. We may have—I hope now, indeed, we are assured that we shall have—our Select Committee upon this Bill. It will emerge in some form, no doubt, and be subject to the remaining stages of legislation. But there is clearly no point in our going through what will be an arduous task for Members of the Committee, and a certain amount of extra time when the Bill, if amended, comes back before us, unless we have some indication that in the other place facilities will be provided to turn this Bill
392
into an Act, and indeed in a relatively short space of time, because nothing more important has been said this afternoon than what the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said: that is, that this is a matter which should be cleared up not in a matter of years but, in fact, in a matter of months. The advantages of the Bill are so patent, the abuses which it seeks to correct are so obvious, that there is no serious case for delay and, I believe, no serious need for delay.
If I may make one remark in answer to my noble friend Lord Renton, I think that, when this figure of £2,000 in each of two years was mentioned, that was simply the cost of local authorities equipping themselves with lists of the charities in the areas for which they were responsible. It clearly was not the total cost of the reviews, of the schemes, and so on. This should not be too great a figure, provided one finds that the register which the Charity Commissioners are obliged to keep can be searched on behalf of the local authorities, in order to produce the information which they need. That having been said—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I interrupt the noble Lord only so that he can continue, as he always likes to do, with correct facts before him. Maybe he is arguing now as to why we should have a Bill debated again in a new Session, because this Bill provides not that the local councils furnish lists, but that the Charity Commissioners furnish lists to the councils. So that cannot possibly he the cost to the councils of furnishing lists.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I think that there is a misunderstanding. The council would as my noble friend Lord Renton, pointed out, need to have an official who would correspond with the Charity Commissioners in order to get the list. Presumably, he would have a typist who would type out the list and distribute it to the interested parties. So that there is a cost, even though the basic information is with the Charity Commissioners rather than with the local authorities at present. Therefore, it is not, I should have thought, a very expensive procedure provided that the register is up-to-date. At any rate that is the estimate that we have received. If there are alternative estimates of the cost of the operation then, clearly, it is for the Home Office, with the Charity Commissioners, to supply these estimates. It is curious that, though we have had costs adduced as one of the reasons for scepticism about this Bill, we have not had these costs in figures before us.
So all one can say is that we have had a couple of hours which probably could not have been spent more advantageously at this stage of the Parliament. We are where we were on 6th May, but. I hope, with the reinforced conviction that the Bill is a sensible and desirable one, and with reinforced gratitude to my noble friend Lady Faithfull, for having done it not only once but twice.
5.9 p.m.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am not where I was on 6th May, because unfortunately I was not able to take part in the Second Reading of the Bill then. I am delighted for that reason that the noble Baroness has had to bring her Bill back to the House for a second

393
time, because it has given me the opportunity to intervene—very briefly, I hope—at the end of a second run-through on this Bill.
I had better declare an oblique interest in the Bill. I am one of those people who have been mentioned both by the noble Baroness and by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, during the course of this debate—a farmer who rents land from a parochial charity. I hasten to add that I am not, I hope, a farmer who rents land at far too low a rent from a parochial charity. I believe we pay a very fair, not to say generous, rent to the charity in our parish.
I also hasten to add that this parochial charity is one that I believe to be reasonably well run, having very consciencious trustees, the interest of a very great many people living in the parish, and which keeps its finances up to date—but it does suffer from the problems of having fairly restricted objects and from not being able to support some of the things in the parish which I believe both the trustees and the local community would like to see supported, with the generous rents which we as farmers of their land pay them.
It seems to me that in discussing this Bill it is inevitable that we should also look at the Small Charities Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Three interests need to he distinguished. First, there are the interests of the beneficiaries of charitable gifts, which I would say is by far the most important interest. In that case, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has made an absolutely overwhelming case for the kind of reforms which her Bill proposes. It seems to me that the present situation, involving a scandalous waste of resources and, to some extent, the misuse of resources, is really deplorable. I am very saddened, to put it no higher, that the Government are not more concerned about doing away with this waste of resources and improving matters.
The noble Baroness gave, as she did before, some amusing examples of objectives which people saw as being important many years ago but which are no longer relevant. But the House should be reminded that we are dealing with a scandal. There is a great deal of money which could be and should be spent on very needy causes, which is not being spent at the moment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff—although I did not expect to hear myself say this very frequently in your Lordships' House—about the urgency for some reform.
The second interest—and I would put it quite a long way behind beneficiaries—is that of the donors. Frankly, I do not find any weight in the argument put forward by the Government on previous occasions—that those interests are in some way threatened by the proposal to amalgamate charities in the neighbourhood trusts. That seems to me to be a nonsense, and the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, dealt with that point very effectively.
I find the Small Charities Bill a serious threat to the interests of donors, and I consider that the proposal that trustees should be allowed to wind up the trusts, even if they are very small, is a dangerous one. I personally would oppose it very strongly. It seems to me that the problem which the noble Lord Lord Renton, has identified could be met by allowing
394
trustees to transfer their capital, as capital, to a trust with similar objects, with the condition that it remains a capital sum. There may well be other ways of dealing with the problem of trusts having very small incomes without that money being lost as capital-producing interest for charitable purposes—which I believe is a principle that should be retained at all costs.
The third interest is that of the trustees, and I hasten to add that I would put this interest a long way down the list. It is here that I share the concern that has been expressed by my two noble friends about the mandatory element in the Bill of the noble Baroness. There are real grounds for concern, and I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that this is a superficial objection. It goes deeper than that. In particular, my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies made a very strong argument about the interest which many people living in a parish will have in a parish charity. That is certainly true in the case of our own parish, where the land was originally set aside to provide fuel for the poor of the parish, as a fuel allotment. It became known as common land, and although at the present time there are no common rights registered over it, it is still seen as a piece of land over which people in the parish have an interest—and, I am glad to say are still able to make use of by picnicking, walking, and generally enjoying the countryside.
The parish interest that exists in some parish charities cannot be ignored. When this Bill and the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, are referred, as I hope they will be, to a Select Committee, I believe there will be a need to introduce some softening of the mandatory element. I do not wish to draw analogies which may upset noble Lords on the other side of the House, but it seems to me that the good trade union principle that people should have to opt out of something rather than opt into it—when thinking of the payment of political levies, for example—might be one that we could adopt here. The previous law asked trustees to opt into an amalgamation and it has clearly been an abysmal failure. It may be that this Bill can include something that will allow people to opt out, under fairly stringent conditions, which would make it unlikely that many would. Nevertheless, it would leave that door open and will remove a not important but nevertheless significant objection which a number of noble Lords clearly share to the Bill as it is now drafted.
That is all I have to say about the Bill at this stage. I strongly support the view that it should be referred to a Select Committee. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, have made the deal that they have—that both Bills will go before a Select Committee—because clearly that is the most sensible option. I hope, again in common with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that the Government will be prepared to take a rather more openminded view of both the advantages which the noble Baroness's Bill so clearly contains and the significant danger which I believe the Bill of the noble Lord. Lord Renton, contains—although I accept that it also tries to deal with some significant problems to which we must find some solutions.
5.16 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, you will share my

395
admiration for the energy and persistence with which my noble friend Lady Faithfull has been promoting her Bill, and my gratitude to her for setting out before us the very real problems which exist in this field. I had looked forward to a kind of matinee performance of last May's show. There have been some slight changes in the cast, with the part of the Bishop of London being played by the Bishop of Norwich, and an interesting supporting role written into the last scene for the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. The drama, although similar to the earlier performance, proved to be rather more different than that, I am glad that my noble friend Lord Beloff has not had his way yet, so that I had the pleasure of seeing it again—and of hearing my noble friend's agile entr'acte as well. I say "hearing" rather than "seeing" because. like my noble friend Lady Faithfull, he always persists in performing from the back of the stalls.
Quite clearly, we are all agreed that something needs to be done about certain parochial charities. I fear, however, that enthusiasm for action over some parochial charities can lead to the danger that all parochial charities will be regarded in the same light. Several speakers have voiced doubts about the provisions of the Bill in this respect, and that reflects the Government's own reservations. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has expressed concern on a previous occasion about the compulsory nature of the Bill, and he has referred to this again. Other noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate have suggested amendments which they would like to see made at a later stage. I have noted, for example, a suggestion that well-run charities should be exempted from the provisions of the Bill, and that there should be a right of appeal in some form: the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was the most recent speaker to advance that proposal.
Wide-ranging and informed as both debates about this Bill have been, one fundamental point still needs to be underlined. This Bill is a measure intended to redistribute charitable resources: to take assets from a particular area designated by a donor and make them available over a wider area. Let us first acknowledge that. if this Bill were passed tomorrow, not a single penny would be devoted to charitable causes that has not already been donated to charity.
It has been said that this Bill is about unlocking charitable funds. That implies that trustees do not already have the keys. The Bill aims at a fairer and more effective distribution of the funds in parochial charities—but I, for one, still have doubts as to whether that is what its provisions would entirely achieve. If we are to have any regard for the wishes of the original benefactors (and I believe it was this interest that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, put second, although. as he said, a long way second) we must be concerned if the effect of the Bill is to diminish the benefits which a charity confers on any beneficiary identifiable under the original foundation.
I take it that my noble friend would be concerned at that. If she were not, I would be surprised, because she would then be setting her own judgment—or, rather, that of those empowered under her Bill—far above that of those who actually provided the money in question, and saying, in very firm tones, that the "lady from Whitehall" knows best. As the right reverend
396
Prelate has emphasised, we have no wish to overthrow, as he put it, the minds of donors of years gone by. They provided the money in the expectation that it would be used as they specified.
Yet it seems to me that the effect of the Bill would quite intentionally be to level out charitable resources in a given district, deflecting them both from the most specific purposes and from the most specific areas chosen by the benefactors. The jam, by being spread more generally, would necessarily be spread more thinly in some places than it had been—something which is perhaps more easily achieved with jam than with clergy. Beneficiaries of charities already being properly administered and fulfilling useful purposes could suffer from their merger with others less well endowed. There may be a mathematical justice in this, but its desirability as a means of disposing of charitable bequests does seem to me to remain very much open to question.
Of course, one cannot be certain how much this would happen, and here I am happy to agree with supporters of this Bill. We know comparatively little about the parochial charities of England and Wales. We know that they form between one-third and one-quarter of the 144,000 registered charities, and we know that many of them have a very small income. There is some information available from local reviews which have been completed and published. The opinion has been expressed forcefully that we should know more. That is one of the reasons why a Select Committee seems to me the right way to proceed in this matter.
We have a very limited knowledge of the subject—too limited to form an accurate general picture. To generalise from specific examples is, I think, especially risky given the scope for idiosyncrasy in the endowment of individual charities and the great variety of ways in which trustees interpret their functions. My noble friend Lady Faithfull has amply illustrated this. Apart from the fact that most of these trusts have been adapted to present-day conditions, it would be wrong to assume in the absence of reliable information that they are in any way typical of the generality of such charities.
I said a moment ago that I was struck by the strength of feeling that something ought to be done about parochial charities. I have also been struck by the strength of feeling about another matter, and that is the Charity Commission, or perhaps I detect a change in that concern and it is now more appropriately directed against the law of charity as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made a succinct and persuasive speech on this subject, and I shall certainly bring his concern to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs. We have heard some severe criticisms of the commissioners. We have been told in particular that they should have played a more active part in initiating local reviews of parochial charities and schemes for amalgamations.
It has been asked why it is that they do not keep more information about the charities on the register. Perhaps I may say that although the Charity Commissioners are appointed by my right honourable friend, they do of course act independently of the Government. I think I should refer your Lordships to their

397
annual report for 1982, just published. In this they say that although they have tried to make their functions clear to the public it seems that
"there is a fairly widespread misunderstanding of our constitutional position and of our powers and duties".
I would not suggest that such a misunderstanding exists in your Lordships' House, but it is helpful to recall the terms of the Charities Act 1960, which established the Charity Commission in its present form and set out what are still its duties. Under that Act, the Commissioners have the responsibility of,
"promoting the effective use of charitable resource by encouraging the development of better methods of administration, by giving charity trustees information or advice on any matter affecting the charity".
They must also,
"so act in the case of any charity (unless it is a matter of altering its purposes) as best to promote and make effective the work of the charity in meeting the needs designated by its trusts".
It may now be thought that the commissioners should have been given wider powers—powers to compel amalgamations of small local charities or to force local authorities to carry out reviews of charities within their areas—instead of the power they have under Section 13 to carry out amalgamations at the request of the trustees, and their present duty under Section 11 to provide information from the central register to any local authority which is compiling an index of local charities. Under Section 12 of the Charities Act local authorities may carry out local reviews, and, as we have heard, all have at least started, but this is an entirely voluntary operation.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, asked whether, under voluntary procedures, we shall be any better off in 20 or 30 years' time. The commissioners already assist in carrying out voluntarily what my noble friend wants to achieve by compulsion. Your Lordships should perhaps know that in the year 1978 to 1981 an average of 700 charities were grouped or amalgamated, and last year that number rose to 854. That is perhaps faster progress than some of your Lordships might have expected.
That we now find it inconceivable that wider powers of compulsion would be misused by the commission is a tribute to those who have served as the commissioners. It is understandable that when establishing this new body, as it then was, there were fears that it might become too powerful and ride roughshod over the views of trustees in pursuit of what it perceived to be the right course for their charities to pursue. The powers were therefore balanced so that the commission would operate in an atmosphere of co-operation, and I believe that probably that is the only way—and almost certainly it is the best way—for such an organisation to carry out its functions. The Charities Bill was formulated following the extensive work of the Nathan Committee. At that time the very fact of establishing, a central register of charities (as required by Section 4) was an important and valuable advance on what had happened before. The Charities Act may not be perfect, but it seems to us in Government that it commands more general respect than perhaps would some of the reforms that have been proposed.
I return to the Bill itself. The Government's views on this Bill are generally known, so I will be brief in setting them before your Lordships. The compulsory
398
amalgamation by the state of voluntary organisations offends in our view, and I rather think in that of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, against the spirit of charity law. Charity is voluntary giving and charity law is based on the importance of preserving that principle. It is the task of central and local Government to examine social needs and problems and to deploy their resources to tackle these problems in a rational and efficient way. We all hope that voluntary efforts will follow the same principles; but we in the Government do not accept the view that there should be any kind of Government compulsion to achieve that. Charity trustees should continue to exercise the right they have always had, to administer their trusts as they think fit, subject to the safeguards already contained in the Charities Act.
It must be realised that this Bill is largely indiscriminate in its application all pre-1948 local charities for the poor would come within its scope, even those which have sufficient funds to carry out a relevant purpose. I know that this element of the Bill is objectionable to some of their trustees; we have received letters from a number of them pointing out that their charities are well able to carry out their functions. Trustees guard the independence and tradition of their local charities and would be resentful of being forced into amalgamations regardless of their own performance and the effectiveness of their charities. Doubtless an escape clause—as some noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, have suggested—might be an object of help here. Balanced against the gain of effectiveness charitable resources that the Bill promises, there might also be a loss of active parochial charities, and possibly of able and committed trustees as well.
Even if there were not objections in principle to the Bill, I should remind your Lordships—and this has been ventilated this afternoon—that there are cost implications which cannot be ignored. The expense would be not inconsiderable. I am told that the number of parochial charities for the poor has been estimated to be between 35,000 and 45,000. There are 53 county councils to carry out the reviews. This suggests that an average council would need to carry out reviews of between 700 and 900 charities. I have to say with my noble friend Lord Renton that I find it barely credible that the figure of £4,000 which was put forward by my noble friend Lady Faithfull as the figure needed by the local authorities to do this would go very far in reviewing that number of charities, even with the help of local voluntary organisations. I will read with care what my noble friend Lord Beloff said. If he was saying that there must be other work than that costed in that figure than I think he must be right.
I know that local authorities have already expressed their doubts about these figures. There would also be considerable resource demands on the Charity Commissioners themselves who would need to employ many extra staff to carry out the duties proposed for them by the Bill. Those of your Lordships who say they are understaffed will accept that argument, I am sure.
Before I conclude, may I remind your Lordships that on this occasion, unlike the last time we discussed the Bill of my noble friend Lady Faithfull, there is another Charities Bill in your Lordships' House, and it

399
is a great relief to me to be able to refer to it. This Bill, tabled by my noble friend Lord Renton and ably advocated by him this afternoon, also seeks to unlock those charitable funds that are locked up by reason of the smallness of the parcels or pockets in which they are held. We find that Bill preferable to this one if only because it lacks the element of compulsion which is the hallmark of the measure now before your Lordships. It also rests upon a principle accepted as necessary by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, in his interesting speech and rejected with vigour by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in his interesting speech.
There may of course well be different features which others of your Lordships find make it less attractive, and I say only that it would be a great pity to rule it out of consideration by proceeding separately with another Bill ahead of it on the Order Paper. There are elements in each Bill which will I think, be found to be compatible with the other, and this seems to provide very strong grounds for referring both of them to a Select Committee of this House. That is a course which commends itself to my noble friend, and, she tells us, to the NCVO, the report of which was published only yesterday—and my noble friend will forgive me as I have not yet read it.
This has been a very useful debate and has served to illustrate many aspects of the problems that face us. It has been helpful to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, on the particular concerns of Wales. The contribution of my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox was, as always, lucid, relevant and concise.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, asked about the review in Lancashire, I think his question was about its relevance to this afternoon's debate. The answer is that it will not be concluded for a year or two and that it is not directed specifically to this debate but at the larger question of discovering what is going on in parochial charities throughout the country. If he wishes to press me further on the matter I shall have to write to him because I cannot help him more at this stage.
While I cannot support the Bill in its current form, it has served a valuable purpose in directing our attention as a matter of urgency to the difficulties surrounding parochial charities and we must be grateful to my noble friend Lady Faithfull for this opportunity. There are no easy solutions in matters as complex as these; but perhaps the conclusions of a Select Committee would provide us with valuable insight into what should he done, and I am very glad that she also sees that as the proper way forward, as does my noble friend Lord Renton.
5.34 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, may I first thank all noble Lords who have again taken part in a debate on this subject, and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who has taken part for the first time. I am indeed grateful, knowing the time and work that is involved. If your Lordships will forgive me, I do not intend to reply to the points made by each of the speakers. I shall merely make one or two of my own comments. First, I think that every noble Lord who has spoken is agreed in principle that we need to use to the very best of our
400
ability, and effectively, money that was left in years gone by—even St. Benedict's Monastery—which at the moment is not being used. We are therefore, agreed on the principle of the Bill. What we are not agreed on is how this could best be achieved.
My second point concerns the call by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for a wider review of the parochial charities. We have had wide reviews over many years. There was the Nathan Report, the Select Committee report and the Goodman Report, but nothing has happened. I thought that, in considering this Bill, if we were to isolate a small section and work out principles in that small section it might well lead to the same principles being extended on a wider scale. However, I hope that if we have a Select Committee it will not go the way of so many Select Committees in the past, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. It was for that reason that we isolated that one field; in order to carry out the principles of the right way to deal with unused charities.
My third point is that, although it seemed from the speech of my noble friend the Minister that he supports this Bill being committed to a Select Committee—and we are grateful for that—I wonder whether he is more interested in the trustees and what they think and feel than he is in the donors and the recipients. I wonder whether the Law Commission is not very much taken up with the position and the feelings of the trustees.
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Elton for all his help and what he has said today but my final point is that he has said what is wrong but not how it can he put right. The figures he has given sound very impressive and suggest that much has been done. I shall not quarrel with that. Much may have been done, but there is much yet to be done. It is what must be done on which we are concentrating today. Again, I am very grateful to your Lordships for the interest shown and to those who have spoken in today's debate.
On Question Bill read a second time.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved. That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee.—(Baroness Faithfull.)
On Question. Motion agreed to: Bill committed to a Select Committee accordingly.

The Probation Service
5.38 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they agree that the role of the probation service should be much expanded.
The noble Earl said: My Lords. I rise to ask the Question standing in my name. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who propose to take part in this debate. They are all highly qualified in different ways. Some of them apply the law and other have tried to spiritualise the law—we have two leading ministers of religion; one a Bishop—and others have suffered from the law. At any rate, they will all no doubt make important contributions.
I am sorry that two of those to whom we have listened with special attention on this subject are not able to be with us today. The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, especially asked me to express her general sympathy with the propositions I am unfolding and the same is true for my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell who spoke about these matters in a recent debate and who, of course, was himself a probation officer for many years. I am only sorry that I have not been able to obtain the assistance of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, who has given a lot of attention to prisoners and their problems. She has now been raised to higher spheres of being and we wish her well in the stratosphere.
There are two issues relating to the financial provision of the probation service with which I wish to deal. The first is the present under-financing of the service and the second is the expanded role which I and others believe the service should possess. With that must go the necessary financing.
As we all agree, the probation service makes a vital contribution to the criminal justice system. I venture to assert that this contribution has never been quite so, important as now. Crime goes up and up. There is an increasing understanding of the criminal mind in some quarters; in others, less enlightened but more numerous, I think we see misunderstanding. There is an urgent need to deal with more offenders in the community and to increase the provision to the courts of constructive and positive measures which can act as alternatives to custodial sentences. There is no doubt that Britain imprisons more people than almost any other country in Europe, yet few of us believe that we have more violent crime or that we are more violent people. Who would be prepared to say that we really have more criminals who are a threat to society?
Opinions might differ on where to draw the line. In the foreseeable future those who are a danger to society must be restrained, and with our present state of knowledge we do not seem able to improve on prisons. But beneath that layer of serious and dangerous crime there are thousands of other prisoners whose offences are of a minor nature. We must urgently consider means of releasing them—we have all said this many times; I think that almost everybody who speaks on these matters in the House, whether from the Government Benches or otherwise, has said this at some time—and developing a strategy for avoiding incarceration of others like them in the future. Certainly a humane Minister like the noble Lord, Lord Elton, would echo those sentiments privately, if not publicly, unless I am much mistaken.
We know that far from rehabilitating the offender, so that on release he does not re-offend, the usual effect of prison is the opposite. I am not saying that no one has ever benefited from prison, but I do not think that anybody who has a friend or relative who committed a crime not of the most serious order would wish to see him sent to prison in his own interests. We also know that many—perhaps a high majority—of those who go to prison have gone through life under great disadvantage. If we have any conscience, Christian or Humanist, we must believe that there are better ways of helping them than incarcerating them in goal.
The Government have stated on many occasions that they wish to provide a humane criminal justice system and they have stated their commitment to the
402
probation service. I am sure that, being honourable men or ladies, when they say that they must believe it; but there is not much sign of that in practice. Some growth of the probation service has been allowed. I shall give a few figures but I do not want to dwell too much on the statistics. In 1982–83 a 3 per cent. growth was forecast, and in 1983–84 a 1 per cent. growth is promised. This extra is welcome as far as it goes, but it does not go very far. It represents a rather feeble recognition of the efforts made by the service.
Such increases fall terribly short of full compensation for the increases in workload achieved. Between 1979 and 1981 (which provide the latest figures available to me) the service took on 28 per cent. more probation orders and 78 per cent. more community service orders and prepared 16 per cent. more reports for the courts. The rate of financial growth for 1983–84 of 1 per cent. Corresponds, only to the expansion planned as long ago as 1980. Not even the introduction, welcome though it is, of community service to 16-year-olds is to attract additional vital funding.
Before asking, as I shall do, for an increase for a genuine expansion in the service, I wish to focus attention on things as they are. I must press the Government to fund the probation service much more adequately for the tasks it already performs. The service calculates that it will need £1 million to implement community service for 16-year-olds. How is the service to manage its already tightly stretched budgets if appropriate staffing and financing are not made available? What will be the consequences of a patchy and poor service if probation committees are unable to meet the demands of the courts? I am sure that these are questions which exercise the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who I am very glad to see back in his proper place; I do not mean that it is the only position to which he has any right to aspire, but for the time being it is one which he fills to the great satisfaction of the House. Surely the Government do not wish to undo their own stated intentions by shortsighted parsimony.
Let me turn for a moment to the lessons that can be learnt, and ought to be learnt, from the upsurge in work which the probation service has undertaken. The service recognises that it could improve on its previous figures, and a policy initiative, supported by the service as a whole, led to reappraisal, reorganisation and redoubled efforts. The House will realise that I am speaking with a great deal of assistance from the probation service. The events since 1979 have proved three important points: one, that through a deliberate policy initiative the probation service can expand its role—the job is there to be done; two, that the results of such a drive can make a very large impact; and, three, that the momentum of such an initiative can be sustained only if adequate funding is provided.
Let me return to the fact that we can see that there are substantial numbers of people sent to prison who cannot be regarded as a danger to society. In 1979, 62,611 persons were sent to prison. Of those sentenced by magistrates' courts, 61 per cent. of all males and 78 per cent. of all females who were sent to prison received sentences of six months or less. A detailed breakdown of the prison population at 30th June 1979 showed that 6 per cent. had no previous convictions.

403
Of the total prison population, 70 per cent. were serving sentences for offences which did not involve violence, sex or robbery. Such figures must surely challenge the unjustified assertion that we as a nation imprison only those for whom no alternative exists.
However, in today's climate, leaving out for a moment the ethics—although ethics sometimes, but not always, have a way of going hand in hand with economics—perhaps the costs involved ought also to be brought to light. Here I turn to a subject which a number of us have touched on before now in this House. There are strong enough arguments without recourse to economics but the economic arguments are also compelling. The average weekly cost of keeping a person in prison in 1979-80 was £136. That means that a six-month sentence, allowing for full remission, costs over £2,000, and if someone spent a year in prison they would cost the state over £6,000. That figure does not allow for associated costs such as keeping the prisoner's dependants on state benefits or the long-term cost of damage to the prisoner's future prospects.
Of course, I have to admit—the noble Lord, Lord Elton. if he were not such a generous while at the same time shrewd debater might raise this point—that if only one prisoner less goes to prison, the savings are not noticeable. Larger savings can be made only by a policy initiative which results in very substantially fewer people being imprisoned. The cost of a probation order in 1979–80—we have said these things before, but we must try to come up to date if we can—was calculated to be £400 per year. The cost of a community service order is about £250, while, as I said earlier, the cost of putting someone in prison is £6,000, or more.
Let me take an individual case in point, the details of which have been supplied to me by the probation service as being typical. A 46-year-old man was convicted by summary trial of an offence of shoplifting goods to the value of £6. I repeat that the value was £6—not £60, £600, £6.000—but £6. He had eight previous convictions, none of them for shoplifting, and his last conviction had been three years previously. For the shoplifting offence he was sentenced to 28 days' imprisonment, and he was refused bail pending an appeal against sentence. No probation report had been prepared. That case has been supplied to me by the probation service as being a reasonable example of how things can go wrong in practice.
Let us pause to consider that the cost of producing a social inquiry report is only £90 and that the report might have assisted the court to make a non-custodial disposal and relieve the burden on the prison. It might have retained the man in the community, where he would have maintained his social and family links, and possibly his employment. But in fact he was sent to prison. As is known by everybody, including the distinguished magistrate sitting below me, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, who is to wind up the debate, the provision of social inquiry reports is a vital part of the role of the service. It also indicates that there is a substantial group of offenders with whom the probation service has indicated its preparedness to be involved.
I should like to say one word—and it must not be more than one; I have been going round saying that the speeches were much too long yesterday, and so I had better be careful about my own. I see that I have now been speaking for 14 minutes, but the House will not be asked to listen to me for very much longer. There is a further point that I should like to make in connection with public opinion. It is often said that public opinion wants to take it out on prisoners, that public opinion on this matter reflects what many enlightened people would regard as a thoroughly unenlightened attitude. Such claims about public opinion must be looked at rather more carefully than they sometimes are. A recent public opinion poll conducted by the Prison Reform Trust, in conjunction with the Observer revealed that of those questioned, 53 per cent. favoured non-custodial sentences for burglary, 65 per cent. favoured non-custodial sentences for vandalism, and 93 per cent. favoured non-custodial sentences for shoplifting. So I hope that the Government, or others whom I would regard as hard liners, will not argue that public opinion justifies steps which would not be justified on moral grounds.
The picture which I wish to draw to the attention of the House is grim. As we all know, as we have heard a hundred times in this place, the prisons are full to bursting. They are full because we have not been active enough or firm enough in ensuring that prison is used only as a disposal of last resort. In finding alternatives the probation service has worked vigorously and to breaking point, and today the service finds itself bemused by the messages of encouragement from the Government which are not backed up by adequate funds.
As I said at the beginning, there are two issues relating to the service. The first is that recognising the intrinsic value of the probation service, the Government should provide the funding necessary for the present tasks. The second issue is that the work should now be greatly expanded and the necessary finance for that purpose should also be provided. The present Government, any other Government in this country, we ourselves—the citizens—are very fortunate in possessing a probation service which is certainly unsurpassed anywhere in the world. We are proud of what it does, but if we wish to do it justice we shall give it much better opportunities and much more support than we do at present.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am sure that we all join in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for the opportunity that he has given us today to discuss the work of the probation service. I participate in the debate with particular pleasure because for five years. I had ministerial responsibility for the service, and for a further three years as chairman of the Parole Board I had the opportunity of seeing the work of the service, as did my noble friend Lord Hunt before me. I think that both of us, and indeed all our colleagues on the Parole Board, would join in an expression of appreciation of the very high quality of work that we experienced from members of the service.
This evening I want to discuss three issues: first, the workload which is at the moment being carried by the service—a point touched on by the noble Earl, Lord

405
Longford; secondly, the character of that work; and, thirdly, the question of the relations between the probation service and Government. Given the fact that I propose to make one or two observations on the last point, I should at this stage say that I am president of the National Association of Senior Probation Officers.
I turn first to the workload of the service. I believe that all of us recognise that at the moment the probation service is under exceptionally heavy pressure; but so of course is the entire criminal justice system. We are continuing to experience a remorseless rise in the level of crime, in particular serious crime, and that of course carries with it direct implications for every part of the system—the courts, the police, the prisons, and the probation service. Any Government, whatever their political persuasion, would find the resource consequences of such pressure disturbing; and this must be even more so in the case of a Government such as the present one, determined to make harsh cuts in the overall level of public expenditure.
It is of course true that the present Government have made additional resources available for the criminal justice system. Police strength has continued to rise as a result of both generous pay settlements and the savage reduction of employment opportunities for the young. As undoubtedly the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will be telling us in an hour or so at the end of the debate, more resources have certainly been made available for the probation service. But substantial additional resources were also made available to both services by the present Government's predecessors—a point which perhaps the noble Lord might not emphasise with the same degree of vigour. But unhappily the situation at the moment is that so far as the probation service is concerned the additional resources that have been made available by the present Government are simply not keeping pace with the increased pressure of work which is now facing the service.
I should like to give some illustrations. As we can all see from the probation statistics for 1982, which were published by the Home Office last week, there has been a further increase—albeit this time a rather more modest one—in the numbers commencing supervision under the probation service. Since 1978 the total doing so has expanded by no less than 35 per cent. As the noble Earl, Lord Longford, mentioned a moment or two ago, there has also been a very substantial increase in the number of community service orders made in the courts. I welcome this, as I am sure we all do. I think it admirable that the courts are using non-custodial disposals far more extensively. But, sadly, resources are not expanding at anything approaching this rate, and we are now experiencing the consequences of that failure.
Let me give some examples. Community service has now been extended to 16-year-olds. This, indeed, is essential if we are to avoid more boys being committed into custody, but I am told by a number of chief probation officers that they will be unable to extend this scheme to their areas because the resources are simply not available. The result of the scheme not being extended to those areas is that many youths will be sentenced unnecessarily to terms of custody. That, I believe, is deplorable.
406
Even worse, I am told that in a number of areas, including the West Midlands, the probation service has to inform the courts from time to time that it is unable to accept any more community service orders, that is, not 16-year-olds, but community service orders generally, because it simply does not have the staff to supervise the offenders concerned. It is compelled, in short, to turn off the tap so far as community service is concerned. So, at a time when there is intolerable pressure in the prisons and at a time when hundreds of remand prisoners are having to be kept overnight in police custody, often, as we know, in shocking conditions and at considerable expense to the taxpayer, courts are being compelled to send people to prison because the probation service is being denied the resources to staff adequately these community service schemes. To put it as politely as possible, that does not seem to be a particularly sensible policy. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will deal directly with it when he speaks.
Secondly, I should like to turn to the character of the work now facing the probation service. I am well aware, of course, that many members of the probation service enjoy their work in the civil courts. But, as the probation statistics for 1982 show, the amount of this work is now increasing at a considerable pace. The number of reports prepared in 1982 for non-criminal courts relating to custody of, and access to, children was 6 per cent. higher than in 1981. This followed similar increases in previous years. The number of other non-criminal reports primarily relating to guardianship inquiries and work for the county courts was no less than 14 per cent. higher in 1982 than in the previous year. Again, this followed the pattern of the two preceding years.
At a time when the probation service is being denied adquate resources to perform its work in the criminal courts, the Government must, I believe, make up their minds whether they are prepared to allow this increasing flow of work to be diverted in this way from the social service departments of local authorities to probation, which is primarily a criminal justice service. Unless some sensible order of priorities is established, we will continue to see people being sent to prison because the resources are not available to supervise them in the community while, at the same time, a wholly uncontrolled rise is taking place in probation work in non-criminal courts. I hope, again, that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will deal with this point this evening.
I hope he will say what the Government propose to do about it. If he argues that the service is simply responding to the demands of the non-criminal courts, why are different standards being applied to the criminal courts which are constantly being frustrated because of lack of resources of the probation service, as I have indicated? I must tell the House quite bluntly that if we see a continuation of this pattern of rapidly increasing work in the non-criminal courts and a continuation of the rise in the level of crime—there is no indication at the moment, unhappily, that it is turning down—and, at the same time, a strict limitation on growth in the probation service, we shall simply not, as a society, be able to provide the range of non-custodial alternatives to imprisonment that is essential if we are to prevent the deplorable conditions in our prisons deteriorating still further.

407
I should like to put one particular suggestion to the Government as a means of dealing with this disquieting position in relation to non-criminal courts. At present, the service draws 80 per cent. of its money from the Home Office and 20 per cent. from local funds. Why is the service supported only from the Home Office Vote when that department has no responsibility whatever for the non-criminal courts? Why, at a time when the resources of the probation service are stretched to breaking point, does the Home Secretary not invite the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to make a contribution towards the cost of the probation service from his Vote? In this way the divorce and county courts could continue to draw on the resources of the probation service without threatening the work of that service in the criminal courts. Again, I would be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has to say about that suggestion.
Lastly, I turn to the issue of relations between the probation service and Government. It would be idle to pretend, in a year that has witnessed the first national strike by probation officers, that relations between the probation service and Government are particularly good. There is some suspicion of the motives of the Government among some members of the service and no doubt irritation among Ministers that the service is behaving in what they regard as a foolish manner. Having had, as I have indicated, some responsibility for the probation service in the past without having experienced any of the problems confronting the present Government, there is, I suppose, a slight risk that, viewed in retrospect, one might persuade oneself that this was the golden age of probation. Let me reassure the noble Lord that I would not, in fact, suggest that. There were at that time quite sharp arguments between the probation service and the then Government. One obvious example was resources. But, of course, at that time the pressure on the system was a great deal less severe than it is at the moment.
There was also the beginning of trouble between the leadership of the National Association of Probation Officers and the Home Office. Then, the issue that caused conflict was the decision by NAPO to call on its members to refuse to supervise so-called political offenders. In the aftermath of the Grunwick dispute and the affair of the Shrewsbury pickets, this was entirely unacceptable. We told NAPO so in the bluntest of terms. However, the area of dispute has now widened considerably, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will he well aware. There has been the one-day strike called in protest at the Government's decision on probation students' salaries. There is now the follow-up to that strike, the call by the National Association of Probation Officers to its members to decline to collect probation statistics. There is also the demand by NAPO that its members should refuse to have anything to do with one element of last year's Criminal Justice Act, the night restriction order.
I have no intention this evening of discussing at any length the merits of the arguments deployed by the Government and NAPO on each of these issues. As I have made clear, I do not believe that the question of probation students' salaries was handled with good sense by the Home Office. It certainly was not, but I
408
have equally made clear that I believe that the decision to call the strike was a profound error.
The strike was, of course, ineffective, being ignored by many members of the probation service. It was also damaging to the interests of the probation service. Probation officers are seen by members of the public to be members of a caring profession. That reputation is not enhanced when probation officers leave their posts and deliberately render themselves unavailable to their clients, frequently troubled and disturbed people who may want to contact their supervising officer at a moment of acute personal crisis.
At a time when we want to do everything possible to encourage the growth of non-custodial alternatives to imprisonment, it was deeply disappointing that NAPO took action which was bound to lead to doubts by some courts about the sense of responsibility of some members of the probation service. I am well aware of the continuing ill-feeling about probation students' allowances. However, I hope that probation officers will hesitate long before they follow their leadership's call to refuse to collect probation statistics. This is a particularly silly idea. Without these statistics it will be quite impossible to measure the increased workload being carried by the service; and without that information it will be difficult for the Home Office or, indeed, even for NAPO itself to make a serious case for increased resouces for the probation service. Therefore, I very much hope that NAPO will think better of this and will withdraw its particularly ill-judged suggestion to its members that they should cease collecting probation statistics.
I must say, too, that the Government cannot be acquitted of all responsibility for this deterioration in relationships. Not only was the issue of students' allowances mishandled, as it was, but they were also most unwise to force the issue of night restriction orders on to an unwilling probation service. Here I refer not simply to NAPO but to a very large number of other experienced probation officers who regarded this as one of the silliest proposals in last year's Criminal Justice Act. Of course, NAPO is entirely wrong to call on its members to ignore the law of this country, which is a particularly inappropriate suggestion coming from an association representing, as it does, officers of the courts. But for the Government to have imposed this provision against the almost unanimous opposition of the probation service was, I believe, an act of quite extraordinary insensitivity.
If the probation service is to take on additional responsibilities I believe it is essential that the Government should now make a major effort to rebuild an atmosphere of trust and co-operation with the overwhelming majority of members of the service who are responsible, dedicated men and women. There is no desire among that majority for senseless, endless confrontation between the service and the Government. What they want, I believe, is just two things. The first is that Ministers will listen seriously to their views. No one expects them always to be accepted, but they do believe that if Ministers want to create a climate of co-operation then they should have a decent regard for the views of the service. Secondly, they believe that they are simply not getting the resouces that they require to fulfil the duties passed on to them both by

409
Parliament and by the courts. I believe that on that matter they are entirely right. I hope that on both those important matters the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will tonight be able to bring us some message of encouragement and hope.
6.14 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, we all stand in debt to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and we listened with the greatest of care to all that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has told us from his wide experience on this very important subject. I wish to confine myself to quite a narrow area of this very wide field. First, I should like to glance back historically and remind your Lordships that the phrase that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, used about probation officers being a caring profession is true and historical. I believe that the debate in this House will encourage probation officers, both young in training and old in years of experience, to continue to strive for those high standards. The pressures on them are immense, but they are caring profession and it is right that we should honour them as such.
Historically the probation service goes back to the old Police Court Mission. The Police Court Mission itself was one of the great and early "comings together" of a strong Christian conviction and a breadth of social caring. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Soper, who follows me on the list of speakers, will, from his very deep experience, speak in those terms; I know not, but I should be surprised if he did not do so. The Christian thread that runs through the probation service is still true today even though now it is a very much larger affair, fully professionalised, and so on.
When preparing to take some small part in a debate like this from the Benches of the Bishops, it is sometimes helpful to see what is the particular Christian content in a wide social field such as this one. I have been in touch with a few of my probation officers who are themselves in my diocese and men not only of great professional ability but of very strong and clear Christian conviction. Some of the things that I shall say, although not all, are based upon their material The say:
"We want to encourage society to accept offenders while disapproving of their offences".
That is a very difficult tightrope for the probation officer to walk when he is dealing with his client.
It is even more difficult for us to face among the general public when we cannot help but be shocked and saddened by news of particular violent and terrible crimes like the crimes reported in the past few days in the public press. Such crimes begin to make many of us think that among the more simple-minded—and I use that phrase technically—the unrestricted use and present growth of video films is beginning to have a definite impact upon people with violent tendencies. I think of the case that has been reported in the papers during the past few days. Therefore, our probation officers have a very difficult task in seeking to keep to that narrow central line of encouraging society both to love the sinner and also to disapprove strongly of the offences.
I think of Michael Whitaker who was a distant kinsman of mine who died recently and who was the
410
moving force behind victims of violence. He was well known to the noble Earl and I know that he gained great strength and was much encouraged in the very lonely work that he sought to do by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, when he was particularly caring for the victims of violence. It is into that setting that many probation officers find themselves thrown and they face enormous emotional problems.
So although, of course, I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has said in his very temperate criticism of our probation service, I think that in this Chamber we would do well to remember that they themselves are out at the very sharp point of confrontation with humanity in its weakness and in its sinfulness; and yet as a Christian one must say at its possibility of redemption.
Another probation officer was telling me how he went to Holland in the 1970s and found that the Dutch people in both their phlegmatic and Christian way seemed to have come to this balance of more readily accepting offenders and yet objecting to their crimes than perhaps we do in this country, and thus making more possible the development of both the community service ideal and the non-custodial sentence pattern of the future.
There is a sense in which we cannot easily press beyond the conscience or, if you like, sometimes the prejudice of contemporary society. I am not as firm a believer as the noble Earl in objection to—and I use his word—"incarceration", which is a long word meaning to put in "jug", but I shall look it up when I get home. "incarceration" has a certain pejorative phrase about it. I am not as opposed as he is because I believe that there is a sense in which, in Christian justice, someone who has done something wrong has a just sense of knowing that he deserves punishment. I believe that the pattern of a short period of punishment and then a real attempt at reclamation, leading to the kind of probation officer care which is a comforting one, is the way in which in general terms we should seek to reclaim those who have committed especially violent crimes.
I use the word "comfort" because I am glad to say that in your conservative way your Lordships have a great love for the Book of common Prayer. You will remember that there are comfortable words in the Book of Common Prayer and, of course, the word "fortis" or "strength" is at the heart of the word "comfortable". There is a sense in which our probation officers have to be "comforting" officers; they must not just be soft with people, but strengthen them in their new resolve for the future.
When thinking in wider terms I suppose that all of us find it hard not to he anecodotal, but I can think of cases in which men have said to me when I visited them in prison, "I do not think I ought to come out yet; I do not think that I deserve to come out yet". I can think of a follow-up to that. A particular probation officer—a man of great experience as well as strong Christian conviction—was helping a man who had been in prison for a serious crime to come to terms with himself and to forgive himself as a necessary adjunct to being able to find a forgiveness from God and then forgiveness within society. I will not go further with that story because I think I shall be in danger of opening up unnecessary confidentialities, but it had a very happy ending.

411
Therefore it is very practical to keep before us the fact that the probation service has always had this historical Christian line running through it, and I hope it always will. I think that this will be even more difficult as we liberalise our care for those who have been offenders within the community. Our probation service is supported by the Government and obviously by funds. As the noble Earl has made plain to us, it is actually much cheaper to care for an offender when he is beyond that point by a community-type of care rather than by custodial care. So we would be helping the Government to save money—which I think will appeal immensely to the noble Lord the Minister—by pressing upon him the need to increase the probation service so that there can be more community work.
I have one last point to make and, again, I pick up what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said when he spoke of the non-criminal courts. Probation officers have told me that they are becoming more and more involved in divorce, in the break-up of families and in care cases, which is the custody of and access to children. In fact, in our part of the world we are seeking to work on a system whereby on a Saturday we offer the services of church people to take the children from one estranged parent to the other estranged parent at the very point where the parents cannot bring themselves to get the children from A to B. The work of caring for those children and both the parents having the right and proper access to them is very difficult and we seek to provide "godfathers" and "godmothers" in that area.
But however much voluntary work is done, there is a sense in which we still have to rely upon our probation service to do the main work. Our officers have told me of the need to stress again the sanctity not only of human life but of marriage and family life, because they know in practice, and we know in theory, that where there are broken homes, like it or not, children are at risk. This is not the time to discuss that at length, but it is another of the matters that we press upon our probation service.
I like to visit Norwich Prison on Christmas Day as well as on other days in the year. I celebrate Communion and then I go on to visit the youngsters at their remand centre. I give them Christmas cards and meet them all and receive glorious hisses when I say that Norwich City Football Club is the finest in the world, because all the youngsters who come to Norwich from elsewhere have the chance of hissing at me during the sermon. It is good for them to let off steam. A year or so ago on Christmas Day I asked who was the youngest there. I was told that there was a 16-year old and two 15-year olds. I asked the governor whether it would be possible—with of course proper permission from the courts—to place those three boys in secure homes for Christmas Day, and return them the following day, with responsibility being taken for them. He said, "Maybe, but we cannot send them back to their own homes because those three boys have no homes and have been in care for most of their lives".
That brought home to me this business of the care of children, the sanctity of the home and the fact that there is a sense in which our probation officers are being brought into these tragedies. Therefore there is a
412
sense in which we not only have gently to chide probation officers if they appear to be acting unwisely or even irrationally, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has rightly done, but in which we have to support them, because they are our representatives in a pretty real and murky world. I am sure that much of what is being said in this debate will be of encouragement to them. I am grateful to the noble Earl for making it possible for us to debate this matter, and we look forward immensely and with interest to hearing what the noble Lord the Minister has to say to us.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords. I am sorry I am separating the right reverend Prelate from my noble friend Lord Soper. There was a mistake on the list. I also should like to thank my noble friend Lord Longford for initiating this debate. I remember his encouragement to me many years ago when I made my maiden speech in this House, and that was on penal reform at that time. I do not think I need in this debate to be very long on the state of our prisons. It is only too well known, and we are concerned with a rather different subject, although obviously one cannot avoid saying something about the prisons.
It is true that many of those in prison are in fact rather pathetic human beings whose offending stems often from personal disorganisation and their own troubled lifestyle. There are also of course still those who are imprisoned for quite petty offences. The tragedy of many prisoners is that they become recidivist. Perhaps it was not so in the particular case referred to when the right reverend Prelate was talking about prisoners who thought that it was not yet right for them to come out, but I found in my experience as a prison visitor and lecturer at Holloway Prison that there were a certain number of people who found the prison almost a sort of womb and somewhere which cosseted them, perhaps not in a particularly pleasant way but it took away the responsibility and need of making decisions. That is why the repetitious sentencing of petty offenders is meaningless, wasteful, and completely counter-productive.
I also learned from my experience of Holloway that if there is any deterrent in a prison sentence it is usually in the first sentence, and possibly in only the first few days of that sentence. It is the initial shock. Many of the women, and certainly some of the young girls, were quite ready to tell me that. For that reason alone it must be clear that imprisonment must be the disposal of last resort. As my noble friend and other speakers pointed out, there are unfortunately offenders whose crimes are serious enough, if they are crimes of violence, who will have to be sent to prison. But it must be at last resort and for the most serious of crimes, because if it is an ace in the penal hand it can be played effectively only once.
The problems with which the Government are faced will not he solved by a massive building programme for the prison estate. I am quite sure that the Minister realises that. It is irrelevant to assuage our consciences by merely ensuring that those who are imprisoned are properly accommodated, as yet again even in the most modern of prisons there remains a strong likelihood, some say even a certainty, that what we shall be doing

413
is introducing more modern and better equipped universities of crime.
To remove an offender from his community, to place him in prison, return him later to fractured or broken relationships, to a community in which he will find no employment, in a society which will not be sympathetic to his plight, is a sure-fire recipe for that offender to continue his offending behaviour, simply because by then he has little else to lose. For these reasons it is imperative that, wherever possible, offenders are dealt with in the community, as my noble friend and other noble Lords who have spoken so far have said, so that their family and social ties may be preserved, and their chances of finding employment, however limited unfortunately these days those chances are, may be preserved or even improved, and so that the institutional experience is avoided.
In order to achieve such a wholly desirable end the Government—and I say his, I know, with the support of my noble friend the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and I am sure the speakers who follow me—must look to the probation service for the provision of community-based alternatives to custody, and also, I would add, to crime prevention, in which many probation officers are not involved, by involvement in the broader based community initiatives. For example, in the inner cities. This again is a question of time, resources, and personnel.
In the process of dealing with offenders there is, of course, an earlier stage of involvement for the probation service, and that is the preparation of social inquiry reports, to which my noble friend referred. As a magistrate I am very aware of the vital and unique importance of social inquiry reports. I find it is the most important tool of our work in order for us to make decisions. My noble friend Lord Longford gave an excellent example of the way in which the preparation of such reports may assist the court in making a non-custodial disposal.
As a result of the Criminal Justice Act the court must consider now the social inquiry reports before imposing a custodial sentence on anyone under 21, and similarly for those who have not had previous prison sentences a report has to he made, or the reasons stated. The estimated national cost of this is £200,000. This is in addition to all the reports which are asked for on all other occasions. I am quite sure that I am not the only magistrate who does this, but many of us ask the probation officer whether he knows of anything that will be helpful to the bench when we are discussing somebody, and a certain amount of communication takes place even before the asking for an official report. I should like to see this work expanded even further.
Yet what can we do when the service has not got the resources on which to base a non-custodial recommendation, even where you can stretch them sufficiently to prepare a report on any occasion which requires it? Increasingly the avenues to non-custodial disposals are becoming culs-de-sac. Like the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I understand that in many areas—for example the three I know, Cumbria, South London and Manchester—the probation service is having to operate a quota system for community service orders. Inevitably any quota system will mean that some persons will go to prison who would not have done so if there had been adequate facilities in the area and the necessary resources.
414
I find it difficult to over-estimate the value of community service orders. When they can be properly applied, when there are the resources and the proper work for people to do, they really give us an alternative, which it is a great pity is not being used more and which is having to be restricted because of lack of funds. Then there is the actual outcome; the things that are achieved in my area. I was at a probation liaison committee meeting this morning, and we had a report from our local community service officer. All the things that had been done in the way of decorating, making a community centre out of a building owned by the YMCA, restoring another building which will be used as a special centre for alcoholics, helping those with a handicap, were positive, constructive occupations. They make the offenders themselves feel they are contributing to something, and help to recreate their own self-respect, as well as being of infinite value to the community. But to be done properly it needs careful and specialised supervision. It is a question of deciding where resources are badly needed.
At the present time community service orders are used in only 4 per cent. of indictable offences. Under the Criminal Justice Act they are now available for 16-year-olds as well, but only 12 out of the 56 probation areas have yet introduced the scheme. We have not done so yet in my area in Middlesex, or I think indeed in Middlesex at all. As noble Lords have pointed out, to do it properly the estimated cost would be £1 million a year.
The probation service stands as a symbol of social responsibility and humanity, and we need it now more than we have ever needed it before. But if it is to be a substantial service it must have a wide range of options to back it up. It is not only a question, which is time and energy consuming, of communication and the person-to-person talking and working out of problems with the individuals. What the service needs is to be backed so that it can find accommodation; and so that we are not left in this dreadful position of having to remand people in custody because we have not a viable alternative—when we feel badly about it and know it is wrong.
The service needs to be backed by remedial places available for alcoholics and drug addicts. It needs to be backed by day centres. Here, again, this has not yet been done in Middlesex because of a lack of resources. All this would reduce the numbers remanded in custody and would be a positive step in trying to deal with delinquency. We also need the probation service to offer proper and thorough care to those who have to be imprisoned, and we need it to inform us of the needs, in prison, of those we have imprisoned.
I hope the Minister does not believe that the small growth which has been allocated to the service leaves it all square. It certainly does not. In the first instance, the Government have failed so far to provide the service with the resources to cover the implications of the Criminal Justice Act 1982, which requires not only the extra social inquiry reports and the community service orders to which I have referred, but which also includes the negative conditions which some of us tried to remove from the Bill at the time, as the noble Lord the Minister may remember, though I believe his colleague was sitting in his place then. A curfew, and the condition not to go to certain places, all need monitoring and supervision.

415
Secondly, if we are to retain the high quality and calibre of the service for the future with no diminution in the quality of its work, we have to be particularly careful about our treatment and selection of those who train to be probation officers. I think that in announcing their intention to reduce the pay of trainee probation officers by up to 25 per cent. the Government have created much trouble, anxiety and antagonism—for what? I gather that the saving is about £90,000 in one year and £250,000 over three years. It is such a drop in the ocean, and the effect of it is so strong and so bad, that one can understand the very deep sense of aggrievement felt by the probation officers. I understand that police cadets' pay is higher. Trainee probation officers are, on the whole, people of a higher age range than that at which people normally come into social welfare work, even. Many of them are in their late twenties when they come into probation work.
I hope that we shall hear from the Minister this evening a positive commitment to an essential and constructive service: a commitment that the service will be properly funded so that it can be expanded to meet the ever-growing demands for effective responses to offenders. I understand that the Home Office is at present engaged with the service organisations in reviewing the role and future of the probation service. Again, I should like to know from the Minister how far this exercise has gone. I should also like to feel that the Government take the view which I and, I imagine, everybody who has spoken or will be speaking in this debate will take, and that is that dedication should not be financially exploited. If people are caring people I do not think it is right to take financial advantage of them. We have seen that in other professions, and it is a blot on our social and human landscape.
The problem with the funding is that the metropolitan authorities, particularly outside London, are very reliant on the contribution made by the local authorities. However sympathetic local authorities are, they have been penalised by the sanction on the so-called high spenders which is hitting the probation service; and although the will is there, the funds are no longer. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to say this evening—I say this seriously—that the 1 per cent. growth in real terms, which is the figure that has been mooted so far for 1984-85, has now been recognised as being totally inadequate, and that he will be able to tell us that the figure will be something much nearer 3 per cent. than 1 per cent. I would hope to have seen it at 5 per cent. But, that may be pushing it a little too far. But, certainly 1 per cent. is quite unrealistic.
I suggest that the Government must ask themselves: what do we want our probation service to do? Do we want it to mark time or to move forward? If it is to move forward, it is moving forward in a period when there is an expanding clientele from the ranks of the unemployed. Unemployment is rising all the time. I have school-leavers coming into my court, as all magistrates have. One asks the defendant, "What are you doing?" and the answer comes, "Unemployed." "How long have you been unemployed?"—"Since I left school." these youngsters are 18, 19 and 20, and so one has young people who have been unemployed for 3 or 4 years, who have never had a job since they left school.
416
In our rapidly changing society we are now in the age of electronic revolution. Even when unemployment starts to recede, as we all hope it will, there will still be a decade when the youngsters leaving school will be unable to get jobs until we come to terms with this new form of society. In the meantime it is essential that creative activities and constructive projects should be available to them; otherwise, we shall create generations of lost people, many of whom will become delinquents.
The investment must be considerable to make an impact because the probation service, as well as acting on its own, acts as a broker between the voluntary agencies and its clients. About 5,600 probation officers is a very small force, and it is quite remarkable what it achieves. It is not an enormous investment that one is asking for, but it is one the need for which economically, socially and in human terms, we cannot afford to ignore.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, the backcloth of this debate is the prevalence of crime of various kinds and the indubitable increase of this particular malevolence, behaviour and practice. Separated as I have been on the list of speakers, I am, nevertheless, in complete agreement with my noble and ecclesiastical friend the right reverend Prelate that this is pre-eminently a moral issue. Being a moral issue, your Lordships will perhaps allow me to comment very briefly on one or two aspects that were presented by the right reverend Prelate. It so happens that my father was one of the first to take part in this particular enterprise many years ago, and I remember with affection and a very great respect the kind of attitude that he not only shared with those who took part in that same kind of activity, but was generously shared by the Church. We are often accused of being irrelevant. This was an occasion on which we were probably the advance guard of an essential element in the custodianship of virtue or, at any rate, the prevention of crime.
Coming as I do hot foot from the Methodist Conference, I bring to your Lordships from that august assembly the general and enthusiastic commendation of the general intention of this debate. I came from the conference only this morning and I am able to convey that message.
I am very grateful indeed to my noble friend Lord Longford for introducing into this debate the general application of what we believe to he a civilised society to the prevalence of crime, the insistence that the probation service is a practical and efficient method of doing some of the things which are imperative if we are to stem that increase.
I hope that the House will not regard this as cynical, but I confess myself somewhat perturbed at the coincidence of the events of the past week politically and the emergence, re-emergence or resuscitation of the clamour for capital punishment. I regard this as retrograde and therefore come with a greater comfort to a debate of this kind which seems to me to offer a much more reasonable—and, indeed, a much more Christian—approach to the problem which I confess and recognise as being extremely dangerous and liable to become more dangerous. I will not rehearse what has already been said so eloquently and so efficiently

417
by other speakers. I shall endeavour to extrapolate from some of the general considerations, one or two of those matters which, to me, take pride of place; and I cannot but begin where I have begun many times before, by deploring that most dangerous of all the elements in the present custodial system: the fact that in many a cell built all too small for one person to inhabit there are two or three people. This is an abomination.
I have seen in my own background of social work the permanent effects of this kind of incarceration in circumstances which are deplorable morally, disgracefully emotionally, and in many cases temperamentally almost conclusively bad. If there is anything that can be done to reduce the population of our overcrowded prisons then, if there are no other reasons to prevent it being done, let it be done and let it be done quickly—because you are cursing (with a great many youngsters, in particular) the whole prospect of a future life when they emerge from such incarceration. I ask the House to believe that I am not speaking sentimentally but out of some experience of the intolerable conditions under which many people in prisons are now compelled to live in the crowded —nay, overcrowded—situation of the multiple-occupation cell.
If by this increase and expansion of the services that we call the probation services we can reduce the number of inhabitants of prisons, we shall have done something which in itself, quite apart from the overcrowding of the cells, is to be welcomed. I do not believe in the prison service. I recognise how many gallant and splendid people are involved in its procedures and who endeavour to do the best they can for it. I have said before and I will not weary your Lordships with repetition that my own conviction, as a chaplain over the years and as one who is in constant touch with these things, is that the whole prison service is itself degrading and, though it may well be that for the time being there is nothing very much better that we can do, anything in the realm of probation service which can alleviate the conditions—even to some small extent—anything which can lead towards another kind of semi-custodial treatment for those who have gone astray—and have gone very far astray—must be preferred, particularly to the block system of our more 19th century prisons such as Pentonville, Wandsworth, and others.
Therefore, I welcome anything which can be done in this field and urge upon the Government that here is, from prudential as well as moral standpoints, the opportunity to put more money into the kind of effort which, I believe, will have a cumulative effect not only in reducing the number of prisoners but in providing a very much larger expectation of wellbeing for those who, in other forms of incarceration, semiincarceration or treatment by the probation services, will have a very much better chance of recovering from the iniquities in which they have been involved, and becoming responsible members of society all over again.
May I make one point here which has not yet been raised and which I think is very important. A criticism which is very often missed in the condemnation of the prison system is its basic artificiality. The longer a man is incarcerated in a prison, the less he becomes
418
acquainted with, and acceptable to, the society to which he must necessarily return unless he is going to be put in prison for life. The artificiality of the prison service, however benevolent those who try to operate it are, is, in my judgment and in the experience which has come my way, a very poor and a very dangerous method of so conditioning those who are within its walls. They will find it very much harder (when at some time in the future they are released) when finding themselves in the real world to find their ability to live in that real world.
That is perhaps the greatest of all the virtues which belong to the Probation Service: that it keeps the criminal within the framework of the real society in which. finally—unless, as I say, he is imprisoned for life; which is a totally unacceptable penalty, in my judgment—he must return. It gives him the chance of keeping in touch with that world in which, sooner or later, he will have to find his place again. This has been a very interesting debate, a great many points have been made and I will not rehearse them; but I want to make an appeal for the Probation Service itself. I can think of nothing which is more demanding than for a probation officer to endeavour to deal with a rebellious youth of about 19 who has not had a job since he left school, who has had practically no relationship or contact with the Christian Churches; who has probably lost, temporarily at least, the dimension between right and wrong—and I have found many youngsters like that. I find that. in London—so the evidence has come to me—the workload has increased individually for every probation officer by about 10 per cent. over the past three years. What is more, 50 per cent. of those who are under the probation service are aged under 21.
I cannot imagine anything more difficult than that the probation officer should be able to give enough time and enough expertise to this intensely personal problem unless he is much better supported than he is now. It is in that regard that the simple and most effective beginning to that support is a large increase of resources; that he can be better trained; and that he can be put into closer relationship with other voluntary organisations. Above all, he should feel the dignity that is given by the sense that what is offered by him is recognised and valued by the community.
It is in that regard that I take comfort in the prospect of the expansion of this particular service. I believe that it is the best available method within the possible future of (shall we say?) the next 20 or 30 years, of so improving the prospects of rehabilitation and recovery, as well as the need, so to punish as to recognise the basic principles of civilised life. I believe that this expansion, above everything else, is to be regarded with anticipation and hope. Once again, may I finish by thanking my noble friend Lord Longford for reintroducing this problem for perhaps the ninth or tenth time, and reintroducing it with a livelier hope that this time there may be even better results.
7 p.m.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, if I were now sitting on the Bench occupied by the noble Lord the Minister—which, I am thankful to say, I am not—I think that I should be asking myself whether everything that needed to be said has not already been

419
said and whether it is strictly necessary to continue. I know the Minister is a more patient and charitable man than I am. I am asking the same question of myself as I rise to speak. I promise to be strictly practical and to avoid the moral issues. I think three dissertations of a moral nature might be too much, for myself at any rate, much as I have enjoyed the speeches that I have heard.
The noble Viscount Lord Whitelaw, when speaking in the other place in December last described the policy of the Government in regard to the probation service as being—and I quote—"to provide convincing alternatives to custody". I have pulled out that quotation simply to lay stress on the word "convincing". It is axiomatic that if a major shift is to be made from the use of custody by the courts to alternatives in the community, it is the courts which have to be convinced; and they will not be convinced unless adequate resources are provided for the probation and after-care service.
Like other speakers, including my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich—and we have not colluded in this matter at all—I have made inquiries of a number of chief probation officers as well as of the National Association of Probation Officers, who, as I think they would agree, represent in the main the main grade officers. The chief probation officers and NAPO very often do not speak with an identical voice, but on this issue they are unanimous that the provision planned by the Government for the increase in the service in the next few years is totally inadequate. My noble friend Lord Harris has chided me as regards the National Association of Probation Officers and I hope he will not mind if, in the same sense as the right reverend Prelate, I give them a word of commendation. I think that the document prepared by NAPO, The Case for Growth, is excellent. It makes the case succinctly and convincingly and it is in the best tradition of that association speaking in its professional capacity.
The points in support of growth for the probation service beyond that 1 per cent. which is planned for this year and the next year have mostly been covered already. I should now like to make a few allied points. The point has been made about the sheer quantity of present work and the increase in the use of probation orders that has gone up by 29 per cent. There has been an increase in the use of community service orders, which we all enormously welcome and regard as most significant, to the tune of something like 80 per cent. between 1979 and 1982.
The point I want to make is that in regard to the future increase in community service orders and their application to 16 year-olds—the noble Baroness and my noble friend told us that there is already a hold-up in that development and it is deplorable—it is common ground in the whole service, no matter whether it is a chief probation officer or a main grade officer, that these youngsters are going to require closer supervision in carrying out those orders than is generally the case at present for older offenders. That means that the quality and quantity of the work is going to increase.
With regard to probation officers, I should like to quote the words of the chief probation officer for
420
Lincolnshire, the officers of whose service are carrying the fourth highest caseload in England and Wales. Referring to the fact that there is not a sufficient increase in the service, he writes this:
"This fact produces pressures against recommending more orders to the courts. We reckon we require five more officers in 1983 to bring caseloads near to the national average".
He goes on to say:
"The 1 per cent. growth limits our increase to less than half of one officer".
If taken literally, that conjures up a most titillating temptation for a cartoonist.
Turning to a point which has not been dealt with, if, as we all hope, parole is to be increased by lowering the threshold of eligibility for parole—I understand it is to be nine months—this will add a further 2,000 parolees to a probation officer's caseload. The point is that many of those parolees will be more difficult offenders in the community to handle than is the case at present. Probation officers are already—this point has been made—handling increasingly difficult offenders, and over a decade or more the number of those who receive probation orders as first offenders has steadily declined. From Cambridgeshire I have a significant figure to show that that greatest increase in difficult clients has speeded up in the last two or three years between the national figure of 23 per cent. of those who were first offenders in 1979 and received probation orders to only 15 per cent. in 1982. That means, in penal jargon, that clients have moved up-tariff: they have become more difficult people to manage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, mentioned project work and the value and importance of this. That is becoming increasingly recognised, as the results come through. It means that most offenders involved in group programmes are working in groups. You might think that means less work, but on the contrary it means more intensive and higher quality work. There is the finding, planning, and setting up of a whole variety of different projects. There is the complex and often costly business of providing equipment and premises, and there is the very important need to collaborate with the other agencies in running these projects and in eliciting support from the community.
Reports to the courts—this point has again been made—have increased substantially and, under the terms of the new Act, chief officers I have consulted estimate that the social inquiry reports required before any young offender is committed to custody will cause a further 16 per cent. increase in the reporting to the courts. It is true that the new Act will result in shorter periods of supervision; but there are two points to be made. One is the not unlikely circumstance that the courts will impose more short sentences to give short tastes of custody, referred to by the right reverend Prelate, with, I think, something approaching approval. Therefore, there will be more people to be supervised when they come out for more intensive periods, even though they are shorter.
My last point, which I picked up from chief probation officers, is the most important. It is the fact that all this diverse work and the many other tasks—whether they stem from the criminal courts in which probation officers are involved, day in and day out in unsocial hours—severely limit the time needed

421
to review the work they have been doing and to look ahead. I will quote a cri de coeur from the chief probation officer in my own county of Berkshire, who writes as follows:
"Now more than ever all of us feel starved of thinking and planning time. We have no spare capacity".
I should like to end with one more quote—and I make no apology for using these quotes because they come from the proverbial horse's mouth and should carry more weight than any words of my own. Several chief officers have told me that they may not be able to operate new schemes, as has already been said, for the time being because they lack resources. I should like to quote the chief probation officer for Cambridgeshire, who says this:
"I am bombarded with demands for the service to initiate a conciliation scheme".
My Lords, who would quarrel about the importance of such a scheme? She goes on to say:
"The only way of meeting such demands is to shift resources from work with crime".
The Government's reply to the Question of the noble Earl, Lord Longford—and I should like belatedly to thank him for putting it down—will be seen, at any rate by me, as a test of the sincerity and good faith of the Government and of their intention or otherwise to match their words by deeds, by increasing the establishment and making more adequate financial provision for the probation service.
At the end of the debate on home and social affairs two nights ago, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said:
"the probation service…is a vital and constructive element in the criminal justice system".—[Official Report, 28/6/83; col. 234.]
I would add that that element has never been so important as it is today. I predict that the services which maintain law and order, to whose support the Government have committed themselves in the Queen's Speech, will be under severe strain in the next few years. It is quite certain that the strain will increase, if the Government fail to heed the warning plea uttered from their Back-Benches in another place last night. On those grounds, I hope that the Government will think again about the planned 1 per cent. increase for the probation service.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Kagan: My Lords, I shall endeavour to be very brief, and I shall not detain your Lordships more than is necessary. I shall certainly endeavour not to repeat anything that has already been said, and better said. May I draw attention to one aspect—the relationship between prison officers and probation officers? I come back to the Dutch example. When a Dutchman applies for a job in the prison service, he has to pass an exam which will qualify him almost totally for the probation service. If he does not qualify for that, they will not accept him in the prison service. In other words, in Holland a prison officer is potentially a probation officer. In our prison system they are segregated by the rules, and a prison officer is in breach of the rules if he establishes a relationship with a prisoner. The prison officer is purely a disciplinary officer. I know that in a small number of establishments an experiment has started to change that. But if we took an example from the Dutch and, in the training of a prison officer, introduced the same
422
standards, it would, first, upgrade the standards of the prison officer, and, secondly, it would enable a prisoner to establish a relationship after prison through the probation service.
Although I certainly cannot disagree with any of my noble friends about the increased use of resources, I think that a change of attitude towards the probation service, in the direction of involving voluntary assistance from the community, would help. We have a prison population of 40,000 people and we have 50 million people living in this country. If one in 1,000 adopted a prisoner and took a continuing interest in him, that man's re-entry into the community, which my noble friend described so eloquently and which is so necessary, would have a much better chance than now. It is true to say that when a prisoner is released and is left to his own resources under the present system he is almost condemned to a return to crime. The involvement of the community and voluntary assistance to the probation service, which could be organised under the supervision of the probation service, would not cost a lot of extra money and would be very cost-effective.
In France, the prison population has been reduced by one-quarter. What is most significant, the churches are encouraged to play a much bigger part in the prison system. In the prison in Paris they have keys, they can walk about and there is a very personal relationship. The Dutch, too are proceeding on similar lines. I am sure that, with co-operation between the churches and the probation service, volunteers could be recruited to expand the activities of the probation service without a tremendous increase in costs. I should have thought that the inspectorate of prisons, which is independent, would be in the best position to look at what is being done abroad (where, admittedly, they do such things better) and to apply them here. I do not want to detain your Lordships any longer.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, I want to say just a brief word about the Scottish dimension of this problem. I do not know whether I succeed in showing it, but when your Lordships are considering a problem which has a different shape, or perhaps somewhat different aspects, as between Scotland and England, I am always reluctant to raise the Scottish dimension partly because (as I have said before, perhaps to the point of tedium) I am a great believer in the Anglo-Scottish symbiosis. When, in discussions in your Lordships' House and perhaps in the other place as well, one produces the Scottish dimension, one presents the Minister concerned, and perhaps one's colleagues, with something of a distraction which may be irritating, particularly for the Minister. He has enough to think of in the English dimension without these wretched people from the North introducing a new element. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has no responsibility for the Scottish situation, and I did somewhat belatedly, because I had not thought to take part in this debate, inform the Scottish Office yesterday that I would raise some of the problems which are peculiar to that country.
The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, which was enacted by a Government of which I was a member

423
and of which we were very proud, was, we thought, an imaginative and constructive measure. It made radical changes in the probation service in the North. I must confess—and I take no joy in the thought—that I did not foresee the very serious problems that it would present for the operation of the probation service up there.
What the Act did, as I am sure most of your Lordships know, was, first, to take children out of the criminal courts. Those aged 16, plus some aged between 16 and 18, were taken out of the criminal courts unless they were taken there on the instructions of the Lord Advocate—and they were the exceptional cases. Secondly, the Act set up children's panels to deal with the cases which had previously gone to the criminal juvenile courts. The duties of the probation officer, statutory and otherwise, were transferred to the social work departments of the local authorities, and the probation officers were absorbed into the social work departments as generic social workers.
The immediate effects of this change when it came into operation—I do not say so far as the children's panels are concerned, because I am not informed on their operation and they may have been satisfactory; and I must emphasise that in the less densely populated rural areas the situation continued to be satisfactory—certainly in Glasgow, where I worked, and I think in other parts of the densely populated central belt, were, if not disastrous, extremely disturbing.
I am not going to pretend that it was the golden age of the probation service in Glasgow in the 1950s and 1960s, when I was there, but we had a very good working service and we had a first-class working relationship between the bench and the probation officers. It may be that we did not sit until 10 o'clock in the morning and that we rose not very long after 4 o'clock, but both before we sat and after we rose, more often than not, we were engaged from the bench in discussions with probation officers. If the probationers were young (or even if they were old) we sometimes had discussions with them, too, about the progress they were making. If they were young probationers, their parents might be there. This was part of our job.
Of course, the probation officers' case loads were far too large. This I well remember. We used to ask, "What can you do with a case load like that?" It was a perennial problem, but at least we were all working as a team. We came to know one another. One came to know the strong probation officers and the weaknesses of others—and no doubt they came to know our strengths and weaknesses, too. We learned from one another in a continuing and valuable working relationship in the Glasgow courts, where the problems were greatest.
All that pretty well went by the board when the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 came into operation, so far as these busy criminal courts were concerned. Remember, I am not saying that this applied to children's panels, because I am talking about the criminal courts. I am not suggesting that this applied all over the country, either, but it did apply where the problems were the most serious.
Matters were then complicated by local government reorganisation. The vast Strathclyde region took in
424
almost half the population of Scotland and was responsible for social work. Before, if one had a problem, one could lift the telephone and speak to the individual probation officer or the head of the social work department without great difficulty. But with this immense Strathclyde region one was up against all the problems of bureaucracy. I am not criticising the people there, because they were trying hard. They knew that there were problems, but arranging a meeting to discuss them became a major exercise.
We worked away at this problem. For a long time I thought that the best thing we could do was to revert to the old set-up and take probation back to being a separate service. I believe there are still some sheriffs who think that; but, today. I do not believe this would be the answer. On reflection, I do not believe it would be sensible to attempt to put the clock back; but something effective must be done.
I was last involved in 1977, when matters had got much better; but there were still shortcomings, due to a lack of resources. There were still shortcomings; and although matters have much improved since then they still have not returned to the point they had reached, so far as effective working is concerned, before the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 was brought into operation. This, at least, I am told.
This is a very unhappy situation. I had some responsibility, although it was not departmental responsibility, for the Social Work (Scotland) Act, so I am not just blaming other people. We ought to have foreseen these problems and have taken steps to ensure that matters did not go this way. Obviously a great many people have been working very hard to get it right, including many devoted probation officers who are now social workers. But still more has to he done, and they cannot do it on their own; and nor can it be done by the sheriffs on the bench. Although other courts are involved, it is the sheriff courts in Scotland which really count in this context.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has a dual responsibility under two heads in this respect, because, first, he is responsible for giving guidance on the way in which the social work departments of local authorities should operate, and that is under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. He is also responsible, under the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971, for the speedy and efficient disposal of business in the sheriff courts. To some extent that is tied up with an efficient and effective probation service.
It is not for me to suggest how the Secretary, of State for Scotland should deal with this matter, but he needs to take a look at it. He might wish to put this question to the Advisory Council on Social Work under the 1968 Act; it might be for them to look at this matter and to advise and guide him. But everyone must be consulted—not just the directors of social work and not just the local authorities, but also those who sit on the bench, the sheriffs and the sheriffs principal. They must be asked to give their views in order that the resources which they say they need—and this affects community service orders, in particular, in Scotland, as well as everywhere else—may be put at their disposal.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, we are all most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for providing an

425
opportunity to discuss the role of the probation service. By casting his speech as a plea to take steps to reduce pressure of numbers on Britain's prison service, the noble Earl chose a theme with which he could be sure of my closest attention. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, came in with the same rythmn but in a different key, if I may so put it, with the subject of prisoners in police and court cells—another subject very close to my concern. The right reverend Prelate—contrapuntally perhaps—reminded us that punishment and even imprisonment can be seen as being just, and even constructive, by those who undergo it, and made it clear that that view is consistent with the passion that motivates the probation service itself.
The reverend Lord, Lord Soper, returned, fortissimo, to the noble Earl's theme and asserted that imprisonment is never a suitable sentence, and I only wish that I could agree with him there. Perhaps I ought at this stage to abandon these musical metaphors and merely thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for a speech full of direct representations from the field, to which I will refer but which I and my honourable friend will read with great interest and respect tomorrow, although the noble Lord may feel that I do it less than justice tonight.
The noble Earl's own speech and the whole debate make very clear the extremely high regard in which we hold the probation service. The Government share that regard, and we are fully committed to furthering the work of the probation service. It is not a large service compared with others in the criminal justice system, such as the police or the prison service, but it has developed a role of an importance out of all proportion to its size; it makes a major contribution to the way in which society deals with its offending members.
The probation service makes a contribution by providing information and advice to assist the courts in sentencing; by operating a wide range of facilities which afford alternatives to custody and which seek to divert offenders from criminal careers; by assisting prisoners to cope constructively with their problems while in custody; by helping them to prepare for their own release, and after their release to make as successful an adjustment to ordinary life as they can. There is no doubt about the importance of the work of the service in dealing with the problem of crime.
Before we look at the future, let us look first of all at the practical support which is already given to the probation service, and which the noble Earl and many others find inadequate. As your Lordships will know, the main expenditure of the service is met by 80 per cent. specific grant from central Government. The other 20 per cent. is the responsibility of local authorities; and that 20 per cent. is of course grant-related expenditure and ranks for block grant which also originates from the Treasury and not from the ratepayer. In addition to this Government funding of current account expenditure, the Home Office also initially meets the full cost of purchase, adaptation and equipment of premises for use as probation and bail hostels. Only 20 per cent. of this is recovered from local authorities. It is paid by means of flat rate payments spread over 20 years. The salaries of probation officers working in prisons are met in full by
426
central Government. In addition, the Home Office has allocated £5 million in 1983-84 for accommodation and day care schemes in the voluntary sector. That gives the proportions and the origins of the money.
We are, as the House knows full well, living in times of necessary restraint in public expenditure, and your Lordships are well enough aware after yesterday's debate of the reasons for this and I will not repeat them. But I ask noble Lords to remember that that is the context of what has been done in recent years. In that context we should consider whether the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is right to refer in such disparaging terms to what has been done. Between June 1979 and December 1982 the number of administrative and clerical staff increased by nearly 10 per cent.; the number of probation officers increased by over 10 per cent.; and the number of ancillary workers rose by over 36 per cent.
In 1982 alone 130 additional probation officers and 133 additional ancillaries were recruited. There is provision for further growth in this financial year which is estimated to enable the recruitment of a further 100 probation officers and a further 125 ancillaries. The law and order services of the police, prisons and probation service have not been exempt from the search for economies; but I think it is fair to say that the priority which the last Government attached to them has been reflected in the resources they have been allocated.
It might also be noted that relative to its size the probation service has grown more rapidly in the past five years than either the police or the prison service. That is an emphasis which some of your Lordships will find surprisingly welcome. While the precise extent of provision for growth has necessarily been variable over those years, the fact of growth has been constant. That is hardly an example of short-sighted niggardliness; nor, in the noble Baroness's phrase, marking time.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, if I may intervene, I will interrupt the noble Lord only once. He will no doubt be saying something about the increase in crime which has gone ahead very rapidly during this period. This generosity of the Government hardly matches the increase in crime.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am so glad that the noble Earl is restricting himself to a single interruption this evening. I am perfectly happy to concede that crime has indeed increased markedly over this period, and of course a great deal of effort by the Government has been directed towards coping with the results and trying to reduce it. The noble Earl is right to strike a balance which he is afraid I might neglect.
Of course, one can always argue for more. The reverend Lord, Lord Soper, did so in absolute and global terms, while the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was rather more particular. The National Association of Probation Officers have the best—and I should emphasise the most respectable—reasons for doing so, and they have not been idle in this respect. In a recent letter to my right honourable friend they asserted that the growth in the number of probation officers, which they put at 3.9 per cent., does not match a 29 per cent. increase in the number of probation orders. A number of your Lordships have reflected a similar

427
mathematical approach. I ought to point out first of all quite simply that the actual increase in the number of officers between December 1979 and December 1982 was in fact 6 per cent. and not 3·9 per cent.
I would also make this further comment, which is in no way contentious but is also simply a matter of fact: anyone is entitled to make the best use of statistics and that goes for the Government as well as anybody else. Part of the art is choosing the base line which throws up the most striking movement in the direction that you wish to illustrate. In saying there has been a 29 per cent. increase in probation orders, but only an increase of 3.9 per cent. (or more exactly 6 per cent.) in probation officers, the National Association of Probation Officers have very sensibly fixed their baseline in the period from December 1979 to December 1982.
If we go back only a little further and consider the whole decade of 1972 to 1982, we find that both figures are rather different. The overall increase of probation officers was not 6 per cent. but over 40 per cent., and the increase in probation orders was not 29 per cent. but under 10 per cent. It could even be said that on some occasions growth actually outstripped workload. It is quite evident from that that I am not seeking to make a political point, but I am making a statistical one.
But none of that is meant to belittle either the quality, which is admirable, or the volume, which is considerable, of the work which probation officers are doing. Nor do I wish to suggest that their association is obstructively contentious on the subject. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked what I had to say—I do not know why I have interpolated it here, but it is the way the speech is constructed as one goes along—about his idea that I should go to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and ask for some of his Vote for my department's duties. I can barely say more than that I should just like to hear what my noble and learned friend himself would have to say. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is familiar with the methods of Government. He is making a serious point and it is one that I will certainly take on board and reflect on. As always, one is put in boxes when considering money, and very often the divisions between the boxes come in an inconvenient place. The noble Lord suggested there should be communication between the two compartments.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he will look into this point with his right honourable friend, and I hope with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I was not suggesting that the Home Office should ask the Lord Chancellor for money to carry out their responsibilities. I was suggesting the Lord Chancellor, department made a contribution to the Vote so far as this aspect is concerned because the probation service is fulfilling his department's responsibilities.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I shall try to advance the case with the greatest tact available to me. As I said, I am not suggesting that the association have been obstructively contentious on the subject of finance, or, indeed, of running the service. Quite the contrary: I should like
428
to say how helpful we have found the association's paper already referred to, Probation: A Case for Growth. A preliminary examination of it was included in a wide-ranging discussion at the Home Office between senior officials and senior representatives of the association about the future of the probation service. This was part of a series of such discussions that officials are having with organisations representing the service.
That meeting, and a subsequent meeting of the Standing Committee on Probation Manpower Needs, on which the National Association of Probation Officers, chief officers and probation committees are all represented, proved valuable both in clearing the way for further talks on where the emphasis of probation work should be placed in the years ahead and in considering possible resource needs in the more immediate future. On this last point, your Lordships will understand that, given the discussions about to take place within the framework of the annual public expenditure survey, I must hold myself in check.
Let me now refer to the ways in which we have developed the role of the probation service by recent legislation. Two of the main aims of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 were to provide courts with more flexible powers in dealing with offenders and to provide community-based alternatives to custody wherever they were appropriate. The probation service clearly has an important, indeed a crucial, role in the latter. This relates closely to one of the noble Earl's anxieties and, indeed, to those of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. There are now statutory requirements for social inquiry reports; that is the point relevant to them. Unless the court specifically decides otherwise, it will now be required to consider a social inquiry report before imposing a custodial sentence on an offender under 21 years of age or an offender 21 years or over who has not previously served a prison sentence. I do not think that precisely meets one of the cases brought forward this afternoon, but it is clearly a matter of great importance.
The preparation of these reports has been a major task of the service for many years. In 1982, for example, over a quarter of a million reports were made. Because of the resources and efforts involved in preparing such a large number of reports it is essential to ensure that they are provided only where they will be of real value and the intention of the 1982 Act is that there should be greater selectivity rather than a greater expansion in the volume of reporting.
We should therefore like to see reports being made on offenders who are actually being considered for custody. We also hope to increase the effectiveness of reports by various improvements in the way they are written. The guidance we have recently issued on this has been welcomed by both the courts and the service. Increasing the effectiveness of social inquiry reports will, of course, increase the influence of the probation service itself.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, perhaps I have misunderstood the Minister. He said that the reports should be strictly where custody was being considered. But surely it is not the intention to cut down on reports where one wants to see whether the offender is suitable for probation, a fine or a community service order?
Lord Elton: My Lords, on the detail I must write to the noble Baroness, but the intention is to concentrate the reporting in the areas where it will be of most constructive use to the court. Plainly that must include those about to be sentenced. The terms of this concentration and where the margins come are I am afraid, a refinement which escapes me and on which I may be illuminated later today. I will write to the noble Baroness because she has certainly made a point that requires consideration.
I come now to the supervision of juveniles. The 1982 Act confirms the role of the service in that supervision. Probation officers will continue to take a proportion of supervision orders in accordance with local arrangements made with social service departments. It is important that any proposals made by probation officers to the court about activities to be undertaken as part of supervision in the community are directed particularly at the more difficult juvenile offenders. The juvenile age group with which the probation service is usually concerned is the 14 to 16 year-olds. We see the main justification for the involvement of the probation service with these juveniles in their ability to deal constructively with those who may otherwise be entering on a criminal career.
I must now refer to the curfew or, as I prefer to call it, the night restriction requirement, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, intervened on this subject. I also refer to the so-called "negative requirement" in both supervision and probation orders, in which the noble Lord was joined in his concern by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk.
I do not wish to go over that ground again in detail. Noble Lords will recall the exchanges last year during the passage of the Bill. Briefly, there have been objections that the inclusion of curfew or negative requirements will be unenforceable and will damage the relationship between the supervisor and the offender. The Government have taken careful note of these objections, which we well understand are made on professional grounds. We have discussed the issues with the National Association of Probation Officers, and have consulted the other probation organisations and the Magistrates' Association. I am glad to say that, following these exchanges, we were able to issue a circular of guidance about supervision orders which emphasises the importance of consultation locally between magistrates and probation officers so that there is a mutual understanding of the circumstances when such requirements may be necessary. It also stresses the need to look at each individual case on its merits rather than approaching it with predetermined views. I am sure this is the right way to approach the issue and will ensure an appropriate use of these orders.
A further extension in the role of the probation service with juveniles is in community service for 16-year-olds. The right reverend Prelate, like other speakers and myself, preferred non-custodial treatment where it is appropriate and he emphasised the importance of community service. The rise in the number of offenders on community service and the operation of schemes are impressive, as the noble Earl made clear to us. The experience gained in dealing with those aged 17 and over encouraged us to bring in
430
the lower age group, Here again, there is an opportunity for the service to divert offenders from custody at a vulnerable age. Arrangements for 16-year-olds to work under community service orders are being introduced gradually, just as community service was originally in the 1970s. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, may be glad to know that they will be provided in 14 areas by the beginning of July. By this autumn it will be available in half the probation areas. The remaining areas should follow in the next financial year. I have a note, which I shall endeavour to deal with later about the particular areas to which the noble Baroness referred.
Finally, under the Act we have clarified the statutory provision about requirements in probation orders. These provisions mark an important extension of the role of the probation service in a number of ways. An important result of this is that it has increased the range of offenders for whom the courts are able to consider probation as an appropriate disposal. Courts will have greater confidence because they will know what to expect from the period of supervision. They also know that the probation officer has a better opportunity to spell out clearly to the offender exactly what is expected of him. That is particularly helpful where, as is so often the case, the offender is immature or unrealiable—in fact, almost always. The probation service deserves a great deal of credit for the way in which it has seized these new opportunities, and I am sure will exploit them further in the future.
Many of the activities and centres being used in this way are in fact provided by other agencies in the community, and I believe there is an increasing and very healthy openness developing in the service. There is a new awareness in it of the resources outside its own provisions. In a sense, this has brought it closer into the community which it serves.
These developments also show the awareness that the probation service has of the wider social context in which it works; and they open up the possibility of providing a service not only to the courts and offenders but in some measure to the wider community as a whole. It would then be the business of the service to take note of the needs of the local community and to seek ways of encouraging measures to meet those needs. This should not divert the service from its primary concern with offenders. It would demonstrate, rather, that in performing that task it could at the same time respond to a wider constituency.
I was to say at this point a word about victim support schemes, but I feel I must curtail my remarks. We recognise that if probation officers are to supervise offenders in the community, then they must gain the confidence of that community by showing that they understand its concerns and problems. For their part, the Government certainly recognise the opportunities which lie ahead for the probation service. We have therefore begun a wide-ranging series of discussions with the probation organisations, to which I have already referred, about the future direction of the service.
These discussions are still at a comparatively early stage, and I do not wish to pre-empt further consideration of the issues by anything I say tonight. But I

431
should like to indicate what lies behind our initiative. We believe the time is appropriate for a statement of the national objectives and priorities of the probation service in the criminal justice system. There have been so many changes affecting the service ever since the late 1960s that we think the service itself, the courts and everyone else concerned would find such a statement helpful. It would also be appropriate because I believe there is today more realism and more self-confidence in the service than there has been since the 1970s.
I have a lengthy response here to what has been said about the reduction in the salaries of the probation students, but I hesitate to deploy it all. Your Lordships have heard it at least twice in this House and frequently seen it on paper. We are discussing the salaries of people up to the age of 34. The noble Earl is concerned about the more mature entrants, as are we. I think that they, at the top end of the scale, suffer a 0.45 per cent. reduction. They are virtually in the same position. It goes down to a point which leaves the students in a position which I think is favourably comparable to other students in other disciplines of a comparable nature. It does not refer to anybody already in studentship. Everybody knows what they are taking on when they join. Neither does it affect the salaries of anybody who is a probation officer. It has nothing to do with that.
I say that, and welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, expressed anxieties about the dangers of a confrontational development of this, which I and my right honourable and honourable friends are anxious to avoid, although we do have a duty, and are pursuing it, to administer the service efficiently. There is a slightly larger sum of money at stake than people perhaps realise, and a principle as well.
May I now turn quickly to those who I have so far disappointed and pick up individual points. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to the West Midlands, where there has indeed been a temporary ban on community service but only in certain petty session areas and for a short time. We actually support the wish of the chiefs of probation officers not to expand numbers at a rate which would prejudice the good discipline and quality of the work by bringing the change in too quickly. We believe in controlled growth. The West Midlands has already introduced community service for 16-year-olds, and I can now tell the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that Middlesex applied for community service for 16-year-olds to start in September and this is now under consideration. It has already been introduced in Cumbria and South East London. Morale in Middlesex is, I understand, high, and exciting work is being done among various racial groups. The Hillingdon intermediate treatment centre, jointly run by the probation and social services, is an example of what is being done in this area.
There has been recent growth in conciliation schemes which help couples to part amicably, thus helping to resolve questions about custody of and access to children, which I suppose are about the most painful issues for the children concerned and the resolution of which helps not only them but reduces the work of the service and the courts subsequently. I
432
am delighted to acknowledge the work done by the Churches in this area. The probation service has played a constructive part in many areas in promoting this scheme. The Lord Chancellor's department has set up an interdepartmental committee to examine the conciliation issue. This committee's report is being studied at present. The noble Baroness's point about resources will be borne in mind, as indeed will that of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich.
I listened with great interest to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Kagan, about the training of prison officers. He frequently and properly reminded me of the need to know what is going on in other countries. Although the figures are not collected centrally, I understand that the probation service is in touch with about 10,000 people prepared to act as voluntary associates.
My last contribution of any substance is in response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside. He introduced the Scottish dimension with charming but unnecessary diffidence. It was unnecessary because he gave sufficient warning to the relevant department to enable me to discover what I ought to say in reply. For that I am grateful. I should add that the department in question does not have a very high opinion, it would seem, of the academic achievements of Sassenach Ministers, since everything I have to say has been written in big capital letters which have not been joined up.
The noble and learned Lord raised the subject of responsibility for probation services in Scotland. This is something which has been the subject of close attention both by the Scottish Office and by others both before and since the passage of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 which gave the responsibility for probation and after-care to local authority social work departments. I can assure the noble Lord that we have considered the arguments carefully. The inclusion of responsibility for supervision of offenders as part of the statutory task of local authority social work departments is something which, in our view, enables the needs of the individual offender to be met in the wider context of his family and the community. This consideration—that an offender remains a member of the community with rights, duties and family responsibilities—has led us to the view, which we still maintain, that it would be a backward step to extract work with offenders from the mainstream of social work in Scotland and to create a separate specialist service which would in relative terms be very small and in danger of isolation if it were to deal with that field alone.
I should add that we are not complacent about the present position. We are aware that criticisms have been and are being made about the proportion of staff and resources that local authorities are devoting to offenders, as reflected in supervision and after-care. We know of the pressures and difficulties which they face. I should, however, make the point that local authorities are making very considerable efforts to increase the scale and quality of the services which they provide for offenders. As examples of this I should instance the fact that there are now more social workers in prison posts than ever before and that the number of community service orders made by the courts, which involve supervision by local authority

433
staff, has been increasing very rapidly in recent years, community service schemes being now available over 75 per cent. of Scotland.
We are keeping developments in this area under review. A joint working group of the Scottish Office and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has recently begun a review of services for offenders in Scotland, which may serve as a basis for future thinking. But I think it is fair to say that neither we nor the local authorities envisage that the creation of a completely separate service for offenders of the kind foreseen by the noble and learned Lord would be a realistic measure.
We have had an interesting and stimulating debate. We shall take note of what has been said and consider it in the light of our future discussions with the service. May I say again that we welcome this opportunity to reflect on the work of the probation service. I am grateful to the noble Lords who have made contributions, even those to which I have not referred. They will be read with care. I hope that what I have said in answer to the Question of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, will reassure noble Lords that we are fully aware of the opportunities for an expanding role and shall not fail to grasp them.
House adjourned at four minutes before eight o'clock.

  ETHIOPIAN REFUGEES IN DJIBOUTI
  ETHIOPIAN REFUGEES IN DJIBOUTI
  SPECIAL QUOTA VOUCHERS: DATES OF APPLICATION
  SPECIAL QUOTA VOUCHERS: DATES OF APPLICATION
  NEW BUILDINGS: ACCESS FOR DISABLED PEOPLE
  NEW BUILDINGS: ACCESS FOR DISABLED PEOPLE
  NORTHERN IRELAND: LOW INCOME STUDIES
  NORTHERN IRELAND: LOW INCOME STUDIES
  NORTHERN IRELAND: YOUNG WORKERS' SCHEME—WAGE LEVELS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: YOUNG WORKERS' SCHEME—WAGE LEVELS
  COUNTY COURTS: REDUCTION OF DELAYS
  COUNTY COURTS: REDUCTION OF DELAYS
  TACHOGRAPH LEGISLATION: EXEMPTIONS
  TACHOGRAPH LEGISLATION: EXEMPTIONS